Finance
e-Newsletter
Intelligence Unit Special Reports Special Events Subscribe Sponsored Departments Follow Us

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn RSS

10 Polemics from the Supreme Court Decision

Cheryl Clark, for HealthLeaders Media, July 2, 2012

9. "What makes that so?"
By page 50 of her 61-page dissent, Justice Ginsburg's exasperation with Roberts shows. In maintaining her argument that PPACA should be allowed to force states to expand their Medicaid programs, she disputes Roberts' contention that what the act is creating a new Medicaid program rather than expanding the existing one.

"The Chief Justice cites three aspects of the expansion," she wrote. "First, he asserts that, in covering those earning no more than 133% of the federal poverty line, the Medicaid expansion, unlike pre-ACA Medicaid, does not 'care for the neediest among us.' What makes that so? Single adults earning no more than $14,856 per year—133% of the current federal poverty level—surely rank among the Nation's poor."

10. "Gun to the head"
Chief Justice Roberts said that is what PPACA would in essence be aiming at states under the threat that if they refused to expand Medicaid to people who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level, they would lose all federal Medicaid funding. "In this case, the financial 'inducement' Congress has chosen is much more than 'relatively mild encouragement'—it is a gun to the head," Roberts wrote.


Cheryl Clark is senior quality editor and California correspondent for HealthLeaders Media. She is a member of the Association of Health Care Journalists.
Twitter
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Comments are moderated. Please be patient.

2 comments on "10 Polemics from the Supreme Court Decision"


Stuart Showalter (7/2/2012 at 10:50 AM)
The [INVALID] marks in the previous comment were meant to be dashes.

Stuart Showalter (7/2/2012 at 10:24 AM)
Cheryl's article says, "Ginsberg implied that her fellow Justice is ill-tempered and surly." When I read the opinion I wasn't sure if that was the meaning she intended for the word crabbed or whether she might have meant "complicated and difficult to understand." Or do you suppose she was being clever and leaving the interpretation to the reader? I would like to think that the justices are not ill-tempered and surly [INVALID] Scalia to the contrary notwithstanding [INVALID] but I'm not sure.