Senate to Pass Tax Bill Today

The Republican tax bill will pass today, even without John McCain. Trump and the wealthy individuals and corporations that benefit from the bill will celebrate. Most Americans, when they realize not only aren't they benefiting, but the cuts will be paid for by future cost-cutting to social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, etc. will cry in their coffee.

What goes up, must come down. Trump will leave office with thud. All charlatans ultimately get exposed. Trump is no wizard and there is no Oz.

The NY Times has this calculator for you to use to determine whether your taxes will go up or down.

< Trump Judicial Pick Withdraws After Dismal Performance at Confirmation Hearing | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    We will be getting a nice chunk of change back. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by vml68 on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 04:19:10 PM EST
    But, I'll gladly give that up and more, in exchange for having the orange freak, his family and the rest of the criminal gang behind bars.

    I think there's a good (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 05:10:46 PM EST
    many like you who would forgo the money for a piece of mind.

    A novel policy. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 05:58:00 PM EST
    Cut taxes during strong economic times, while carrying huge debt and exacerbating wealth inequality. And, paying for tax cuts on big corporations and the very, very wealthy by taking away from the middle class and poor, with more to come next year in cuts to social security, Medicare and (more) Medicaid. And, of course, any tax cuts for the middle class expire at some point, corporation cuts are permanent. No money to anything, except for wars.

     However, so many loopholes to explore and exploit.  Time to get in on income producing real estate pass throughs....deploying the Corker-kickback;  and, to get around that $10,000, in composite state income/sales tax and real estate tax, couples just need to get divorced....$10,000 per couple and the same for single.  If jointly owned, each gets $10,000 deductible.  The family values party tax deduction.

      Carried interest (for private equity/hedge fund partners) continues to be taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary income, despite Trump's claim to do otherwise. So, not everything is changed by the new and improved "tax reform." Also, not likely to file returns on a postcard--a bonanza for tax preparers.  

    The Republicans finally put "points on the board." And, are now so happy with Trump, who will sign all their dreams into reality.  

    Not only that, (none / 0) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Dec 21, 2017 at 10:03:43 AM EST
    Yes, and Germany (none / 0) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 21, 2017 at 09:46:46 PM EST
    and other countries will lower their corporate tax rates to be competitive with investors, thereby wielding blunt force to the already specious premise of the Trump tax bill.  At best, we engage in a race to the bottom.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#30)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 10:59:31 AM EST
    And maybe not. In the mean time we will be stuck with higher investment and higher wages.

    Higher wages? (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 11:37:58 AM EST
    Any evidence to support that theory?

    The GOPers in Congress just fall back on saying "I believe."  Faith based economics.

    And there is evidence in the opposite direction that tax cuts don't work. See Kansas--a very recent example.  


    Quoting an author: (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    "nobody knows."  says Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan.  

    Sure (none / 0) (#41)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Dec 24, 2017 at 10:19:16 AM EST
    These two banks were easiest to find.  A business with a fat bottom line is better able to bid up wages.

    Corpoarate America (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 24, 2017 at 12:20:29 PM EST
    already has a fat bottom line.  They are putting their cash into stock buy backs.  This has been widely reported.

    Two banks is not the broad based data that is really relevant.  How will the economy as a whole react?  We have plenty of examples over the last few decades.  Two banks could be two outliers.

    Moreover, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is not novel.  It was the Dems would have done already--across the board.

    And, Wells Fargo?  That as PR written all over it.

    The issues is will wages rise across the board.  Not whether a couple or three will make public gestures.

    Cite an example of "dynamic scoring" ever really being accurate.  

    What drives businesses to invest is largely a function of Aggregate Demand.  Keynes has been proven right about this repeatedly.   If you do not have customers, it does not matter if the taxes go down at the margin.  If no one will buy your product, then the extra cash from lower taxes will not be spent on making product that no one will buy.  And, guess what?  Corp America is already flush with cash.  More cash will not create more customers for them.


    Cherry picking isolated data (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Sun Dec 24, 2017 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    A Classic conservative gambit.  

    Just find any evidence, or something that looks like or sounds like evidence, and stretch it and distort it as far as possible.

    Sophistry.  Orwellian.  Any number of adjectives will describe this process.


    It occurred to me that these so-called (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 24, 2017 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    bonuses that are being handed out may really be a way to buy votes.

    Here is more. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Dec 25, 2017 at 10:11:42 AM EST

    U.S. Bank of America employees making up to $150,000 per year in total compensation - about 145,000 teammates - will receive a one-time bonus of $1,000 by year-end.

    PNC Financial Services will give $1,000 bonus to about 47,500 workers.

    New Braunfels-based Rush Enterprises of Texas is giving each of its 6,600 employees a $1,000 bonus - a total of $6.6 million. Chief Financial Officer Steven Keller said: "You've got a choice - we could've kept it and stuffed it in the company bank account or coffers, or we can share it with the people."

    Associated Bank in Wisconsin boosted its minimum hourly wage to $15 and paying workers a $500 bonus.
    Idaho health-care and home-products company Melaleuca Inc. is providing its 2,000 employees $100 bonuses for every year they worked for the company. The company has 147 employees who have worked for the company for 20 years or more.

    In Hawaii, Royal Hawaiian Heritage Jewelry plans to open up three more shops - in Honolulu, in Kauai and Maui in addition to its existing three shops.

    Washington Federal in Seattle will increase wages for most of its workers by 5 percent and is adding 25 people to its information-technology staff.

    Aquesta Financial Holdings in Cornelius, N.C., will raise hourly pay to $15 and will be givi5ng $1,000 bonuses to all of it workers.

    Canary LLC announced it will hire new employees and purchase more equipment.

    First Hawaiian Bank said it will give out $1,500 cash bonuses to 2,264 employees, or all but 11 members of its senior management team. The state's largest bank also will increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour from $12.75 an hour for 613 employees.

    Bank of Hawaii, the state's second-largest bank, said it will give out $1,000 cash bonuses to 2,074 employees, or 95 percent of its workforce. The bonuses affect all employees below the senior vice president level. The bank also will increase its minimum wage to $15 an hour from $12 an hour.

    American Savings Bank, the third-largest bank in Hawaii, said it will award $1,000 bonuses to nearly all of its employees. In addition, the bank said it was increasing its starting wage to $15.25 an hour from $12.21 an hour.

    AT&T expanding its bonus program to an additional 200,000 staffers getting $1,000 apiece.

    Boeing gift of $300 million in investment in its employee-related charitable program "to support our heroes, our homes and our future."

    Wells Fargo raises minimum wage to $15.

    Fifth Third raises minimum wage to $15 and offering bonuses of $1,000 to 13,000 employees.

    Comcast NBC Universal anted up $1,000 bonuses to more than 100,000 non-executive employees.

    This should not be too surprising. The corporation I worked for before I retired had bonuses and nice raises in years with nice after tax profits but pay cuts in bad loss years.


    Time will tell (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 25, 2017 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    whether this represents a trend or just a blip.

    The historical data is still clear:  tax cuts generally have less effect than Aggregate Demand.

    And Trump will of course say that wages have increased whether or not that is true.  


    True, bonuses (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Mon Dec 25, 2017 at 11:02:51 AM EST
    are more likely when the company is profitable.

    But profits are not just about the marginal tax rate.  Profits, again, are about selling product to paying customers.  The best way to boost profits is to have an increase in customers.

    An increase in wages has never historically been tied to tax cuts-let alone corporate tax cuts.  All kinds of data.  Even Reagan era gains, which get the attention of GOPers, were directly attributable to standard Keynesian boosts to Aggregate Demand. He did what FDR did: he spent his way out of a bad economy.

    The George W. Bush tax cuts did diddly.

    Bill raised taxes, and voila! best economy ever.

    And Kansas was a monumental failure.

    So, a lot of one-time bonuses are nice.  And raising the minimum wag to $15.00 an hour, primarily in deep blue Hawaii in your examples, is great.

    But let's see how much really "trickles down" to the middle class.



    "Higher" fantasies (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 09:21:39 PM EST
    Higher wages ....

    ... that was funny.

    Meanwhile, in the land of reality, we'll have higher debt and higher numbers of uninsured, along with higher health insurance premiums.


    This sucks (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    $4,400 cut according to the Times calculator, which my kids will get to pay for.  Not to mention the cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc., so that Trump and Congressional Repubs can claim a "win".

    It was interesting to play around with the (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    Times calculator but I don't know how accurate it is. According to the CNN calculator, my after-tax income will go down 25%! in 2018. Not sure how they came to that conclusion, since we should now be in a lower tax bracket.

    Regardless, I saw this tweet by a Terry McGlynn and he speaks for me.

    I don't want a tax cut.
    I want maintained bridges
    I want less infant mortality
    I want well-paid teachers
    I want federally funded science
    I want my social security back
    I want clean water
    I want natural parks intact
    I want renewable energy
    I don't want a tax cut


    I'd just like to be able to say (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 01:34:36 PM EST
    that I'm proud to be a citizen of a country that values all of its people, not just the ones with money.

    When I came to this country, I believed this (none / 0) (#15)
    by vml68 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 01:44:28 PM EST
    to be true. Not so much, anymore.

    a country that values all of its people, not just the ones with money.

    Did you know (1.50 / 4) (#16)
    by Redbrow on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    That Obama increased the national debt by 68 percent?

    He added $7.917 trillion all by himself, effectively doubling it.

    I don't remember so many Democrats worried about putting future generations into debt then.


    The worry of the (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    Financial Crisis of 2008 was more in line with would there be future generations of Americans.  Trump's tax cuts are novel in that they cut taxes during strong economic times while carrying huge debt and incurring great deficits..

    President Obama was face with dire financial straits, that according to Fed Chair Bernake,  presented a greater threat to the economy than the Great Depression.

    President Obama's budgets included an economic stimulus package (pump priming, as coined by Trump as I recall), adding $787 Billion by cutting taxes, extending unemployment benefits, and funding public works projects.  Of course, there was increased defense spending in the face of the inherited wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Federal income was down due to lower tax receipts.  The housing market crashed and jobs were being lost at a record rate.

    And, the ACA expected reduction in debt of $143 Billion over ten years was delayed, not showing up until later years. The Obama plan turned the economy and job market around leaving a strong and growing economy for his successor.

    A major underpinning to the Trump/Ryan/McConnell deficit spending (and debt) and Obama's is that Obama's economics gave to the working people of America.  Trump et al. takes away.  


    Good lord (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    Bill Clinton had the deficit scheduled to disappear around 2003. The country would be free and clear but no, the idiot Republicans had to give once again their cronies tax cuts. Bush doubled the debt and the GOP never said anything. So Obama comes along with a collapsing economy. Personally I think he should have gotten rid of more of the things that George W. Bush did and that would have solved a lot. However the entire time the GOP moaned and groaned about the national debt and here they go adding 1.5 trillion to it. What a carnival farce those Republicans are. This is all about rewarding their donors.

    Deficit-debt (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 11:41:38 AM EST
    Bill Clinton erased the yearly deficit and we were running surpluses until the GOP snake oil of tax cuts was applied.

    The "debt" was going to go down.....and perhaps 2003 was the year it would be paid off.


    Amazes me how y'all can delude yourselves (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    it's as if there were no republicans at all in Congress when O was president.

    Oh and I remember a whole lotta dems against the bailouts of banks.  That recovery saved our economy making these tax cuts possible.


    Did you know ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 05:04:04 PM EST
    ... that Obama inherited an economy in free fall with rapidly rising unemployment, as opposed to an economy with the second longest economic expansion in history?  Can you tell the difference between deficit spending to prevent a depression versus deficit spending to give corporations and the wealthy more money?  It's not hard.

    That Obama increased the national debt by 68 percent?

    He added $7.917 trillion all by himself, effectively doubling it.

    Did you know that Congress is the arm of the government that appropriates government funds/spending?  Did you know that "doubling" would be an increase of 100%, as opposed to 68%?

    I don't remember Republicans being so uneducated about basic facts.


    The yearly deficit (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    was over $1 trillion when Obama took office.  He cut that in half by the time he left.

    What we have now is the continuation of the recovery started under Obama.

    And remember Cheney:  "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

    The GOP cuts taxes depriving the gov't of revenue, thus in their mind requiring cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  It is a deliberate strategy.   Grover Norquist said it was to starve the gov't of money to make it so small "you could drown it in the bathtub."

    We all know this.  The GOP doesn't care--not about deficits, not about grandma being thrown in the snow, not about investments in infrastructure.  They care about cutting taxes for the wealthy.


    Would you please support (1.33 / 3) (#18)
    by Redbrow on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    Your claims of this bill cutting Social Sexurity, Medicare and Medicaid?

    A quick term search of the final bill shows there is no mention of Medicare or Medicade at all. And social security is only mentioned in context of social security number.

    Absolutely no cuts to any of these programs are mentioned in any way.


    Hahahahahahahaha ... (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 05:53:32 PM EST
    You think Republicans would explicitly spell out entitlement cuts within the text of their tax bill???  Do you seriously believe they're that stupid (the ones actually writing the bill, as opposed to the  in the WH)???

    That's funny.

    You should probably talk to your Republican leaders in Congress, since they're already talking about how deficit spending exacerbated by this giveaway to the corporations and the wealthy means it's time to cut SS, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs.

    Top Republicans are already talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security next

    Of course, the tax bill is not the only law in existence.  In fact, even IF you Republicans fail in your objective to slash SS, Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs, "PAYGO" laws require mandatory spending cuts to many programs.

    Of course, selling tax cuts paid for by future generations is easy compared to telling people you want to cut their SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc.

    Good luck with that.


    More delusion (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    When tax cuts don't lead to the crazy growth you guys believe will happen we will have shortfalls that need to be dealt with:

    And if there's not enough economic growth to offset the loss of revenue from the tax cut, government spending will have to be reduced drastically due to what's known in Washington policy circles as "pay as you go," or "paygo." That's the legislative trigger mandating offsets for these cuts through the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010. If growth fails to occur, deep cuts to certain programs will be required and outright elimination of some programs is possible.

    We will be rewarded $240 this year (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 11:26:18 AM EST
    In exchange for the destruction of our country's economic health and momentum. Merry Christmas

    We get (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 03:35:58 PM EST
    a goose egg but get a big increase in our insurance bill.

    Yuck (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 04:11:05 PM EST
    NY Times says... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    I'll be 760 bucks richer...hell in a bucket baby, but at least I'll have a little more scratch to enjoy the ride, till our Titanic hits the iceberg.

    As a small buisness owner (none / 0) (#8)
    by McBain on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    I'm going to need to consult with a tax expert to figure out my situation and if I need to make any changes.  Right now, it looks like the combination of Obama (ACA) and Trump (tax reform) is going to work out well for me in 2018 but there's plenty that's still up in the air.


    If you are a small (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Dec 19, 2017 at 08:12:26 PM EST
    business owner I can tell you it is not going to work out for you. Especially if you are in a state like California. You are going to lose a ton of deductions you previously had. Of course this bill was designed to mess over people who live in blue states.

    I live in California and was told (none / 0) (#14)
    by McBain on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    LLCs and S Corps were going to pay less in taxes. Not sure about sole proprietors.

    That doesn't make much sense (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    S Corps and LLC's are pass-throughs, as I understand, and do not pay taxes like corporations.

    For LLCs, the individual members pay taxes according to their individual K-1s, or distributions to them.  The LLC does not pay taxes itself.  S-Corps, and there are fewer and fewer of them every year, were the small business vehicle of choice before LLCs were created, and S-Corps are pass throughs.


    This explanation may help: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    Pass-through businesses' profits "pass through" their books directly to owners, unlike corporations, which parcel out profits through dividends to stockholders.

    Under existing law, pass-through owners pay the individual income tax rate on those profits, not the corporate rate. Under the Republican bill, the corporate rate would be slashed to 21 percent, while the top individual income tax rate, which some pass-through business owners pay, would be 37 percent.

    To address the disparity, Republicans included tax relief for pass-through owners in their bill, allowing them to deduct 20 percent of their pass-through business income.

    Republicans put in anti-abuse measures to ensure owners of bona fide business operations claim the 20 percent deduction and prevent high earners from seeking to recategorize their income as pass-through income to take advantage of the deduction.

    Republicans also capped the income eligible for the full 20-percent deduction at $315,000 for married couples and $157,500 for individuals. But they included a "capital element" in the formula for determining eligibility beyond those thresholds, presenting a lucrative tax break for some, including wealthy owners of commercial property, said tax experts.



    Ah, so that is interesting (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    This is tax simplification?

    Yeah, seriously...I heard someone (none / 0) (#37)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    the other day say that this bill was rammed through so fast, and put together by people who have no real tax expertise, with the result that we have no idea what the real consequences of the bill's provisions will be.

    It is never as simple as these people want us to believe, because so much of the tax code is inter-related and connected, such that doing "this" doesn't just result in "that," it results in "that, and that and this other thing, and oh, look what it does over here."

    And how utterly clueless did "Senior Advisor" Ivanka look yesterday as she waxed on about how much she was looking forward to traveling the country in April as people realized the wonderful benefits of the reform.  The rich are not only different, they're oblivious...

    But maybe if "traveling the country" means "Palm Beach, the Hamptons, Orange County, Virginia horse country, Potomac" and so on, she may indeed find some happy people - in April of 2019.


    Orange County (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 02:50:49 PM EST
    voted for Hillary by 9 points.

    But that is due to its increasing diversity, at least in part.   Many Latinos, Vietnamese and Koreans.....south Orange County is still pretty white and Republican.


    Obamacare? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55:28 PM EST
    ACA hasn't been repealed, and the only ACA-related changes I know of were limited by the fact that they were part of a budget bill.  Did Congress do something ACA-related for small employers?  

    Slightly larger businesses may be hurt by the changes made by the Republican-controlled Congress.  I think that they unfunded the subsidy (ESRP) for businesses with 50-or-more employees, but did not remove the requirement that those businesses provide coverage.


    House Tax Bill 2.0 (none / 0) (#17)
    by KeysDan on Wed Dec 20, 2017 at 03:16:36 PM EST
    The House needed to vote over again on their tax bill to reconcile changes required in the Senate bill to qualify under reconciliation.  The House-approved bill 1.0 when sent to the Senate had provisions that ran afoul of the special budget rules (Byrd rule). The provisions must deal with fiscal issues not policy. The Senate changed/dropped provisions and sent it back to the House to concur.

     After challenges by Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the Senate parliamentarian ruled several provisions did not qualify for passage with a simple majority. Accordingly,

    (1) the Senate bill jettisoned Ted Cruz's baby that extended eligibility for 529 college savings plans to parents of home schoolers for expenses;

     (2) The excise tax on private university endowments, which in the Senate version gave a greater break than the House version with a higher limit, got scotched. And, are now subject to the new excise tax.

    (3) The Senate bill had to kill off the bill's short title "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," because reconciliation rules do not allow any provisions that do not have an impact on the budget.  Not a big win, but at least, the legal title does not perpetuate a lie.  I suggest its nickname be the "Trump and Family and Corker, too, Welfare Act."

    No repeal of the repeal, maybe. (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Thu Dec 21, 2017 at 03:56:54 PM EST
    Trump stated "When the individual mandate is being repealed, we have essentially repealed Obamacare, and we will come up with something that will be much better."  The tax bill, he suggests further, keeps two campaign promises in one bill. Very efficient.  So, repeal is done, and we move on, except some Senators, still want to repeal the "already repealed" ACA.

    Fortunately, Trump is true to form and lies...the repeal of the mandate did not repeal the ACA. But, this "successful repeal" will be bought, by the Trump base.

     The ACA is far more than the mandate, and its repeal, while doing harm to the insurance markets and those who depend on them, is by no means a fatal blow--despite their best efforts.  

    Not fatal since the individual mandate is one of about 12 key elements of the ACA.  But, damage resulting in fewer, by millions, of people insured, higher premiums, and insurers fleeing smaller markets.  And, the higher premiums bring higher costs for the federal government for those who continue to be eligible for subsidies.  

    Repeal of the mandate is likely to result in younger, healthier people no longer buying insurance (without penalty), figuring why buy insurance when you can just wait until you are sick and then purchase it--especially so, when no extra charge can be levied by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions.

    In keeping with the Republican's overall tax bill outlook, mandate repeal appeals to selfish, short-term instincts while losing sight of long term problems and the future of the nation.

    Republican health care plan (none / 0) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 08:31:00 AM EST
    Die young, die quickly.

    I wonder how many states (none / 0) (#29)
    by CST on Fri Dec 22, 2017 at 08:40:23 AM EST
    Will adopt their own individual mandate.  

    In MA this is a non-issue because the Romneycare mandate remains in place, which should help stabilize the MA exchange at least.  I wonder if you'll see other blue states adding something similar to their own regulations, and whether that would have any implications for the broader health insurance markets.

    We could end up in even more of a two-tier system where states that expanded medicaid and implement a mandate have quasi-universal coverage and those that didn't don't.