General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes someone have a good explanation of the Medicaid part of the ruling?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/28/live-blog-of-scotus-obamacare-rulingOkay. As I understand it, the act requires states to expand Medicaid coverage to include new classes of people, and it threatens to cut off Medicaid funding to those states that refuse to do so.
So what does it mean to say that the Federal Government's power to terminate Medicaid funds is narrowly read? Apparently the power is limited in some way, but how?
I know that narrow reading means to interpret something as narrowly as possible; strictly by the literal meaning of the text. How does that apply in this case?
What are the implications of this part of the ruling?
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)The current medicaid funding to those states that do not expand services under the ACA cannot have their funding reduced as a consequence. This to me is actually pretty big, more so than the "tax" language applied by the SCOTUS, which has it's own problems. ACA may have stayed afloat but it did take on some water.
Lone_Star_Dem
(28,158 posts)The states which choose not to raise Medicaid eligibility criteria will not get the extra money allotted to them for such a raise. However, they will still receive all the previous Medicaid money allotted to them under the current criteria.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Am I right to be concerned?
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)This is a huge hit to the poor that currentlly make too much to qualify for Medicaid, but don't make enough to qualify for the premium subsidies.
I read an estimate today that if all 50 states opt out (which they won't, obviously), ~15 million people will be left with no way to get health coverage.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Add the tax language and it makes it worse.