Could Current Medicaid Recipients Lose Coverage From Supreme Court Ruling? (LOL)

PBS ^ | 7/5/2012 | By: Betty Ann Bowser

[tobyhill]

Tonight on the PBS NewsHour, our Health Unit takes a look at what's becoming a controversial part of the federal health care reform law: the expansion of Medicaid to cover up to 17 million uninsured adults.

While the individual mandate has been the headline-grabber since last week's decision, expansion of the shared federal-state program that provides health care to poor people is also a major component of the Affordable Care Act. It was supposed to bring millions of low income Americans into the program, including childless adults who right now are not covered in most states.

But Republican governors in at least seven states have expressed hostility toward the Medicaid expansion and indicate they may not go along with it.

Now, our partners at Kaiser Health News have found a new wrinkle in the equation. Check out this story from Phil Galewitz. And, of course, tune in to the broadcast tonight for our full coverage.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”That statement could be interpreted to mean “what he was doing” was to destroy federalism,...”

Destroy???
As I recall when Republicans were in charge they thought federal power was a GREAT thing because THEY were in charge of it. But don't worry, with Romney we won't have that problem right?? After all his main excuse for Romney-care is Federalism so he must mean it.

I didn't vote for Roberts did you?

[sickoflibs]

I like Roberts decision about Medicaid because for two years I have been saying that House Republicans should send a Senate a bill that allows any state to completely opt-out of Obama-care.(there would have to be a requirement that any state that stays in that it must not add to the deficit.) I still think that would be a better strategy than a 50 state repeal that includes even the liberal states who may want it, or at least claim they do. And yet they send the same bill OVER and over knowing it is going no place, just to distract us from their REAL spending bills.

By sending 50 state repeal bills to the Senate over and over they put little pressure on Democrats to do anything with it.

Most Republicans don't believe in states having their own say. They believe in themselves ruling the country instead of Democrats. The Romney states rights excuse is laughable.

Like I said, states can now opt out of at least part of Obama-care (the one that would have bankrupted them) and the reaction by most Republicans(it seems) is "Ho-hum, I wanted Roberts to repeal the entire bill for all the states. After all, I am supporting the guy I don't trust to do anything right so it was Roberts job to do it for him"

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

RE :”That statement could be interpreted to mean “what he was doing” was to destroy federalism,...”

Destroy??? As I recall when Republicans were in charge they thought federal power was a GREAT thing because THEY were in charge of it.

Yes, RINOs wound the Constitution too, but that does not make it OK.

I'm not the only one concerned about Federalism and the Roberts ruling. Column: Court's top conservative kills federalism

Remember Obama's State of the Union in which he lectured the SCOTUS, and the barrage of leftist warnings about overturning Obamacare? They will see the Roberts ruling as the green light for more big government lawlessness. The Constitution may win eventually, but we are headed in the wrong direction at this moment.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Remember Obama’s State of the Union in which he lectured the SCOTUS, and the barrage of leftist warnings about overturning Obamacare? ”

Well since I have pinged you and the others about a dozen times mentioning it I probably remember.

RE : : They will see the Roberts ruling as the green light for more big government lawlessness. “

Obama-care is lawlessness??? AS I recall it was passed by both Houses (after much trouble for Dems) and signed by Obama. Lets get a grip. It is Republicans who were counting on the big shortcut to repeal it by bypassing the same process because they know the GOP won't have the guts to.

Back to the planet Earth. If our sole hope is Romney and Co vs Dems then things look pretty grim because few believe that they are up to the task; and so more and more Dreams of that Genie in a bottle fantasies will be thrown forward to us.

[sickoflibs]

Here’s a crazy idea.

Why don’t Republicans convince voters that Obama-care is bad for them and then repeal it?

If voters really hate it like they say then that should be easy.

[Gilbo_3]

flashback to mcqueeg/feingold...W signed it so the supremes could nullify it...didnt work out too well...

before that W said of the AWB renewel, 'get it to my desk, and I'll sign it'...forunately the CONgress came up a couple votes short on that one, ONLY due to rat fear...

its 'law' now indeed...seal of approval by the roberts court makes walking it back politically harder than ever, if you thought the demagougery was bad before, wait till the smears come in the next session during a halfhearted attempt to repeal...thats why we'll only get 'tweaking' of it to suit the masses...all the while 1000s of pages of regulation [fiat law] are being pumped out and cemented in place...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Obama-care is lawlessness???

I think it is, but it depends on how you look at it. Since the law is whatever Roberts says it is, you can argue it is the the law of the land. But Roberts had to resort to preposterous "reasoning" to "justify" the ruling.

Maybe I should have stated more clearly that I view Obama's lawlessness as a larger phenomenon than just obamacare.

AS I recall it was passed by both Houses (after much trouble for Dems) and signed by Obama

After Franken stole a senate seat (with the help of rogue judges) to make 60 votes. But I was not claiming that the the manner in which it went through the votes in both houses and was signed (although sleazy) was illegal. I won't keep beating the dead horse about how Roberts rewrote the law to do what he wanted, but also I think the law was unconstitutional in handing over so much of the actual mechanism to HHS etc. But maybe today the idea of putting limits on what congress can do to us is anachronistic. As Obama said, is the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties," just some old moldy pages to be ignored?

I believe that the plan to have half the states refuse to participate will not succeed unless congress and the POTUS are on their side, because the states which would not participate still would have to pay for the states that do.

If our sole hope is Romney and Co vs Dems then things look pretty grim because few believe that they are up to the task; and so more and more Dreams of that Genie in a bottle fantasies will be thrown forward to us.

I think you and I are both horrified, but not really surprised, by the lack of concern among the voters about the growth of government and the loss of individual liberty. And I agree with you that, among his other problems, Romney is so far unable or unwilling to convince them to oppose obamacare's huge tax hike.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

its 'law' now indeed...seal of approval by the roberts court makes walking it back politically harder than ever, if you thought the demagougery was bad before, wait till the smears come in the next session during a halfhearted attempt to repeal...thats why we'll only get 'tweaking' of it to suit the masses...all the while 1000s of pages of regulation [fiat law] are being pumped out and cemented in place...

I agree. The GOP has not had 60% of the senate since the 1920s. Repealing the funding with 51 senate votes might work if the GOP has the guts, and if Romney is there to sign it, but lately his campaign can't find it butt with both hands. As you noted, they would have to ignore the demagoguery machine too.

Can you add pork to a reconciliation bill? If there is a way....

[sickoflibs]

RE :” I think you and I are both horrified, but not really surprised, by the lack of concern among the voters about the growth of government and the loss of individual liberty.”

I saw another poll on cable where 45% polled said they didn't even know that there was a SCOTUS decision on Obama-care,

Marx's view of liberty, which Dems are using now, is that LIBERTY is being freed of our basic needs (as determined by) by the state, that you are supposed to vote for more free stuff. Remember that the Demographics of this country have changed dramatically the past decade or so due to immigration, and with it these views.

RE :”I believe that the plan to have half the states refuse to participate will not succeed unless congress and the POTUS are on their side, because the states which would not participate still would have to pay for the states that do.”

This is where Romney and a Republican congress could come in handy. They repeal just the funding, then all the states opt out. They need to be put to the test after 4 years of tough talk.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

This is where Romney and a Republican congress could come in handy.

Or not...

[sickoflibs]

HA-HA, that cartoon sounds like me.

I still think the personal mandate issue is huge distraction that was tempting because it polled badly but so far has not helped Republicans in beating Obama, which was their main intention. Now both sides have muddied the water with this tax-fine-penalty confusion trying to have it both ways.

See my ping on the insurance exchanges.

[DoughtyOne]

Good one. Unfortunately the Grand Old Party elephant would be smiling great big and slapping Romney on the back and saying, “Yeah! What he said.” in real life.