Kentucky Medicaid expansion beats back first legal challenge; Forward!

posted at 1:21 pm on September 4, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

On Monday, the Washington Post editors once again expressed their utter frustration with the spitefully obstructionist Republicans and red states still getting in the way of ObamaCare’s pending success, with one of their chief complaints aimed at the many states steadfastly refusing to expand their Medicaid programs:

It’s a sad fact that Mr. Snyder deserves congratulations for this accomplishment. You wouldn’t think state leaders would need convincing to accept mountains of federal cash to help people with meager incomes obtain health insurance. But many Republican leaders and activists have waged a disruptive and harmful campaign to complicate, delay and undermine the ACA, which starts phasing in when state insurance markets begin enrolling customers in a month.

… But the most disruptive activity has been at the state level. Twenty-one states have refused to expand their Medicaid programs, blowing a large hole in the ACA’s coverage strategy. The Urban Institute estimates that 5 million people won’t get coverage as a result.

… They are not entitled to obstruct and flout the laws of the United States. On the contrary, they have an obligation to cooperate in good faith with wholly legitimate laws duly passed and reviewed by all three branches of government.

Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld the states’ legal right to abstain from expanding their Medicaid programs, nor that the editorial is repeating the Democratic clarion call that falsely depicts the entire situation as an irrefutable moral choice between either ObamaCare or widespread and inescapable poverty/misery — instead of another of the Obama administration’s many tax-and-regulatory crushes directly impeding the economic growth that actually boosts incomes and shoots people into the middle class.

And heck, why would anyone “need convincing to accept mountains of federal cash” to help expand Medicaid? It’s free money, right? …No. They’re making it sound like the non-participating states are looking a gift horse in the mouth, when what they’re really doing is refusing to accept a Trojan horse full of long-term fiscal burdens. How is it somehow a given that states should expand what is clearly a broken, inefficient, and unduly costly system with at-best questionable benefits for low-income families and individuals?

Anyhow, in other Medicaid-expansion news, Kentucky just moved a little higher on the definitive “yes” list, after the first round of a legal challenge to the very executive-heavy way in which their Democratic Gov. Beshear decided to expand Medicaid and set up their exchanges:

In separate rulings, Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd upheld both decisions by Gov. Steve Beshear intended to expand access to health care to 640,000 uninsured Kentuckians under the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.

The rulings swept aside the legal challenge by Nicholasville Tea Party activist David Adams and others who insisted that Beshear’s actions must be ratified by the legislature.

“The Kentucky Supreme Court has held that this legislative power may be delegated to the executive branch of government in these circumstances, so long as there are standards governing the exercise of discretion, and the legislature retains the authority to withdraw the delegation,” Shepherd wrote in the case upholding the expansion of Medicaid. …

But Adams said he will appeal both orders and ask that the case go to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

“Gov. Beshear had to lie in court and break state law in order to pretend to have authority specifically denied him by statute, case law and the constitution. He needed a judge to ignore these facts,” Adams said in a statement. “Now he needs four of seven who are elected in districts whose people understand and oppose Obamacare. I don’t think he can do it.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Are we at 17 trillion yet?

WryTrvllr on September 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Monkey meets shapely football.

onomo on September 4, 2013 at 1:28 PM

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?
 
libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

rogerb on September 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

rogerb on September 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM

THAT will never cease to produce hilarity!

questionmark on September 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM

“Gov. Beshear had to lie in court and break state law in order to pretend to have authority specifically denied him by statute, case law and the constitution. He needed a judge to ignore these facts,” Adams said

Laws are so last president. – Left/Obamacare supporter

Patriot Vet on September 4, 2013 at 1:46 PM

The feds are promising to pay 90% of the costs of covering the newly-eligible population, but those previously-eligible-but-still-unenrolled would still only get the prior-law match rate, which averages 57%.

That’s important because CBO estimates that roughly one-third of those signing up under Medicaid expansion would be people who were already eligible under pre-ACA law.

All told, states should expect to cover at least 20% of the costs of expansion, and even that’s assuming that the feds don’t cut back in the future on what they’re promising.

This is all in a context in which states are facing huge Medicaid cost increases even without expanding.

So yeah, expanding Medicaid does bring into a state health benefits primarily financed by taxpayers in other states. But the idea that this is all a freebie for the states is lunacy.

Chuckles3 on September 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM

And the first thing to go as the financials of Obamacare collapses in the first several month, will be the federal share of medicaid money- with the states expected to pick up for the slack. Once you’re on the hook, they WILL extract the money from the states.

michaelo on September 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

And what happens several years from now, and the Feds decide they can’t bear the costs?

What then?

Or are you going to argue that it’s carved in stone and will never change? Like your Obamassiah’s ‘firmly held belief’ on marriage being between a man and a woman.

GarandFan on September 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

rogerb on September 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Math is not a requirement to be a African-American-Gender Studies professor.

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM

What part of “the federal government pays 100% of the costs and the state pays 10% of the cost in ten years” do you not understand?

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

What part of Wilson, et al, promising that the individual income tax rate would never go higher than 7% do you fail to understand?

And, what part of FDR promising that Social Security payroll taxes would never exceed 3% and benefits would never be taxed do you not understand?

What part of the CBO projecting in 1965 that the entire cost of Medicare in 1990 would ‘only’ be ‘about’ $12 billion instead of the $107 billion that it actually did is completely incomprehensible to you?

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM

It is in fact wise not to elect the expansion. While the feds promise to partially fund it for a few years, after that the States will be expected to increase taxes dramatically to pay for the added enrollment. This is in Obamacare, black and white.

pat on September 4, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Gov. Beshear had to lie in court and break state law in order to pretend to have authority specifically denied him by statute, case law and the constitution.

Kentucky is not a red, red state – unfortunately. This is why we end up with crooks like Gov Beshear.

HellCat on September 4, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Are we at 17 trillion yet?

WryTrvllr on September 4, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Look for Bonehead and the Democrats to pass a continueing resolution with the same caveot as the last one. This will let the treasury issue unlimited amounts of notes, for whatever the specified amount of time of the resolution, which will allow the ‘ceiling’ to cross 20 trillion without anyone ever mentioning the actual number.

Freddy on September 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM

The bigger problem, of the two Kentucky is dealing with, is actually creating the state exchange. IF they can avoid this pitfall, they can effectively eliminate the massive hidden cash grab by the federal government.

Keep an eye on the lawsuit against the IRS rule that is, IMHO, unconstitutional!

On the flip-side, if the courts decide that the IRS can write new tax law by decree, look for the country to revolt against the government!

Freddy on September 4, 2013 at 2:43 PM

How did Kentucky get a Democrat governor?

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM

libfreeordie on August 28, 2013 at 3:13 PM

And where does the “Federal” government get the money to pay for such things?

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM

And where does the “Federal” government get the money to pay for such things?

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 3:14 PM

From Obama’s Stash, silly!

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

How did Kentucky get a Democrat governor?

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Good question.
Motor Voter?

LeftCoastRight on September 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Resist We Much on September 4, 2013 at 3:18 PM

That’s right, I forgot.

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM

The Executive branch has the authority to usurp the Legislative if the Chief Executive is a Democrat. It’s in there, check it out. Might be a penumbra of a shadow thing, but it’s in there somewhere. Just ask Obama, he’ll explain it.

NeoCon_1 on September 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM