As you know, because of the Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision, the Governor’s of Florida and Texas have said they will not expand Medicaid coverage as demanded by Obamacare. But, that is not the extent of what the states are pondering.
A bit of background is necessary. The federal government sets the base eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Any state could, of course, expand those requirements if they chose to do so, and many did. A little publicized piece of Obamacare prohibited the states from lowering any of their expanded eligibility Medicaid requirements, or risk losing all federal Medicaid funding.
As the Supreme Court’s decision would seem to find said government edict be coercive, and thus unconstitutional, the states are reacting, mostly because many states can no longer afford to cover their expanded eligibility “insureds”. Currently, the federal government covers about 57% of a state’s Medicaid costs, leaving the state to pay for the rest.
Within hours of the Supreme Court’s decision on June 28, lawyers in the Maine attorney general’s office began preparing a legal argument to allow health officials to strike more than 20,000 Medicaid recipients from the state’s rolls – including 19 and 20-year-olds – beginning in October to save $10 million by next July.
Alabama and Wisconsin are considering similar plans to reduce their expanded coverage as they can’t afford it either.
Have we promised too much to too many? Maybe not.
Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told governors in February 2011 that they should look for cuts elsewhere, such as cutting back on benefits. [emphasis supplied]
Is this a peek at this administration’s philosophy?
Everyone has “coverage”, but over time, their insurance “coverage” doesn’t cover anything…because we’re broke.