Such is a snippet of the argument made by in her fascinating new book, Cambridge University Press, 2018. The way that Americans provide care is fragmented and inconsistent. Everyone interested in poverty, inequality, and citizen participation should read this deeply creative and thought-provoking analysis. That also means it doesn't have to be this way. Federalism may feed liberty but it also undermines equality, one of our nation's most cherished ideals.
Federalism may feed liberty but it also undermines equality, one of our nation's most cherished ideals. Jamila Michener is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government at Cornell University. Where some locales are gen Medicaid is the single largest public health insurer in the United States, covering upwards of 70 million Americans. Medicaid covers 76 percent of low-income children, 48 percent of children with special health-care needs, 45 percent of disabled adults, and over 60 percent of nursing home residents. People realize when, for example, the resources that Medicaid has to offer are insufficient—when they're not able to get dental coverage even though their teeth are affecting their health more broadly. Then political scientists look at feedback effects for more typical welfare programs like cash assistance, and find the opposite: that those programs can really depress your political participation and make it less likely that you engage.
In places where Medicaid has expanded, we actually in the period immediately thereafter see boosts in rates of voting. Combining comprehensive and a times quite touching interviews of beneficiaries with rigorous quantitative analysis, Michener shows how the ways individuals 'dialogue' with this important government program impacts their overall level of political empowerment. I personally don't agree with her major assertions about solutions, but her hypotheses surrounding recipient behavior and outcomes on Medicaid are very interesting. Those material inequalities lead to disparities in political engagement, and the kinds of disparities that emerge reinforce pre-existing inequality. In Fragmented Democracy, Jamila Michener demonstrates the consequences of such disparities for democratic citizenship.
Crucially, Medicaid is also an intergovernmental program that yokes poverty to federalism: the federal government determines its broad contours, while states have tremendous discretion over how Medicaid is designed and implemented. Fragmented Democracy is a tour de force of empirical political analysis that doubles as an unusually humane and incisive meditation on the troubled state of American citizenship. It makes the limits of the government very clear: I have this thing I really need, but obviously the government is not able to provide for it. It's packed with data but is still very readable. With incredibly keen insight and breathtaking analysis, Jamila Michener unearths the dire ramifications of how people-based policies intersect with place-based inequalities. When we're taking things away from people, that sends them a signal that causes them to disengage; expansions do the exact opposite.
When I compare beneficiaries to non-beneficiaries, being a Medicaid beneficiary makes it less likely that you will engage in various forms of politics, from voting and participating in a political group or meeting, to a wider range of ways of thinking about interacting with and engaging with government. Why might we expect Medicaid recipients to display different patterns of political participation? Through extensive quantitative and qualitative research, Michener spotlights the people of Medicaid, their awareness of the inequalities that exist across states and localities, and how some are mobilizing to better represent the Medicaid community. Prior to working at Cornell, I was a at the University of Michigan. The Bell House, February 1st 2019. Prior to coming to Cornell, she received her Ph. Those are generally universal benefits that a lot of people have positive experiences with and boost the likelihood of engaging in politics. Unpacking how federalism transforms Medicaid beneficiaries' interpretations of government and structures their participation in politics, the book examines American democracy from the vantage point s of those who are living in or near poverty, disproportionately Black or Latino, and reliant on a federated government for vital resources.
When I talked to people about their experiences, they have deep gratitude for Medicaid. Everyone interested in poverty, inequality, and citizen participation should read this deeply creative and thought-provoking analysis. On the state level, there are policy choices states can make that shape whether Medicaid is disempowering. It deserves to be widely read and discussed. My public commentary has also appeared in many places including , , , , and. Pushing back: particularistic resistance in county contexts; 6. Federalism may feed liberty but it also undermines equality, one of our nation's most cherished ideals.
And the beneficiary populations in these states are people of color and people who are living in poverty. Crucially, Medicaid is also an intergovernmental program that yokes poverty to federalism: the federal government determines its broad contours, while states have tremendous discretion over how it is designed and implemented. The message takes on urgent importance in our time, pushing us to reimagine the policy at the local, state, and national levels. Due to the heterogeneity arising from giving policy responsibilities to state and local governments, the poor face extraordinarily varying levels of policy responsiveness and political incorporation, based on the lottery of where they happen to live. In years past, researchers have studied the effects of Medicaid on everything from health, to the labor market, to educational outlook. Medicaid is the single largest public health insurer in the United States, covering upwards of 70 million Americans. I sat on the advisory board of the 2015-18 and I teach in local correctional facilities.
Michener says American social policy towards people living in poverty is one where we give people as little help as possible. Co-sponsored with the Department of Political Science, and the James M. Or even when we have expansions and retractions of the program. It's packed with data but is still very readable. I received a PhD from the University of Chicago and an undergraduate degree from Princeton University. It also makes the capriciousness of the government really clear: I once had this thing, but I don't know if I'll be able to have it next year because we get things and we get them taken away.