by Michael Cannon, CATO Institute
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) recently set aside her vociferous opposition to ObamaCare’scostly Medicaid expansion by announcing she will support implementing that expansion in Arizona. A significant factor in her reversal, she claimed, was that if Arizona did not expand its Medicaid program, then some legal immigrants would receive government subsidies while U.S. citizens would get nothing.
Brewer’s analysis of this “immigration glitch,” and her remedy for it, are faulty. Fortunately, she, Arizona’s legislature, and its attorney general have better options for stopping it.
An odd and unforeseen result of the Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare is that, in certain circumstances, the law will now subsidize legal immigrants but not citizens. What triggers this inequity is a state’s decision to implement an Exchange – not the decision to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. (Even if a state implements both provisions, legal immigrants would still receive more valuable subsidies than citizens.) The good news is that states can therefore prevent this inequity simply by not establishing an Exchange. If Brewer wants to avoid this “immigration glitch,” there is no need to expand Medicaid. She already blocked it when she refused to establish an Exchange.
The bad news is that the Obama administration is trying to take away the power Congress granted states to block those discriminatory subsidies, and the punitive taxes that accompany them. Contrary to both the statute and congressional intent, the IRS hasannounced it will impose that witch’s brew in all states, even in the 32 that have refused to establish an Exchange.
Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt has filed suit to stop that stunning power grab. If Brewer is serious about stopping the “immigration glitch,” the way to do it is by filing a lawsuit similar to Oklahoma’s, while adding a complaint that the Obama administration’s illegal subsidies also violate the Equal Protection clause.
How “the Immigration Glitch” Emerged
ObamaCare aims to offer some form of tax credit or subsidy to purchase health insurance to all citizens and legal immigrants below 400 percent of the federal poverty level (about $92,000 for a family of four). Generally, people below 138 percent of the poverty level would receive subsidies through their state’s Medicaid program, while citizens and legal immigrants between 100-400 percent of poverty would receive tax credits and/or subsidies to purchase private health insurance through state-created health insurance “exchanges.”
In a slight departure from those general rules, Congress also made legal immigrants below 100 percent of poverty eligible for those Exchange subsidies. Why? ObamaCare originally would have required states to expand their Medicaid programs to all citizens up to 138 percent of poverty level. But since states have the option of excluding legal immigrants from their Medicaid programs, and could continue to do so under that expansion, Congress made legal immigrants below the poverty level eligible for Exchange subsidies if they live in one of those states. Since ObamaCare supporters expected all states to implement the Medicaid expansion, they reasonably believed all citizens and legal immigrants below 400 percent of poverty would receive some form of tax credit or subsidy.
Then along came Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts.
With six of his colleagues, Roberts voted to declare ObamaCare’s Medicaid mandate unconstitutional. Four of those justices then voted to strike down the entire law on the grounds that the Medicaid mandate was not severable from what remained. But rather than vote with them, Roberts voted with the other four justices—including two who held the Medicaid mandate to be constitutional—to preserve the law and simply make the Medicaid expansion optional for states.
Roberts claimed he was exercising judicial restraint. In reality, he put in place a new law that Congress never would have enacted. ObamaCare still makes the aforementioned legal immigrants eligible for Exchange subsidies, provided their state establishes an Exchange. But under the law as amended by John Roberts, if that state does not expand Medicaid, an inequity appears: some legal immigrants receive Exchange subsidies while otherwise identical citizens, if not already eligible for Medicaid, receive nothing. Given the sensitivity surrounding the law’s treatment of immigrants (remember “YOU LIE”?), there is zero chance such a bill could have passed Congress. So if you want to know whom to thank for this inequity, thank John Roberts. This inequity is one more reason Roberts’ severability analysis was faulty, and the joint dissenters had it right: the Court should have struck down the entire law based on the unconstitutionality of the Medicaid mandate alone.
How States Should Respond
Be that as it may, state officials need to understand what causes the “immigration glitch,” how they can avoid it, and that most of them already have.
- What causes this glitch are the Exchange subsidies, not a state’s failure to expand Medicaid. It is the Exchange subsidies that are available to (some) legal immigrants but not to otherwise-identical citizens. And since Exchange subsidies are available only through state-created Exchanges, it is a state’s decision to create an Exchange that creates this inequity.
- If states want to prevent this inequity, they should do what 32 states have already done and refuse to establish an Exchange. If states don’t create Exchanges, there can be no Exchange subsidies, and thus no inequity. At this point, it appears there are only two states where this inequity might appear: Idaho and Mississippi. Those are the only states that might end up implementing an Exchange but not the Medicaid expansion. They and all other states can avoid this glitch simply by not establishing an Exchange.
- Expanding Medicaid doesn’t really eliminate the inequity because citizens would still receive a less-valuable subsidy than legal immigrants. Legal immigrants would receive subsidies to purchase private insurance, while citizens would get Medicaid coverage, which is notorious for providing inferior access to care. This inequity was present in the original law, and will exist in the 16 or so states that are implementing both an Exchange and the Medicaid expansion.
- This glitch is yet another reason why the Obama administration’s attempt to dispense $500 billion in states that refuse to create Exchanges – half a trillion dollars of subsidies that Congress never authorized – is illegal and wrong. (ObamaCare supporters claim the IRS has the legal authority it needs. To which I say: if you’re so sure, debate me.) Among other evils, the administration is reintroducing this discriminatory provision into the 32 states that have eliminated it. States, employers, and individual taxpayers therefore have one more complaint they can lodge against the administration’s actions in federal court: the unauthorized subsidies the administration is trying to dispense also violate the Equal Protection clause. They are available to legal immigrants but not to otherwise-identical U.S. citizens.
This latest glitch is one more reason why John Roberts’ opinion was ill-considered, why Congress should repeal ObamaCare, and why, until Congress does, states should implement neither an Exchange nor the Medicaid expansion. When a massive new entitlement program unfairly favors one group over another, the proper response is not to enact a second massive new entitlement program. The proper response is to block the first one.
Brewer is correct that it would be unfair for Arizona residents to pay for ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion in other states, while receiving none of the benefit. (Actually, the inequity is even worse than that. ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is entirely deficit-financed. So it is future generations, rather than current Arizona residents, who will pay for it.) The way to stop the “immigration glitch,” and this much larger inequity, is by filing a companion suit to Oklahoma’s. If Arizona expands Medicaid, it will blow a huge opportunity to stop all of ObamaCare’s inequities once and for all.