Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Justice Kennedy Reads Angry Bear! Yup. There’s No Other Plausible Explanation for His Affirmative Action Opinion Today.

A longer-than-planned post on today’s Supreme Court opinion on state-college-admissions affirmative action programs.  (I’m up in Michigan’s Thumb region, sans cable and regular web service, and using my phone as a Wi Fi hotspot via the PdaNet app. I can attest that PdaNet is awesome.)  Here it is:

The headline on Politico reads, “SCOTUS passes on big affirmative action decision.”  That headline does not really sum up the opinion,* but I’m not surprised at the ruling—either its result or that it took an unusually long time for the issuance of the opinion; the case was argued in the first week of the Court’s term in early October.  It’s a (very) safe bet that neither the result nor the delay in deciding the case was the result that the Fab Five had planned on when they agreed to hear the case and when the case was argued there.

But, well, stuff happens.  And, first things first.  And first—and foremost—for these folks, I believe, is the gutting of two key, interdependent sections, Sections 4 and 5**, of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), because that is the way to help Republicans in national elections.  And the stuff that happened in this instance was the oral argument at the Court back in March (I think) in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the case that the 5-4 crowd has planned to use as its “vehicle”—a military tank—to gut that section of the VRA.

As I wrote in AB back then, comments that Kennedy made during the argument would, if adopted by him (he will be the author of the opinion in Shelby County; bet on it, quickly, tonight, before the opinion is released tomorrow!) would inescapably conflict, in two respects, with the ruling that Kennedy planned to write in Fisher.  And, yes, although absolutely everyone but me said Roberts would write the opinion in Fisher, Kennedy was the author of the Fisher opinion.  (Okay, one of his law clerks was, but without attribution, of course.)

During the argument in Shelby County, Kennedy made two things clear: First, that states are people, too (just like corporations!), and therefore are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.  Funny, but who knew that the Fourteenth Amendment, whose express and sole historic purpose was to protect individuals (i.e., people) from denial of due process of law and the equal protection of the law by states.  Violation of constitutional rights by states, not by the federal government against states, which heretofore had no constitutional due process or equal protection rights.  Originalism and textualism only matter sometimes.

Second—and this is, I think, as I said in my post last spring, the real key to the conflict between what these five wanted to do in Fisher and what they want to, and almost certainly will, do in Shelby County—is that Kennedy and Scalia think that now that African Americans have real political power, they aren’t entitled to special protections.  Hey, Obama won, didn’t he?!  They can just use their political power to ensure that there are no improper barriers to voting and to having their vote not be improperly and deliberately diluted into meaninglessness in federal, state and local legislative elections.  Hey, Obama won, didn’t he?!

Which, as I said in my earlier post, raises the obvious question in Fisher of why the white UT applicants can’t just use their political power to have the legislature change the college-admissions statute.  Unless, of course, the parents of white upper-middle-class high school students (which is what plaintiff Abigail Fisher was) have less political power in Texas than African Americans do.

Kennedy suggested during the Shelby County argument that states and localities could honor the fact of their history of racial discrimination by, say, erecting a statue of a pre-civil-rights-era black citizen who was known to have been improperly denied access to the polls.  I suggested in my AB post that that could work as the solution in Fisher, too: a statue of Abigail Fisher, along with an explanatory metal placard, in the UT’s quad.

I said at the time that I thought it was poetic justice that Fisher and Shelby County were being decided in the same Court term.  The poetry, if not the justice, will become apparent, I’m pretty darn sure, when the opinion in Shelby County is released.  Probably tomorrow, probably along with the two same-sex-marriage opinions, probably to be drowned in news coverage by the tsunami of reportage and commentary on the latter cases.

Will I be humbly eating some of these words tomorrow?  We’ll see.  I mean, you never know.  Maybe Kennedy doesn’t read Angry Bear, after all.

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston just posted an indepth summary and analysis of Fisher, here.

*Originally, this sentence read, “That about sums it up, and I’m not surprised, either at the result or that it took an unusually long time for the issuance of the opinion; the case was argued in the first week of the Court’s term in early October.”  I have not yet read the opinion (and probably won’t do so today), and was relying on the very early reports about it.  But I’ve amended that sentence in light of Lyle Denniston’s detailed article.  The bottom line, I think, is that the likely substance of the  impending 5-4 opinion in Shelby County saved affirmative action, for now, to the extent that Fisher did save affirmative action.

SECOND UPDATE: Here’s NYT Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak’s take on Fisher. He points out that the opinion is brief.  Just think of all that time these folks wasted in writing the original, pre-Shelby-County-argument, drafts of the opinion, the concurrences and dissents.  Time that the justices could have used instead to give a few more speeches at law schools and nonprofit organizations during their many, many, many fall, winter and spring breaks, some of them several weeks’ duration.  Their part-time job is exhausting, I realize, and they could have used the additional diversion (and speaking fees and junkets).  Oh, well.  Maybe next year, when there’s another affirmative action case on the Court’s docket.

THIRD UPDATE: **Originally, that sentence said that one key section, Section 5, of the VRA was at issue, and did not mention Section 4.  The Court issued its 5-4 opinion, written by Roberts, a few minutes ago, and SCOTUSblog says the opinion strikes down Section 4 but says the court makes no ruling on Section 5, and that Ginsburg says in her dissent that the striking down of Section 4 renders Section 5 dormant.  Section 5 is the section that requires certain states, counties and localities to first “pre-clearance” from a federal court or from the Justice Dept. before altering voting districts or other access-to-the-polls and weight-of-a-vote matters.  Section 4 is the section that creates the formula for determining which states, counties and localities are subject to the Section 5 pre-clearance requirement.

The effect of striking down Section 4 is to nullify Section 5 until Congress enacts a new formula to replace the now-void Section 4 one. Or until hell freezes over.  Whichever comes first.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Welfare Reform Kills II

Earlier I noted the research of Peter Muennig, Zohn Rosen and Elizabeth Ty Wilde which proves (at all standard confidence intervals) that welfare reform killed people.  I was alarmed that almost nobody but the must read Bill Gardner noticed this research.  Now Dylan Matthews has a long excellent post on the research and other evidence that anti poverty programs save lives.

This should transform the political debate entirely.  I expect it to have almost no effect.  But the best of the blogosphere is doing its best.

Comments (4) | |

Inflation, Taxes, and Income

To add to the fire Jazz and Steve have kindled, YOY inflation is at its lowest level historically according to the BEA and Next New Deal blog. It does not look like we need austerity policies and a little fiscal fire might put people back to work and stir the economy into growth.

pce-headline-core-since-2000

“Last Friday, the BEA announced the lowest year-over-year rise in core inflation it has ever recorded. The year-over-year PCE core inflation, or inflation stripped of volatile energy and food prices, was 1.05 percent. As Doug Short notes, the previous all-time low was 1.06, and that is from March 1963. (The records go back to 1959.) Inflation is collapsing in 2013, both for observed values and future expectations. This is noteworthy because, as you may remember, the Federal Reserve took extraordinary actions at the end of last year to hit its inflation target.” Next New Deal: We Just Had the Lowest Core Inflation in 50 Years. What Does This Mean for “Expectations” and Monetary Policy?

EPI points to a ~40 year tax policy trend favoring Capital over Labor wages resulting in a stagnation of wages for much of the population and a skewing of gains to a small minority.

Family Incomec

“Most importantly, new economic research suggests that changes in tax policy over recent decades—particularly reductions in top marginal tax rates—have exacerbated market-based income inequality growth. This is critical because the shift in market-based incomes, particularly capital income’s rise as a share of total income, is driving income inequality growth. Tax policy changes have exacerbated post-tax, post-transfer income inequality by less than one might reasonably suspect, and there are practical limits to how much increased redistribution can push back against strong market trends (though we should be pushing harder). Meaningfully curbing income inequality growth necessitates reducing the market income share accumulating to upper-income households, and higher top marginal tax rates may be one of the more concrete policy levers to advance that end.” EPI: How Much Can Tax Policy Curb Income Inequality Growth? Maybe a Lot

Tags: Comments (15) | |

CHUCK BLAHOUS FINDS THE ANSWER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND LOSES IT.

by Dale Coberly

CHUCK BLAHOUS FINDS THE ANSWER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND LOSES IT.

Charles Blahous is one of the politically appointed Trustees for Social Security. He has written “A Guide To The 2013 Social Security Trustees Report” at e21 Economic Policies for the 21st Century http://www.economics21.org/commentary/guide-2013-social-security-trustees-report .

Blahous tells us

Social Security faces a large and increasingly immediate financing shortfall necessitating prompt legislative corrections.”

This is arguably true, but a cautious reader will recognize that “large” and “immediate” and “prompt” may be subject to differing opinions and lead to unnecessary hysteria.

From that point Blahous descends into a misleading presentation of Social Security’s finances.

Tags: Comments (21) | |

Mainstream thought on Social Security

The NYT offers an editorial on what is becoming mainstream thinking on What’s Next for Social Security? Of course the writing is still short on pointing to the thoroughly researched possibilities for adjusting the program for changing circumstances.

The trustees of Social Security recently reported that the retirement system can pay full benefits until 2035, when it will be able to pay about three-fourths of promised benefits. That is not a crisis. It is a manageable problem.

The system needs to be restored to long-term health, but policy makers must realize that broad-based benefit cuts are not really a viable option.

The focus on benefit cuts also conveniently ignores the fact that benefits are already shrinking. Under current law, benefits are being reduced by the higher retirement age, which has been gradually rising from 65 to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. That translates into lower monthly benefits for those who retire at 65 or fewer years of benefits for those who work until 67. For example, a worker entitled to a $1,000 monthly benefit upon retirement at age 67 will get only $867 if he or she retires at 65.

Comments (11) | |

Sooo … Akhil Reed Amar and Neal Katyal confuse the IRS and TSA with the FBI. I mean … really, profs??

Update: Link at Scotus blog http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/wednesday-round-up-187/.

As prosecutors, police agencies and civil libertarians consider the ruling’s implications, Justice Scalia’s stark dissent — and the fact that President Obama’s two appointees to the court so far agreed with it — makes it worthy of scrutiny, even if he was on the losing side. His argument is deeply flawed, because he did not get his history quite right.

Justice Scalia summarized his scathing dissent from the bench — a rare act that signals sharp disagreement. His opinion opened with these lines: “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence. That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment.”

But the Fourth Amendment’s text is not nearly so simple as he makes it out to be. It merely requires that all searches and seizures be not “unreasonable.” Its words do not distinguish between intrusions seeking “evidence of crime” and other sorts of intrusions — say, to collect revenue, or preserve public safety.

Why the Court Was Right to Allow Cheek Swabs, Akhil Reed Amar and Neal K. Katyal, New York Times,* today

Oh, dear.  Looks like we should all take the Fifth instead of filing income tax returns.  Now that we can no longer take the Fourth.

The referenced ruling, whose implications prosecutors, police agencies and civil libertarians are considering, is yesterday’s 5-4 Supreme Court opinion in a case called Maryland v. King.  Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog explains:

Treating the solution of unsolved crimes as a legitimate part of routine police station “booking” procedures, a divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the power of government at all levels to take DNA samples from every person legally arrested for a “serious” new crime.  What a suspect may have done in the past, the Court majority ruled, is a part of the profile that police may constitutionally begin to assemble at the time of arrest for a separate offense.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a five-four majority, insisted that the ruling in the case of Maryland v. King (docket 12-207) involved little more than what happens when police take a suspect’s fingerprints or mug shot.  But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said the Court had validated the use of scientific evidence taken without a warrant not to make an identification but to gather evidence to solve cold cases — something he said the Court has never allowed before.

Whether or not Scalia got his history right, at least he, unlike these these two eminent law professors, recognizes that, as a matter of both fact and the Fourth Amendment, solving an already-committed crime is not the same as requiring the filing of tax returns or thwarting an attempt to carry out a crime.  Or, well, at least until yesterday there was a difference as a matter of both fact and the Fourth Amendment.  Now I guess there’s only a factual difference, not a legal one.

But these two writers think there’s no factual difference. Or maybe they just think Scalia thinks there’s no factual difference.  Or maybe they just didn’t notice the words “for evidence of a crime” in that sentence they quote from Scalia’s dissent: “The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence.”

Hard to tell.  And rather than clear up that mystery, they just go on to enhance their weird conflation of past and present, and of crime and regulatory compliance:

Justice Scalia failed to identify even one source from the founders articulating the ultraprecise rule that he claims is the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And his version of the Fourth Amendment would lead to absurd results.

The government, for example, permits searches at the border to prevent contaminated livestock and plants from entering the country — is such authority permitted only because these searches are not seeking “evidence of crime?” If so, if what happens if the government at some point criminalizes the intentional introduction of diseased animals and vegetables? Why should these searches magically now become unconstitutional?

The title of Denniston’s piece is “Opinion recap: Solving ‘cold cases’ made easier.”  Maybe that refers to handling of refrigerated containers of meat and produce by the Border Patrol and the Agriculture Department.

What exactly is the ultraprecise rule that Scalia claims is the central meaning of the Fourth Amendment?  That livestock and plants trying to enter the country should be forced to submit to a DNA swab in case they plan to violate the tax code when they file their tax returns with the IRS? That certainly is ultraprecise.  Not to mention deeply flawed and historically inaccurate. As is the claim that a statement that the Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence has anything to do with mandatory filing of tax returns, or airport security, or livestock and plants crossing the border.

My own reaction to the opinion was more along the lines of revulsion than relief that the country’s food supply will continue to be relatively safe from foreign contamination; that I won’t be planting poison tomato seeds imported from Timbuktu; and that Mitt Romney and the Koch brothers won’t have new Fourth Amendment grounds for tax avoidance.  And judging from similar sentiment expressed overwhelmingly in comments threads I’ve read about it, I think this opinion will prove to be the Fourth-Amendment/criminal-law Citizens United–a watershed moment of awareness of the chasm between the Supreme Court justices who think it’s forever the days of the Reagan presidency and the substantial majority of the public who think it’s 2013.

Yes, the Fourth Amendment’s text merely requires that all searches and seizures be not “unreasonable.” Which itself is a distinction between intrusions seeking “evidence of crime” and other sorts of intrusions — say, to collect revenue, or preserve public safety.  Or so I and others, including Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, had thought.

Then again, Amar and Katyal must know what they’re talking about.  They’re eminent law profs, after all, who by virtue of their eminence get anything they submit published anywhere they submit it.

Anything they submit. Even this.

 ===

*“Akhil Reed Amar is a professor of law and political science at Yale. Neal K. Katyal is a former acting solicitor general of the United States, a professor of national security law at Georgetown and a partner at the law firm Hogan Lovells.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (7) | |

“Per qualche dollaro in più” or For A Few Dollars More . . .

Having helped quite a few younger people rearrange student loans from the private sector to Direct Loans or consolidate loans to achieve lower interest rates or payments; I just find this market-place-staging by some politicians offensive. July 1st the rates are expected to double (3+% to 6+%) for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans and probably Perkins loans which all typically go to students who can least afford the “few extra dollars” as suggested by this newly minted Congressman from Indiana who appears to not be able to tie a decent knot in his tie. Student debt is on the upswing and appears to be the next bubble in which to contend. The rising deficit as suggested by Congressman Luke Messer is not increasing but is in a steady rate of decline and the economy is mediocre with slow job growth slow but is still far better than 1,2 or 3 years ago although it could use a shot of stimulus again. What is also insidious about this foray of increasing interest rates for those who can least afford it is there is “almost” no-way-out of it once students sign up for a loan. Those who have defaulted on ninja-style mortgages or did not pay hospital bills might understand the relentless pressure brought to bear; however, student loans have the official distinction of being cast in stone by Congress once a student signs his name. With only death, disability, or a lack of income over 20-or-so years being reasons for discharge can a person escape a student loan. We would not tolerate such for a mortgage or healthcare; but yet, we have locked our youth into such an arrangement.

Read or listen in to a few comments Indiana Congressman Luke Messer makes:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The real threat to a college education today is not a few more dollars on their student loans today, it is the fact of the explosive growth of debt; the fact the jobs in this economy for young people entering this economy have been the people most hurt by Obama’s policies

The bottom line is, what you’re saying is the president’s an effective politician. He does a good job of distracting people from things that they ought to be focused on, and sometimes focusing them on things that while important, listen, none of us want to see student-loan rates spike, are only part of the larger problem.”

“I think, as Republicans, we’ve got to do a better job of explaining how our ideas apply to young people. Sometimes it sounds like he’s selling ice cream and we’re selling spinach. But I think personal responsibility is pretty cool. There is nothing out of date about freedom, and we need to have the policies that get this budget back in line, stop the explosive growth of spending — spending that will be paid for by this generation. And we’ve got to do a better job of explaining that.”

Student debt as a result of high interest student loans is becoming more of a threat than the mortgage market ever did as there is no simple discharge. If one wanted to see the financial rats flee the commercial student loan business ship which this Congressman evidently supports, the president should propose simple interest for student loans.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/31/18660880-house-goper-sees-student-loans-as-trivial-distraction?lite “House GOPer sees student loans as trivial ‘distraction’

Tags: Comments (7) | |

2013 Social Security Report

Well I am back at Angry Bear and just getting my feet wet with WordPress, so this first post won’t be ambitious.

 

The 2013 Annual Report of the Trustees of Social Security was released today Friday the 31st of May. The short take-aways are ‘not much change’ and ‘no news is good news’: date of Trust Fund depletion remaining at 2033 and the 75 year actuarial gap going up from 2.66 to 2.72 which is precisely the structural amount due to the change in actuarial period. (On the other hand the numbers INSIDE that number would repay examination, an exercise for the diligent student.)

For now I am just putting this up for comment, consider this a Social Security open thread.

Tags: , , Comments (29) | |

Is the IRS Inspector General Himself Partisan, Or Is He Just Stupifyingly Clueless About the Law?

After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.

A report issued this month by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups’ policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.

And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.

But some former I.R.S. officials disputed several of [I.G. J. Russell] George’s conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.

“The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was,” said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division until 2000. “Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.”

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics, Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo, New York Times, May 26

I had planned to post on the Times story but haven’t had the time this week, and Linda Beale’s terrific post this morning would make an in-depth one by me redundant.  But I do want question, explicitly, the inspector general’s own competence, and maybe even his own political biases.  What struck me most about the Times story is its indication that the I.G. himself apparently is ignorant of the relevant law, particularly of some relevant court decisions; that his report apparently does not attempt to reconcile the specific actions of some of these groups with the law’s limiting of 501(c)(4) status to groups that do not electioneer; and that the investigation (apparently) did not attempt to determine whether groups with conservative-sounding names were “targeted” for further inquiry at a higher rate than groups with with liberal-sounding names.

If there were a significantly higher number of applicant conservative groups than applicant liberal groups, or if applicant conservative groups more often use political-sounding names than applicant liberal groups do, then–in light of the body of actual law pertaining to 501(c)(4) status–these statistics, it certainly seems to me, should have been featured in the report, and then widely reported by news organizations.

But instead, the I.G. started–and therefore finished–with the mistaken legal premise that political groups, groups whose very purpose was to electioneer, were entitled to 501(c)(4) status. This itself is stunning. From time to time, there are indications that an inspector general has deliberately skewed an investigative report or an investigation itself.  But I’ve never before heard of an inspector general who appeared unknowledgeable about the law relevant to the agency or department that his or her office was charged with inspecting upon receiving triggering information.

It would be nice now if Obama, having already expressed his outrage at the indication of political targeting by that IRS division, would now fully explain to the public what the relevant law actually is; that Democratic-leaning electioneering groups were targeted, too; why the groups that were targeted were targeted; what some of these groups actually do; and the real reason that these groups, whether Republican-leaning or Democratic-leaning, applied for 501(c)(4) status: to be able to hide the identity of the electioneering organization’s donors.

Obama, of course, won’t do that.  His primary goals throughout his presidency have been to please centrist pundits and try to tamp down on the virulence toward him from the right.  But any self-styled centrist pundit who would attack him for explaining the law and mentioning what the targeted organizations really do–that is, what exactly “targeting” meant here–is, by definition, no centrist.  And it’s painful to think of how much more successful this administration would have been all along, and how many serious mistakes it would have avoided, had Obama not dedicated himself so thoroughly to trying to assuage the unassuageable.  And that includes the political pundits of the studiously-centrist variety.

But the Senate Democrats should hold a hearing to make the points about the Times article makes.  The Times article provides a good starter witness list–including Inspector General George–and the names of some of the political organizations, Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning, that inappropriately filed 501(c)(4) applications, and whose officers should be subpoenaed to testify.

The purpose would be to clarify for the public what the law is now and why–why–groups whose raison d’être is openly partisan want the 501(c)(4) designation, and, in doing so, enlist public support for a new campaign-finance law with specific guidelines concerning public disclosure of donors to political-campaign groups irrespective of their IRS tax status.  And along the way maybe we would learn why, pray tell, the inspector general thinks current law permits (requires?) the IRS to authorize these overtly partisan groups to keep their donors’ identities secret.  That alone would be worth the trouble.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (1) | |

31 Million Uninsured Under the PPACA . . .

Over at “Economists View,” Anne and Muses are having a discussion over why some 30-something million will be uninsured under the PPACA Paul Krugman: The Obamacare Shock. The conversation goes back and forth citing references without giving any real explanation of what the 31 million is composed of and why they will not be covered. For some reason today, I can not log-in and add to the conversation with an explanation of the 31 million.

Perhaps it is a little known fact; but states today can, if they so choose to do so, qualify Medicaid coverage for everyone. States can also cover beyond 100% of FPL which some states do. The majority of states do not cover certain single adults as determined by each state’s rules for Medicaid coverage.

“Currently, few states cover non-disabled, non-pregnant parents up to 138 percent of FPL in Medicaid, and even fewer states cover such adults without dependent children. At present, only 18 states provide comprehensive Medicaid coverage to parents at or above 100 percent of FPL ($18,530 for a family of three in 2011), and the median state covers working and non-working parents up to only 63 and 37 percent of FPL, respectively. The majority of states do not cover non-disabled, non-pregnant adults without dependent children at any income level, and many low-income women only qualify for Medicaid coverage when they are pregnant. As has been noted, ‘it’s a very common misconception that Medicaid covers all poor people, but that’s far from the truth.'”

“Nationally, just over half (53 percent) of the uninsured who would be newly eligible for Medicaid are male. This is not surprising, since, as indicated above, Medicaid has historically had much broader eligibility for parents than for adults without dependent children, and a high proportion of these parents have been single mothers. ‘Overall, 47 percent of the uninsured who would be made newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA are women.” Opting into the Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Who Are the Uninsured Adults Who Could Gain Health Insurance Coverage?.

The expansion of Medicaid to 138% of FPL under the PPACA would have mandated state coverage for single adults not qualifying for the PPACA and its subsidies. The SCOTUS decision to allow states to back out of the expanded Medicaid coverage up to 138% FPL was previously mandatory under the PPACA with the threat of the removal of Medicaid subsidies. States not expanding Medicaid coverage will maintain the status quo and many who would have been covered under Medicaid may now go uninsured as they will not qualify for the PPACA. The state exclusions for which many blogs, politicians, and conservative think tanks such as Cato blame the PPACA as causing is the result of states not expanding Medicaid and accounts for 15.1 million uninsured of the potential 31 million. Another estimated 11.2 million are considered to be illegal residents of the US who will not be covered by the PPACA. Treatment of Non-Citizens under the PPACA and do not have healthcare insurance. The balance of the uninsured is made up of those exempt from being insured, those opting out and paying the penalty, those who may not understand how to apply for Medicaid, etc.

Without a doubt, Republicans hope the constituency will not understand the issues and blame the PPACA for the lack of coverage of single adults by using the 31 million as a political numeric. It is also doubtful whether there is a real concern by politicians for the coverage of illegal residents. I also believe it to be ironic when Republican-lead states are concerned a Republican-controlled House may pull the carpet out from under them by negating funding for the expansion of Medicaid in the future.

Tags: Comments (7) | |