[Signalman]

This is the part I like and it's where the libs are going to be really shocked:

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?"

[mylife]

I am sure Greg Abbott is working this even now, down here in Texas.

[Brad from Tennessee]

Without the Medicaid expansion those residents who would have been covered by it are moved into that state's exchange program where they cannot afford the rates without a heavy subsidy. This throws off the whole ObamaCare funding formula.

There are very few states, if any, whose Medicaid systems are not already stretched to the breaking point. ObamaCare works only by forcing the states to pay for most of the Medicaid expansion.

Our former governor, Bill Bredesen—a Democrat, Obama supporter, and a businessman who made millions in the managed health care industry—said ObamaCare would be a “disaster for Tennessee.” He said the law was deeply flawed because it was written by people “who don't know how health care works in the real world.”

[Monorprise]

You might note that the Canadian healthcare system Started the same way with their Federal Government offering money(taken from other provinces) to subsides any such program within any provinces that created such a government run system.

Liberals know this, and you will regret it, as we lose our freedom one by one. This qubit means nothing except to force free-states to finance slave states.

[bcsco]

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding.

The fallacy in this is that, by making ObamaCare constitutional as a tax, Roberts also opened congress to it being lawful to tax families and individuals for NOT doing something.

So, it's not OK to yank medicaid funding, but it's OK to tax people if they don't buy insurance? It's not OK to withhold a support, but it's OK to add a burden? Sorry, but the logic on this escapes me...