To: sickoflibs; cuban leaf; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale
Evidently the bill had stated that if states wouldn’t expand their Medicaid programs to cover massive numbers of new people, the federal government could/would cut off all Medicaid funding to the state.
The SCOTUS nixed that.
17 posted on
06/28/2012 9:32:19 AM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Remove all Democrats from the Republican party, and we won't have much Left, just a lot of Right.)
To: DoughtyOne; sickoflibs; cuban leaf; Gilbo_3; Impy; stephenjohnbanker; NFHale
Evidently the bill had stated that if states wouldnt expand their Medicaid programs to cover massive numbers of new people, the federal government could/would cut off all Medicaid funding to the state. The SCOTUS nixed that.They wrote that, but look at how easily Obama found an excuse to "nullify" the SCOTUS rule that states could determine the immigration status of people, by just refusing to work with AZ.
Note also that Obama also makes political decisions about which states get disaster aid (he knew he was going to lose Texas in 2012, so id disaster aid is another political slush fund, better to spend it on states he has a chance to win).
27 posted on
06/28/2012 10:24:18 AM PDT by
ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
(Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson