Subscribe via RSS Feed

Today’s Medicaid Expansion News

[ 22 ] February 6, 2013 |

With respect to the question of how badly the Supreme Court damaged the Medicaid expansion in the PPACA, a couple of items pointing in the opposite direction:

Comments (22)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Steve LaBonne says:

    As an Ohioan, I’m “encouraged” to see that there actually are even bigger assholes than Kasich, impossible as that often seems to us here.

    • NonyNony says:

      As a fellow Ohioan I know what you mean be “encouraged”. In the sense of “could be worse, could be like Florida”.

      OTOH – it’s just depressing to think things like “could be worse – at least our governor isn’t Lex Luthor”. It just shows how that sliding window of expectations benefits Republicans in the long run, I guess.

  2. Linnaeus says:

    I’ve heard (though this may have changed in recent days) that Michigan is “still undecided” regarding Medicaid expansion. If this is still the case, here’s my guess as to why: Snyder is inclined to take the money, but he’s getting pushback from the Republican wingnuts in the legislature.

  3. Brandon says:

    Can states opt-in later? And once they’ve opted in, they’re in for good?

    • NonyNony says:

      I dunno. The stories about Kasich taking the money says that he’s insisting that it’s conditional – if the Federales don’t pony up the promised money, the state will roll back the expansion.

      None of the stories that I’ve read has said anything about whether that would actually be legal or not.

      • JKTHs says:

        They most definitely can opt out.

        • Stan Gable says:

          Seems like a “legally, yes but practically, no” kind of a thing. Opting out down the road would create an immediate (massive) deficit. That’s probably not something any sane governor would sign up for, even if they hate Medicaid with a white hot passion.

          • JKTHs says:

            If they opted out I assume they would just go back to the old Medicaid program so it’s not really a budgetary issue. It would be politically near-impossible to do though once you opt in

            • NonyNony says:

              I was wondering if it was actually legal for them to do that, or if once they took the expansion they were stuck with the conditions to keep the Medicaid funding that they were getting pre-expansion. As in once they take the money it all becomes “Medicaid” and the Feds can cut off the entire thing if the state doesn’t comply with all of the regs.

              IIRC, the Medicaid expansion was originally passed as a rule change to Medicaid for ALL of the funding that states would get, so the only decision states had was to give up ALL Medicaid funding or take the expansion. The SC said no, the states get to decide individually if they want to change the rules now to get that extra money. I wasn’t aware that there was a “backsies” clause at all that said that the state could take the rule change now then reject it later and the Feds would have to go along with whatever yo-yoing the state officials decided to do from year to year when allocating Medicaid dollars.

  4. I haven’t looked closely at this, but why is this a decision made by Governors? In most states, budgetary issues are decided by legislatures: isn’t this a budgetary issue?

  5. wengler says:

    It’s my understanding that the federal supplemental assistance that hospitals get will end with the Medicaid expansion, so aren’t these governors just telling their hospitals to go fuck themselves?

  6. David Kaib says:

    Hopefully the Dems in PA will pull themselves together and nominate someone who can make an affirmative case that she or he would be a better governor and that can provide some sort of critique of Corbett. You’d think that would happen as a matter of course, but sadly, it’s not the case.

  7. [...] Today’s Med­ic­aid Expan­sion News [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site