The Supreme Court surprise: Medicaid ruling could reduce coverage

doofiegirl BTO-t- BCRA-F ~PWCM~ 2012/06/29 20:43:23
Buried in the Supreme Court’s 193-page decision on the health reform law was one big surprise: States can opt out of the law’s sweeping expansion of Medicaid, significantly reducing the number of Americans who gain insurance.

That ruling, experts say, could leave some of the poorest Americans in a “no-man’s land:” Not covered by the federal entitlement program but not eligible for the subsidized health insurance.

“Governors and state legislatures have a fundamental decision to make,” said Sue Sherry, deputy director of Community Catalyst, a Boston-based think tank. “They have to decide whether they’ll provide basic health care to their poorest residents.” In a lot of places, that expansion is pretty huge: In Texas, 1.8 million people would be expected to gain coverage under this provision. That number stands at 2 million in California and 950,000 in Florida.
What the Supreme Court said today was: States do not have to participate in that part of the law. If they want to leave their Medicaid program as is, there will not be a penalty. What was once a guaranteed insurance expansion is now left to the discretion of the states. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/28/...
“Prior to the court’s decision today, failure to implement this expansion meant you lost all your Medicaid funding,” says Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “Now, you have a political and financial decision to make: Do you do this?”
The Affordable Care Act provides financial incentives to entice states into the expansion. The federal government will, for the first three years, cover the entire cost of all these new patients. Usually states have to chip in for some of the cost.

Read More: http://conservativebyte.com/2012/06/the-supreme-co...

Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Technotrucker_exposingthetruth 2012/07/03 22:34:10
    Any state that buys into this crap should is stupid. The govt pulls this trick over and over again. They bully, bribe, or coerce a state to join a govt program, with the promise of funding to cover most of the cost. Then the govt tells the state, oops, we don't have the funds to cover you, so you will have to cough up the funds on your own. Meanwhile, they continue to suck the income tax from the state, that would allow them to function without any assistance from the fed. Yet this idiotic process is repeated over and over again, with the exact same results. The people are left holding the bag. It would seem to me that it is past time for a mass exodus by the smarter states, and secede from the Union completely, thereby nullifying all the BS laws put upon them by a financially motivated Congress. Anyone agree?
  • MarinerFH 2012/06/29 21:22:43
  • Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆ 2012/06/29 21:20:01
    Here is the one thing everyone is missing: The CJ called this bill a tax. Guess what? It originated in the Senate. But *all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives.* That makes the bill unconstitutional on its face.
  • Schläue~© 2012/06/29 21:18:10
    The border states with the anchor-baby syndrome get hit the hardest.

    This was also noticed with the bribes to certain states such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Corn-husker kick-back.

    Problem is .... under 0bozotax, the Federal govt. claims to pick up some of the cost for the added Medicaid enrollments..... but over the years, the costs are 'progressively' shifted to the states making it all their problem to figure into their forced budgets.
  • Don Leuty 2012/06/29 21:03:43
    Don Leuty
    This is as it should be. Washington is prone to forget that states are still sovereign. What fits one state well, may be completely wrong for the other. Considering the number of illegal aliens in the border states and that 0bamacare is not fully funded, the states mention would have to commit to a substantial gap.

    This is a common shortcoming of most entitlement programs. Like dope pusher, the federal government gets a state hooked of the influx of federal dollars, then cuts support, leaving state legislature to find ways to cover the shortfall.
  • Waldorf 2012/06/29 21:02:24
    This ruling seems to suggest that the Medicaid system itself is unconstitutional, because Congress has mandated that the program be administered and partially supported at the State level. If the program cannot be centrally coordinated, there needs to be a different strategy. The Court ruling suggests that people will have to move to a Medicaid-friendly state to get coverage.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/10 04:45:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals