Not so fast, Maine

We posted yesterday about the state of Maine’s decision to cut back their Medicaid eligibility rules to the eligibility mandated by the federal government.  Maine is considering this cut back for two reasons. 

First, even though Obamacare required all states to maintain their current eligibility requirements until 2014 (even if those eligibility requirements exceeded those mandated by Uncle Sam, or else lose all federal Medicaid funding), the Supreme Court’s decision says otherwise.   And second, Maine can’t afford what it has promised to Medicare recipients.

Maine took to heart that portion of the Supreme Court’s Obamacare ruling, among other portions, that said,

That insight has led this Court to strike down federal legislation that commandeers a State’s legislative or administrative apparatus for federal purposes. (see:page 53)

On Tuesday, the administration said those words are meaningless.  Existing Medicaid funding can be taken away if the administration says so.

…Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in a letter to all governors Tuesday, said the ruling ‘did not affect other provisions of the law’ which include a ban against cutting people from Medicaid before 2014.

In other words, “we are the Obama administration and we don’t care what the Supreme Court said about commandeering a state’s legislative or administrative process, we’ll do what we want”.

Maine and Wisconsin, states seeking to curb Medicaid programs, [back to the minimum required by the federal government]  said the letter didn’t dissuade them.  Maine said it would challenge Health and Human Services in court, if necessary.

To which I say, go for it Maine.

Last I looked it was the states that formed the union, not the union that formed the states.

 

37 replies
  1. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Remember the Maine! Obama gets the ruling he wants, but it’s not what it says when it applies to HHS Oberf?hrer?Sebelius’s decrees or to the tax that isn’t as a penalty for free loaders under the taxing authority not discussed in the legislation sold as an exercise of the commerce clause for reasons of insanity. Forward, Neutral, Reverse!
    ?
    ?

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      If it hasn’t taken effect yet, then why can’t Maine exercise its right to cut its Medicaid eligibility??? Why is the ?bama regime enforcing a law that hasn’t taken effect yet?
      ?
      Lemme guess: if Maine waits until 2014, driving its economy deeper in the tank, you’ll say they were “too little too late”, right?

      • stinkfoot
        stinkfoot says:

        The Obama regime will do whatever it wants and there is no law, no standard of decency that will stand in his way.? He seems to see himself as a king who is not to be subjected to the checks and balances that are designed to limit the power of any one part of the government.? How so many are blinded by this is beyond me though I need to remind myself of the lack of basic understanding of what this country was created to be…. cultivating “ignorants” to support ignorance.

      • winnie
        winnie says:

        There will always be someone who constantly & consistently makes excuses for O’s disregard for the law.? And it will never be Obama’s fault.
        Maybe sammy is just being contrary for the sake of being contrary?

  2. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    If Obama’s words and actions reveal his view of the constitution as an inconvenience to be disregarded then it would follow that he’d view the inconvenient details of an otherwise supportive SCOTUS ruling the same way.? This petulant man-child president is determined to get his own way and he’ll breach procedural protocol and the supreme law of the land to do so if necessary.

  3. SeeingRed
    SeeingRed says:

    The Adminstration loves the SCOTUS ruling insofar as they?agrees with it.? Beyond that point they will do what they want until forced (somehow) to cease (e.g. the first Tuesday in November).? See Fast & Furious/Preezy Privilege.?

  4. RoBrDona
    RoBrDona says:

    Excellent post SOS. The feds cannot use a state’s administrative apparatus to do its dirty work based on proposed laws not yet having taken effect. It is the usurpation of a state’s right to administer its own taxing ability as it sees fit. They should sue and they will win. ?

  5. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    @ winnie: how can the Administration disregard a law that has not taken effect yet? According to SOS above ” the ruling ?did not affect other provisions of the law which include a ban against cutting people from Medicaid?before 2014″.?
    Besides, aren’t the states jumping the gun since we keep being told that Obamacare will be repealed come next year by a Republican Senate and a Republican White House?
    One could consider making changes to the law currently on the books, but that has become anathema to Republicans.
    ?

