I'm not understanding something here, something about Medicare, or maybe Medicaid.
The Supreme Court struck down a provision of the Affordable Health Care Act that suggested that it would penalize noncompliant states by withholding medicare funds.
The supreme court said the federal government couldn't do that.
But thats *EXACTLY* how the federal government got states to fix the drinking age at 21
thats *EXACTLY* how the federal government strongarmed some states to forceable desegregate their public schools
in those cases it was highway funding, in this case it is medicare funds
is the only difference being that this case actually came before the supreme court at all? (suggesting that highway funding witholding and strongarming sanctions would be unconstitutional as well if ever challenged)
I don't know the details. Take this with a grain of medicated salt.
I think the difference is that in the health care reform, the feds were engaging in "unfunded mandates," i.e., they were telling the states what they had to do without the feds paying for it.
In terms of the highway, it's sorta the other way around. The states are looking to repair or construct roads that are also federal highways and want the feds to help out. The feds say, "We'll provide funding, but you can't be letting people go too fast or without seatbelts on our roads."
Hall Photo
Posts: 12,331
Boston, Massachusetts, US
It's Medicaid, and Brown v. Board of Education made public school segregation illegal, so any strong-arming that took place there is kind of a moot point.
But yeah, it could re-open the drinking age debate, if I'm reading it correctly.
Justin wrote: I don't know the details. Take this with a grain of medicated salt.
I think the difference is that in the health care reform, the feds were engaging in "unfunded mandates," i.e., they were telling the states what they had to do without paying for it.
In terms of the highway, it's sorta the other way around. The states are looking to repair or construct roads that are also federal highways and want the feds to help out. The feds say, "We'll provide funding, but you can't be letting people go too fast or without seatbelts on our roads."
I think.
this is what I was thinking when I was typing this, but I'll take it with a grain of bath salts.
It made me wonder if forced integration or drinking age ever came before the federal courts at all
Hall Photo wrote: It's Medicaid, and Brown v. Board of Education made public school segregation illegal, so any strong-arming that took place there is kind of a moot point.
But yeah, it could re-open the drinking age debate, if I'm reading it correctly.
Justin wrote: I don't know the details. Take this with a grain of medicated salt.
I think the difference is that in the health care reform, the feds were engaging in "unfunded mandates," i.e., they were telling the states what they had to do without the feds paying for it.
In terms of the highway, it's sorta the other way around. The states are looking to repair or construct roads that are also federal highways and want the feds to help out. The feds say, "We'll provide funding, but you can't be letting people go too fast or without seatbelts on our roads."
I think.
Actually, the Medicaid expansion is fully funded by the Feds for the first 3 years of implementation, at which point the states begin to share some of the costs. The part that was struck down was the Feds' ability to withdraw previously appropriated Medicaid funding from states that choose not to accept the new funding and expand eligibility. It's a novel limitation on the exercise of Congress' spending powers.
MB-2 wrote: Actually, the Medicaid expansion is fully funded by the Feds for the first 3 years of implementation, at which point the states begin to share some of the costs. The part that was struck down was the Feds' ability to withdraw previously appropriated Medicaid funding from states that choose not to accept the new funding and expand eligibility. It's a novel limitation on the exercise of Congress' spending powers.
Thanks for the clarification. I was treading on shaky ground.
Actually, the Medicaid expansion is fully funded by the Feds for the first 3 years of implementation, at which point the states begin to share some of the costs. The part that was struck down was the Feds' ability to withdraw previously appropriated Medicaid funding from states that choose not to accept the new funding and expand eligibility. It's a novel limitation on the exercise of Congress' spending powers.
From what I understand the government will supply the money and pay 100% of the costs for Medicare expansion to cover the uninsured for three years. After that government pays 90%.
The SC said that government could not, under threat of losing other government money, make the states accept and institute a Medicare expansion. A decision I happen to agree with BTW.
That said, states can refuse money to cover the uninsured from the ACA without penalty. But they can refuse it nonetheless.
I think there are 6 or 7 governors who said they will not accept the money.
| 
| 
| edu