InvestorsHub Logo

F6

Followers 59
Posts 34538
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 01/02/2003

F6

Re: fuagf post# 178295

Friday, 06/29/2012 7:24:52 AM

Friday, June 29, 2012 7:24:52 AM

Post# of 471807
fuagf -- agree with Pelosi's take -- and fair is fair, what makes sense makes sense -- all the Court said is that if a state fails to implement the Medicaid expansion, the feds can't cut off all the state's Medicaid funding -- where Medicaid is, after all, already a long-standing major program in place routinely significantly funded by the feds -- just can't use that sledgehammer cuz a state has some wingbutt who won't implement the expansion running the joint -- but the expansion is funded 100% by the feds in the first couple of years then over a few years goes down to something like 80% or 90% from there, a level of support well above any other such arrangement such as existing Medicaid -- if a state doesn't implement, it just doesn't get that money it would have gotten for implementing -- and keep in mind, implementing will offload back into the insurance system costs now effectively/largely borne by the state as the effective last-resort payor for otherwise uncompensated healthcare given to uninsured within its borders -- so net-net, even when the state is ultimately sharing at say 20% of the cost, it's still gonna be nicely ahead of the game



Greensburg, KS - 5/4/07

"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."
from John Philpot Curran, Speech
upon the Right of Election, 1790


F6

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.