  6. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    unlike the federal gov’t, many states have balanced budget laws which require them to be proactive with regard to dc meddling, not reactive.? part of the reason that o’care doesn’t take full effect until 2014, aside from the negative impact on o’s re-election ‘effort’, was to give states the ‘time’ to meet the mandates and establish the ‘exchanges’ (while giving them a head start on tax collection to support the illusion that the ‘law’ was ‘self-supporting’).? whether or not the law is ever fully implemented is immaterial–the most important aspect is not the delusion of controlling costs or delivering ‘free’ healthcare to the millions of already insured and their under-insured/uninsured brethren–it’s the establishment of more layers of government/bureaucracy to control/create dependency in more aspects of american life.
    this medicare move is beneficial for maine on many levels–the two best are budget cutting and population reduction–not through ‘killing people’ as the left will enjoy screaming–but through the defection of the welfare seekers that arrive by the busload from ny and other overcrowded, expensive entitlement states.? chellie pingree and mike michaud never envisioned this unintended…

  7. kateinmaine
    kateinmaine says:

    . . .benefit to maine and now they are starting to feel uneasy about their re-election prospects.? rest assured, renegade factions of thrifty yankees still maintain outposts in maine, so all is not lost.
    as to the ‘disregard’ of? ‘a law that has not taken effect yet’–from the congress that wrote it to the president that imagines it to the supreme court that validates it–it appears that everyone is free to interpret it as they will–there really isn’t any definition, even after 2500 + pages.? ‘the secretary’ presently determines that the law is already working (see investor’s business daily editorial ‘on the left’ 7/11/12).? very funny stuff–she even states that you’re entitled to your own views, just not your own facts–after creating a personal view of facts.
    whether maine prevails in this effort will depend on the ‘flexibility’ of the court hearing the case–and whatever the gov’t’s fallback argument may be.? wisconsin should be fine–they’re on a roll.

  8. Tim-in-Alabama
    Tim-in-Alabama says:

    Obamacare might end up being good for Republicans when they take over next year. Since the law gives the HHS secretary unlimited imperial healthcare powers, the new HHS secretary can simply making dying a condition for receiving any Obamacare, foodstamps, welfare, etc. To be eligible, you must die.
    ?
    ?
    ?
    ?

  9. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    Never mind the fact that the SCOTUS took issue w/ the expansion of Medicaid, not Medicaid itself.

    • SoundOffSister
      SoundOffSister says:

      What you need to look at, sammy, is?WHY the Supreme Court took issue with the expansion of Medicaid.? The Court found that telling the states they must expand their Medicaid rolls, or lose?ALL federal Medicaid funding, was like putting a “gun to their heads”, i.e. do what we say, or else.? That?has been found to be?unconstitutional.

      Similarly, telling the?states?that they cannot reduce their Medicaid eligibility?requirements TODAY, or lose?ALL federal Medicaid funding from this day forward is a?”gun to their heads”, and should be equally unconstitutional.

      That piece of Obamacare took effect in 2010, so 2014 is irrelevant to this discussion.

      • wildcat
        wildcat says:

        Well said SOS !? As for “putting a gun to their heads”…. well, hey… that’s the Chicago Way.? Why would we expect anything less from this thugocracy in Washington today?
        ?

      • Benjamin Less
        Benjamin Less says:

        This tactic resembles M?ty?s R?kosi “slicing” salami.? Interesting perspective on how Hungary resisted communism but later folded under? the ?VH secret police and bullying the democracy in 1945.? If a state like Maine resists conforming to the “gun to the head” tactic of expand or no monies, then you just look at the next tier of [salami] that comes from Obama which was gutting Welfare.? The Obama administration makes it impossible for a state to balance its own budget as it places higher demands on entitlement uncontrolled programs.? The “state” risks bankruptcy as more entitlement programs are deregulated or run without controls.? You eventually get a “state” on their knees begging the “government” of aid.?

        If this sounds logical?? If you read what Hungary went through after WWII it seems that Obama is just strengthening means to undermine the individual states’ abilities to manage their budgets and programs.
        ?

