Are More People Eligible for Medicaid Under Obamacare? – YES

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Section 2001, "Medicaid Coverage for the Lowest Income Populations," page 153, signed into law on Mar. 23, 2010, available at the Library of Congress website, states:



(1) BEGINNING 2014.—Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended—

(A) by striking 'o' at the end of subclause (VI);

(B) by adding 'or' at the end of subclause (VII); and

(C) by inserting after subclause (VII) the following:

(VIII) beginning January 1, 2014, who are under 65 years of age, not pregnant, not entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A of title XVIII, or enrolled for benefits under part B of title XVIII, and are not described in a previous subclause of this clause, and whose income (as determined under subsection (e)(14)) does not exceed 133 percent of the poverty line (as defined in section 2110(c)(5)) applicable to a family of the size involved, subject to subsection (k)."

Mar. 23, 2010 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) (2MB)  

PRO (yes)

The Henry J. Kaiser Foundation stated in its Mar. 2011 article "Determining Income for Adults Applying for Medicaid and Exchange Coverage Subsidies: How Income Measured with a Prior Tax Return Compares to Current Income at Enrollment," available at

"A major goal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is to significantly expand coverage and reduce the number of uninsured. Beginning in 2014... Medicaid eligibility will be expanded to a national floor of 138% of poverty [level]... No premiums… Cost sharing limited to nominal amounts for most services."

[Editor's note: In 2012 138 percent of the US poverty level for an individual is $15,415; for a family of four it is $31,809. States make their own decisions regarding whether or not to increase Medicaid eligibility.]

CON (no)

[Editor's Note: Based upon a neutral reading of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and bi-partisan third party analysis, this question seems to have a clear and obvious Pro (yes) answer, and has therefore presented the responses in a single column with no opposing perspective.]