Skip to comments.States fear that five words in Obama health law will open door to lawsuits. (Another Surprise!)
Posted on 04/02/2010 7:49:59 AM PDT by C19fan
The addition to existing law of five words, and a comma, may cause a world of hurt to state governments.
Tucked away on page 466 of President Obamas 2,704-page health-care bill is a provision that changes the definition of medical assistance, the term describing what states are required to provide to Medicaid recipients.
States have in the past been required to provide payment for services to physicians. Now, under the new definition, states will be liable for ensuring provision of the care and services themselves.
In other words, states are legally on the hook not only to ensure that Medicaid recipients are paid for, but that theyre seen by a doctor.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
With looming doctor shortages, this will be difficult to ensure in anything like a timely manner.
I don’t know what all the fuss is about. If the United States Constitution doesn’t matter and can be ignored, five little words shouldn’t be a problem.
That's almost unbelievable. I didn't realize such large portion of populations were on Medicaid, and that doesn't even include Medicare. That our representatives and 'leaders' have even proposed an expansion of what is already unsustainable is just more evidence that we're being governed by fools.
They will just have to force the physicians at gunpoint to see more patients.
We’ll have to import muzzies, like Britain did, and remember that some Muslim doctors tried to blow up an airport - was it in Scotland? I still remember the photos of one guy who was on fire and nevertheless was still trying to blow up the airport. He must have been on pain killers.
Even earlier they made sure their elderly relatives moved to New Orleans or other cities and towns in Louisiana.
The deal is the food is great, the weather is warm (an important thing to many elderly folks), nursing care was inexpensive, as were in-home workers to do housework and so forth.
Rent was low.
No one knows how many elderly poor were living in LA before Katrina, but it was a whopping big number.
The next question will be what is Obama’s definition of doctor? danger ahead.
Do the elderly poor remain on Medicaid if they never paid enough into SS to be eligible for SS and Medicare, or do they just move to Medicare no matter their work history?
I'd never thought of that, but it might be a significant factor in how many are on Medicaid in some areas.
So which state will be first to call in the national guard and station them in clinics to make sure that doctors see patients?
It is impossible to have the right to anything which comes from another person’s labor. For the government to ensure that right it must force labor (enslave) another person.
Medical care, food, clean water—none of it would exist without people working. Free markets exchanges for those items prevents slavery.
Should be another popular handout to the 95% Democrat-voting support groups.
And each of the states should have TWO words for Hussein and the left.
It’s these mandates on the states that will really push the 10th Amendment movement. No one has any money — and the Feds are just piling stuff on the states and making their situation worse. At some point, the states have to say “No more”.
I was talking to a New Zealander colleague and he told a story in the news there about a patient who felt some chest pains after an operation — turns out he had the forceps sewn into his chest.
We all reacted to it and the Americans in the group started talking about how he’d be rich, but the New Zealander, no critic of socialized medicine, said no, he’d probably just get the opportunity to have them removed for free. Maybe a small compensation.
There is no way we can keep quality high and costs under control with our system of jackpot law. If you want socialized medicine, it won’t work, but if you want lawyers in the mix, it’ll be a disaster.
Expanding Medicaid was just another way of buying votes to pass this boondoggle. The expansion covers childless adults earning up to 133 percent of poverty level.
Imposing an unfunded mandate on these people would have been politically unworkable.
Then again, the bill as passed is politically unworkable but they didn’t let that stop them.
“Do the elderly poor remain on Medicaid if they never paid enough into SS to be eligible for SS and Medicare, or do they just move to Medicare no matter their work history?”
Someone who does not qualify for Medicare can voluntarily enroll in Part A or Part B by paying the requisite premium amounts for each (for Medicare eligibles, Part A is free). Medicaid pays Part A premiums for some of its elderly/disabled beneficiaries, but this is restricted to individuals who qualify for Part A, which generally requires being eligible for SS, which in turn is based on work history. So I believe there’s a subset of Medicaid eligibles who are elderly but not dual-eligible. Most such elderly are dual-eligible, meaning Medicaid pays their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing etc.
They want to grant amnesty to millions of illegals, who will also be added to this. Sure seems like the goal is to crash or bankrupt us. No one will end up with access to quality healthcare and will greatly change our quality of life.
To the state governments re 0b0z0care: BOHICA!
Anotehr unfunded mandate. This should be a basis for teh states to sue rather than be sued.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.