        ?
        In the end, Obama is BigBrother. [with a bong…

  10. stinkfoot
    stinkfoot says:

    No surprise that and administration so contemptuous of the constitution that they brazenly move to violate it would disregard the few inconvenient details of an otherwise friendly SCOTUS ruling in the pursuit of their agenda in pursuit of something that will do ANYTHING but make health care affordable.? The fact that this is such a high priority that they risk ruining the cooperative good will of a court that has itself shown the willingness to employ creative interpretations so the O can have his way suggests that it is the regime that would knowingly benefit from its full implementation and not taxpayers, who will be stuck footing the enormous bill.
    ?
    Truth resides in ones actions when ones words cannot be believed and this dictatorship is scoffing at what few checks and balances are applied against their agenda.? I’m a bit uneasy as to the reaction should November 6 prove inconvenient for them.
    ?
    ?

  11. JBS
    JBS says:

    It’s very important for Obama to increase federal dole dependence. Increasing Medicaid dependency increases likely voters for him in November.
    Obama will say? and do anything to stay in POWER. No matter that it hurts the states. Just increase the roles of whatever federally funded (for a few years) program charges out of D.C. Rah, Rah, RAH! Take the federal money and plummet further into debt.
    By the way, I would like to know how any Liberal(s) can defend Obama quietly eliminating, gutting the work requirement for welfare? Can our Liberal, anyone, apologize for Obama on this one? I’d love to hear how this is right, good for welfare recipients, better for the economy, or just more fair? How is it different than blowing open Medicaid enrollments? Pandering is pandering.
    Work is the cornerstone for positive self-image. Positive self-image leads to self-esteem.

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      Yes, but the Regime has shown that it no use for positive self image because those with a healthy self image do not concern themselves with arbitrary standards of “fairness” which plays on the cultivated sense of entitlement that would support looting the spoils of another’s hard work and redistribute it because it’s “fair”.

      Inciting discontent among the masses is one of the most irresponsible things a leader can do but that’s exactly what this wannabe dictator is doing with his class warfare rhetoric.? Streamlining the welfare eligibility process in the face of huge deficits belies any claims he makes to fiscal responsibility.? He doesn’t want to solve anything- just exploit it for maximum personal gain

      “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”- Rahm Emanuel

      “Never waste a good crisis”- Hillary Clinton

      ?
      ?

  12. cherwin
    cherwin says:

    So much of Medicaid is out and out fraud and goes to people who should not be receiving it. If you are just plain lazy, refuse to get off your ass and participate in being a productive citizen than you should pay the consequences. Medicaid is for those truly in need.
    Just go sit in any city ER for an evening and watch the activity. It turns into a meeting place for family members. The food, the music, the whole gang gets in on it. And by the way that’s a visit for a splinter in someone’s foot!
    Meanwhile the splinter has been there for a week but it’s too much work to establish a relationship with a doctor’s office and save taxpayer’s $1000.00 for an ER visit. That requires some effort. Calling to make an appointment, showing up for the appointment, doing what the Dr. says, following up if needed, etc. That requires personal responsibility and that is?a foreign concept to some people. Obama has made it much worse. He condons this behavior.?
    It is so much easier and more fun to call a taxi or 911, get a ride to the hospital, use the facility for all it’s conveniences, food, fun, heat, air conditioning, bathrooms etc. et. Who cares what it costs.?It’s free to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama said so. I deserve it…

  13. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    With all due respect, SOS, even you state above “and should be equally unconstitutional”. That seems to be your “conditional” opinion, not what the courts have said so far.

  14. PatRiot
    PatRiot says:

    WI, ME and, oh yes, AZ?.?
    All trying to do the right thing for their states and getting heat from the “O-pressor”.? All Republican governors too ! — Coincidence ??

    • stinkfoot
      stinkfoot says:

      I agree.? This amounts to extortion and flies in the face of the SCOTUS decision.? He is morally unfit to hold the office… Romney does not have a legitimate opponent in November as far as I’m concerned
      ?

    • kateinmaine
      kateinmaine says:

      why bother?? judiciary no longer independent nor based in law–give it to the media to spin, then let’s see where the chips fall when the people finally take things into their own hands.

  15. sammy22
    sammy22 says:

    This is no longer a country of laws? Poor Chief Justice Roberts, one would think he’s a Liberal!

    • Dimsdale
      Dimsdale says:

      Tell it to ?bama.? He is the one making imperial edicts and end running Congress when they don’t do their bidding, or worse, choosing not to enforce laws that he doesn’t like.
      ?
      Is that a country of laws?

Comments are closed.