Discussion: A New Supreme Court Ruling On Medicaid Just Put 68 Million People At Risk

Discussion for article #235007

So much for Stare Decisis . . .


So this is how Republicans intend to gut Medicare, too?


Meanwhile, all eyes and media were on Indiana.


So maybe the Feds will just have to use that club on Idaho. They will probably have to do so only once.


Yep, sucks to be sick and/or poor. But this is America, land of unlimited boot straps! If you’re not a 1%-er it’s your own damned fault. Just ask Ted Cruz. On second thought, you don’t need to ask him, he’ll be reminding you of it often for the next couple years.


so the supremes have just guaranteed that emergency rooms will be spilling over with sick low income people unable to get treatment any other way… which of course will lead to higher costs because people will be more ill having waited trying to avoid those er visits – not to mention how much higher those costs are anyway…

nice job, you malicious fucking pigs. i just have this image of scalia chuckling while reading the reactions in the opinion pages in the days to follow…

By limiting that “who” in this case, the Supreme Court has turned its back on more than 40 years of legal precedent.

This certainly seems like a tell.


Court has ignored longstanding precedent and Congressional understanding at the time it implemented Medicaid. Precedent and congressional intent—two things Justice Scalia says he holds dear.

The supreme court is just a partisan tool right now.

Its one thing to hold strong conservative or liberal beliefs and make consistent decisions based upon that, but when their actions veer from their stated past beliefs and opinions to support their politics… then the justices have become shills for their party.


I notice how Stephen Breyer, Teddy Kennedy’s little deregulation troll, sided with the conservatives on this one, neutralizing Anthony Kennedy’s vote with Ginsberg.


This does not bode well for Burwell v Humanity.


Yep, and the GOP will blame Obamacare and use these rising costs to justify gutting the ACA.


Meanwhile in Florida, it’s Republicans vs. Republicans in the war to expand Medicaid.

The Republican-controlled state Senate voted unanimously for a budget that includes expansion of Medicaid, while the Republican-controlled state House overwhelmingly approved a budget that does not include expansion of Medicaid,

The difference in the two budgets – about $4.2 billion – represents the dispute over Medicaid midway in the annual Legislative Session.

For the past three years, Florida has refused $51 billion in federal money earmarked for expanding subsidized healthcare coverage, one of 22 states to do so.

Medicaid expansion would provide health care to more than 800,000 uninsured Floridians.

Here is a link to the Miami Herald article: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article17225600.html#storylink=cpy


This really isn’t the story it’s made out to be and the arguments appear to be far more subtle and unrelated to Medicare per se than to general principles of law. There’s a good summary at SCOTUSBlog, http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/foreclosing-equitable-relief-under-medicaid-act/ .


Not to worry. Boehner and McConnell will have a solution in place before you can say Obamacare.



From you link ,bottom line:

" Plain English:   In this case,
the Court concluded that Medicaid providers cannot sue the state for
paying them too little under the Medicaid Act.  Instead, it is the
federal government that is supposed to enforce the broadly worded
reimbursement provisions.  At the same time, the Court did not imperil
the ability of other plaintiffs, in other situations, to seek
injunctions against state officials who are violating federal law"


There’s an easy fix for this. Congress just has to give providers the right to sue. Oh, wait…

1 Like

“the Supreme Court turned against decades of legal precedent”

If it is that obvious now, one might imagine that historians of the future will determine that the Roberts Court will prove to have been the most damaging, ideologue-activist court in history, with maybe an exception for the pre-Civil War “slave power” court.

I doubt Roberts realized when he took Bush’s unusual offering that he would someday be recognized as the chief justice who oversaw the most lawless Supreme Court in history.

Isn’t it logical to suggest that any court that ignores precedent is, in the very essence of the word, lawless?

One would have to be FOX brainwashed to ignore that simple fact.

This court is a law unto themselves, and few Supreme Courts in history have so effectively validated the Critical Legal Thinkers.


…the Supreme Court has turned its back on more than 40 years of legal precedent.

This will be the legacy of the Roberts Court: precedent, which has long been one of the most important underpinnings of our system of justice, no longer counts for anything. Cases will be decided based on the prevailing ideology in the Court on that particular day.

John Roberts deserves to spend eternity next to Roger B. Taney.


same wavelength?

1 Like