Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne; sickoflibs; cuban leaf; 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.

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson