General Discussion

litlbilly

(2,227 posts) Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:23 PM Oct 2013

How to force all states to accept medicaid expansion

Give the states 2 choices. 1. Accept the expansion where the feds pay 100% for 3 years and the states pick up 10% of the cost after that. 2. The feds give all eligible people in every state full Medicaid coverage and send the states that didn't accept the help, 100% of the bill. It is so obvious those red states with red governors wont accept the funds because they hate president Obama so, it nothing else, it gives them a way out.

9 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How to force all states to accept medicaid expansion (Original Post) litlbilly Oct 2013 OP

Not a constitutional lawyer, but I think the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit this. NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #1

Yep, i must be thinking like a tea bagger. litlbilly Oct 2013 #4

Also litlbilly Oct 2013 #7

You may want to review the constitution and the rulings on state's rights/sovereignty. n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #2

the bottom line here litlbilly Oct 2013 #5

Maybe letting the residents see how screwed over they are... Historic NY Oct 2013 #3

I assume you recall that a "state mandate to expand medicare" was struck down legcramp Oct 2013 #6

mmore states would have taken it Niceguy1 Oct 2013 #8

I suppose it doesnt matter litlbilly Oct 2013 #9

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)

1. Not a constitutional lawyer, but I think the 9th and 10th amendments prohibit this.

Reply to litlbilly (Original post)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:27 PM

Oct 2013

Especially the 10th.

Though I agree with the spirit of the post and think that if we can do Social Security and Medicare, then we can do this.

This is why we have state exchanges, because Obama couldn't with his congressional makeup get a national plan together, so he crafted what he could based on national requirements but implemented at the state level.

..

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)

4. Yep, i must be thinking like a tea bagger.

Reply to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:35 PM

Oct 2013

The way they allowed opt outs, it was just a thought. Hopefully they will change that if we ever fix this nonsense court, or, we get some good progressives as govs in those states. Stranger things have happened. If that does happen and some of those states turn blue, they will stay that way for quite some time. One can only dream

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)

7. Also

Reply to NYC_SKP (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:42 PM

Oct 2013

I don't see it as much different from holding the country hostage over a bill you don't like. Crashing the county and possibly the world econ over a tantrum. Just hoping we can hold on while holding our breath.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)

2. You may want to review the constitution and the rulings on state's rights/sovereignty. n/t

Reply to litlbilly (Original post)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:30 PM

Oct 2013

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)

5. the bottom line here

Reply to PoliticAverse (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:39 PM

Oct 2013

these states didn't accept the help because they don't like the president. They can't govern that way and expect to stay in charge forever. The vote in Virginia coming up is going to give us a looking glass into the 2014 elections. If the dems sweep, it should scare them a little. How many will do what Casich (sp)
did in Michigan. We'll see

Historic NY

(37,452 posts)

3. Maybe letting the residents see how screwed over they are...

Reply to litlbilly (Original post)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:31 PM

Oct 2013

by the non actions of their state government .

legcramp

(288 posts)

6. I assume you recall that a "state mandate to expand medicare" was struck down

Reply to litlbilly (Original post)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:41 PM

Oct 2013

Nobody said much about it at the time but it's what allows the states to opt out if they choose.

The one part of the Affordable Care Act that was found unconstitutional was the sanction imposed on states if they fail to expand Medicaid to the poor.

Essentially, the chief justice writes in the opinion, the federal government does have the ability to give states grants with strings attached. But in this case, the federal government was telling states that they had to expand Medicaid or lose funding for the whole program.

"Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case," Roberts writes.

The court decided the expansion can proceed, but the sanction against states that decide not to take part is struck down.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/06/28/155901105/live-blog-the-health-care-ruling

Niceguy1

(2,467 posts)

8. mmore states would have taken it

Reply to litlbilly (Original post)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:44 PM

Oct 2013

If they didn't have to pay that 10%

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)

9. I suppose it doesnt matter

Reply to Niceguy1 (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 30, 2013, 08:50 PM

Oct 2013

If they hold out long enough, those hungry and sick children will die and they wont have to worry about it.

Reply to this discussion