I’m attempting to find answers. Maybe you can help.
- Why did the Democrats offer exchange-based subsidies down to 100% FPL and Medicaid expansion up to 133% FPL? Why the overlap? It seems redundant.*
- Could a state receive federal matching funds for a Medicaid program that covered all individuals with incomes up to 100% FPL? Does the Secretary have authority to issue a waiver for such a program? Would the matching funds be at the very generous ACA level or lower?
- Is this what the CBO is focusing on in scoring the SCOTUS decision? See Avik Roy.
- Do insurers prefer to cover someone under Medicaid or the exchange? Where is the profit larger? (Most Medicaid enrollees are in a private managed care plan.)
And here’s are non-Medicaid questions:
- Can you explain to me how the mandate is not a tax for the purposes of the anti-injunction act but is found constitutional under the taxing authority? I must warn you, I’m predisposed to not buy your answer. My brain just doesn’t do law. But, still, please give it a go.
- Is Matt Yglesias right?
* By the way, it is worth keeping in mind that today’s Medicaid has an asset test. The expansion doesn’t. Also, in many (most? all?) one has to be categorically eligible for Medicaid, not just poor. I.e., one has to be elderly, disabled, blind, a kid, or a mom, in many states. All this goes away under the expansion.