Everyone should read that transcript as there is a lot of very important info there. Love the commies’ plan to have none of the bad stuff hit people until after the election in November. Grrrrrrrrrrrr.....
Thanks for your long post earlier in the thread as well as the link to this transcript.
Yes, the individual mandate is getting the most press, but the line of argument based on the fact that federal unfunded mandates to the states will actually, predictably, inevitability and irrevokably bankrupt the States, to me, is quite strong.
Plus as it stands now the States do not have to pay for Medicaid. They can limit enrollment, limit services, walk away, etc. That’s an important safety valve that allows them to adjust their Medicaid spending to each States’ budget realities. But, at one level, Obamacare circumvents the States’ role in “adjusting” spending by (1) forcing enrollment and (2) going directly to citizens of the State for funding.
There’s a CA case pending right now where Cali-Med (I think that’s the name of Medicaid in CA) tried to decrease services or enrollment. They were sued and the district ct in San Fran said they could NOT adjust their spending because they had to “maintain equal access to healthcare for the poor” - IIRC (I need to get the link for this). (Healthcare is a “right,” you see.)
So that is tied up on appeal at the Ninth Cir. right now! Proving that if the States are given even less flexibility to adjust spending under Obamacare, and therefore even less flexibility to avoid bankruptcy, Obamacare effectively is deliberately bankrupting the states.
Sorry, This post may be a little rambling because I’m still working on my basic load of coffee this a.m.
Here's a link:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100304/Federal-court-rejects-California-Medicaid-cuts.aspx
The San Francisco Chronicle: "A federal appeals court barred California on Wednesday from lowering Medi-Cal payments to doctors and hospitals by 5 percent and from cutting in-home care workers' wages by nearly 20 percent, saying the state's budget crisis doesn't justify violating federal laws that protect the poor and disabled. In four rulings, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected attempts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to reduce the state's deficit by paying less to the health professionals who treat 6.6 million low-income Californians, and to hundreds of thousands of workers who care for some of the neediest."
The appellate court said federal law requires "states to maintain poor residents' equal access to basic health care, and forbids cuts intended solely to save money" (Egelko, 3/4).
The Associated Press/Mercury News: State officials said they would appeal the decision. "'We strongly disagree with the court's decision, which interferes with the state's ability to manage its finances and reduce its spending to match its revenue,' Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Rachel Arrezola said. 'We are confident that the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule the 9th circuit's ruling.' Wednesday's decision does not affect California's $20 billion deficit because finance officials did not count on the savings in the governor's January budget, said H.D. Palmer, Schwarzenegger's finance spokesman" (Lin, 3/3).
If this Ninth Circuit is upheld on this, that means federal government can basically CONTROL A STATE'S ENTIRE BUDGET. The State's pot of money is finite. If the feds can require whatever they want out of that pot, and everything else the State wants to do with its money must give way to federal unfunded mandates, then who controls the State budget?
You got it: the feds. The States just become a pass-through with no real power to set their budgets, adjust their spending, disperse the funds they collect, etc.