Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 20, 2014, 11:29:34 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Discussion
| |-+  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  The States and Medicaid
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: The States and Medicaid  (Read 720 times)
Del Tachi
Republican95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2453


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: 5.91

P P
View Profile
« on: June 12, 2012, 11:09:35 pm »
Ignore

What recourse would the federal government have if a State's legislature passed a measure blocking State funds from going towards Medicaid, a fed-state partnership?

Are the Feds going to send in the national guard to occupy the State capitol and force the state legislature to vote otherwise?  LOL

Or could a federal court demand that the state pay its Medicaid dues?  What would the court use to enforce this ruling?
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28721
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2012, 09:04:12 am »

State participation in Medicaid is voluntary.  All that would happen if a State refused to pay its share is the Feds wouldn't pay their share either and Medicaid would cease to operate in that State.  Of course, the economic impact of such a decision is such that it is highly unlikely a State would ever choose to not participate, leaving in question whether their participation truly is voluntary.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 09:10:22 am by True Federalist »Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8858


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2012, 09:37:39 am »
Ignore

Not only is it voluntary, but it is run by federal reimbursement. Until a state incurs Medicaid costs, the feds don't pay. After service is provided and the state pays, the feds reimburse the state for their share.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27517
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2012, 12:43:36 pm »
Ignore

Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.
Logged

True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28721
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2012, 09:29:35 am »

Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.

Looks like the handcuffs have been loosened by the Obamacare case.
Logged

People find meaning and redemption in the most unusual human connections. Khaled Hosseini
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8858


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2012, 09:44:37 am »
Ignore

Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.

Looks like the handcuffs have been loosened by the Obamacare case.

And ironically the expansion of health care to those who can't afford it may have been scuttled, while those who can afford it must get insurance. It seems exactly backwards from the original goals of the act.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27517
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2012, 10:13:34 am »
Ignore

Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.

Looks like the handcuffs have been loosened by the Obamacare case.

And ironically the expansion of health care to those who can't afford it may have been scuttled, while those who can afford it must get insurance. It seems exactly backwards from the original goals of the act.

This aspect of the SCOTUS decision just blows my mind away. What the feds giveth, the feds cannot taketh away, if the state recipients don't dance to its tune.  We have another fertile area for future litigation it seems, since such a standard is perforce fuzzy in its application.
Logged

muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8858


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2012, 10:17:35 am »
Ignore

Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.

Looks like the handcuffs have been loosened by the Obamacare case.

And ironically the expansion of health care to those who can't afford it may have been scuttled, while those who can afford it must get insurance. It seems exactly backwards from the original goals of the act.

This aspect of the SCOTUS decision just blows my mind away. What the feds giveth, the feds cannot taketh away, if the state recipients don't dance to its tune.  We have another fertile area for future litigation it seems, since such a standard is perforce fuzzy in its application.

And this vote to strike the Medicaid portion was 7-2 (Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent). The states were clearly big winners here.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2012, 10:22:12 am by muon2 »Logged


Partial solar eclipse of October 23, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19150
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2012, 05:58:37 pm »
Ignore

What recourse would the federal government have if a State's legislature passed a measure blocking State funds from going towards Medicaid, a fed-state partnership?

Are the Feds going to send in the national guard to occupy the State capitol and force the state legislature to vote otherwise?  LOL

Or could a federal court demand that the state pay its Medicaid dues?  What would the court use to enforce this ruling?

If our legislature has the gall to refuse expanding coverage to the state that needs it most, yes, it should be forced to do so at gunpoint.
Logged

It's always darkest before the dawn.
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13799
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2012, 11:33:20 pm »
Ignore

What recourse would the federal government have if a State's legislature passed a measure blocking State funds from going towards Medicaid, a fed-state partnership?

Are the Feds going to send in the national guard to occupy the State capitol and force the state legislature to vote otherwise?  LOL

Or could a federal court demand that the state pay its Medicaid dues?  What would the court use to enforce this ruling?

This scenario can be pre-empted if the federal government simply federalized/nationalized the whole program. 
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines