//  5/8/18  //  Uncategorized

That’s the title of an op-ed that we just published at the New York Times.

For those who are too poor to afford health insurance, Medicaid is a lifeline. This joint federal and state program doesn’t care whether you’re white or black, Christian or Muslim, Republican or Democrat, a city-dweller or a rural resident. In states that expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare, all you have to be is poor enough to qualify.

But maybe not in Michigan. In late April, the state Senate passed a bill that would require Medicaid beneficiaries to find work or else lose their coverage. The bill, now under consideration in the House of Representatives, has come under fire for harming the poor and disabled, as well as for imposing needless paperwork burdens on struggling families. More than 100,000 people may lose health insurance if it passes.

There’s another flaw in the bill, however, one that exposes it to serious legal challenge: It’s racially discriminatory.

We’re indebted to Nancy Kaffer of the Detroit Free Press and Danielle Emerson of the Great Lakes Beacon for first drawing attention to the bill’s racial disparities. In our op-ed, we explain why those disparities will make Michigan’s proposed approach vulnerable to legal challenge.

You can’t fit everything into an op-ed, so we'll have follow-up posts over the couple of days expanding on the legal theory and explaining why there’s no legitimate justification for the county-level exemption.

@nicholas_bagley & @EliNSavit


The Right Thing on Risk Adjustment

7/25/18  //  Commentary

The Trump administration precipitated a crisis when it announced it would suspend risk adjustment payments under the Affordable Care Act. In welcome news, it's now taking steps to address the problem.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Taking Texas Seriously: The Accidental Constitutional Case Against The TCJA

7/11/18  //  Commentary

By Mitch Johnston: If the mandate repeal is unconstitutional, then, based on the severability arguments advanced by the states, shouldn’t the entire Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) be struck down with it?

Take Care

Taking a Dive on Risk Adjustment

7/9/18  //  Commentary

The Trump administration says that an adverse court ruling gives it no choice but to suspend some crucial payments under the Affordable Care Act. I don't buy it, and you shouldn't either.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School