|
Title: The States and Medicaid Post by: Del Tachi on June 12, 2012, 11:09:35 PM 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? Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) 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.
Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: muon2 on June 13, 2012, 09:37:39 AM 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.
Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: Torie on June 13, 2012, 12:43:36 PM Yes it is a moot point, because the states are chained by golden handcuffs.
Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) 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. Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: muon2 on June 28, 2012, 09:44:37 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. 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. Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: Torie on June 28, 2012, 10:13:34 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. 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. Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: muon2 on June 28, 2012, 10:17:35 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. 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. Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: 7,052,770 on June 28, 2012, 05:58:37 PM 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. Title: Re: The States and Medicaid Post by: Frodo on June 28, 2012, 11:33:20 PM 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. |