The big Obamacare news last week wasn't at the Supreme Court. It was in Kansas.

[babylonsister]

The big Obamacare news last week wasn't at the Supreme Court. It was in Kansas.

Updated by Sarah Kliff on March 9, 2015, 9:10 a.m. ET @sarahkliff [e-mail]


The Supreme Court got most of the attention on Obamacare this week, as it heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell. While that's an important case, the actual arguments don't change much: court-watchers know it's impossible to ballpark a case off of the single hour of public questioning.

The really big developments on Obamacare — ones that could actually expand coverage — weren't happening at the court. They were happening across the country, in statehouses. As legislative sessions come to a close, three states are starting to weigh the possibility of signing on to Obamacare's Medicaid expansion.

Kansas, Utah, and Montana all took steps towards the coverage expansion this week, a move that could expand health-care coverage to 297,000 of their low-income residents. They're among the 22 states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs after the Supreme Court made that part of the health law optional in 2012.

One reason states may be considering the program now: the federal government will pick up the entire cost of expansion through 2016. After that, states have to start chipping in a little bit. By 2020, the federal government will cover 90 percent of the costs and expect states to pick up the rest. States that get in early, before 2016, end up getting a better deal.

more...

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8163039/obamacare-medicaid-brownback

[jwirr]

1. This is good and this is what the red states that refused to participate in the first place will

have to do if the court votes against it. That is if they do not want to face the consequences.

[Jim Lane]

3. You're confusing two different issues.

States had the choice of expanding Medicaid or not. They also had the choice of running their own exchange or letting their citizens use the federal exchange instead.

The issue before the Court is the availability of subsidies in states that aren't running their own exchanges. That doesn't affect Medicaid expansion. Regardless of the ruling in King v. Burwell, a state that hasn't expanded Medicaid could still make the decision to do so, thereby gaining some measure of coverage for many of its citizens who now lack it.

The effect of a ruling for the plaintiffs would be on the states' other decision: setting up an exchange. So far, it hasn't made much difference whether a state did so. Either way, people could go online to compare plans and could get federal subsidies if income-eligible. A ruling against the Obama administration would lead to pressure on the states to set up their own exchanges so that their citizens could keep getting the subsidies.

[jwirr]

4. Thank you. So these states will still be able to keep Medicaid the same way? That is not good news

for the working poor. However, I kind of think the Medicaid extension is taking care of itself. I think three of those states are ready to be reasonable already. As to the exchange - that should be easy - just copy someone else's exchange.

[mmonk]

2. Sometimes, hope shows up in the strangest places.

[LiberalLovinLug]

5. Do you think...

These Red State Republican legislators are just trying to wait long enough, to muddle the ACA with their own half steps, until finally by the time they actually adopt all the tenants of the ACA, it will be turned into something called KansasKare...brought to you by your friendly Republican rep!

[valerief]

6. No, when stupid-ass America votes in a Republican Prez along with keeping a

Republican Congress, they'll kill Obamacare and maybe SS/Medicare/Medicaid, too. HOWEVER, they'll make sure that safety nets are strung outside all tall buildings in the country. Just like they do in China.

[Overseas]

7. K&R. Glad to hear it.