EatLeadCommie
Tommy Elrod
A big shock there that the New Republic would come to such a conclusion.
There are two issues there. First, the idea that the money is free. It's an enormous amount of payoff money that the feds are using to get the states to come into the fold. That in itself could be viewed as objectionable from a federal funding standpoint. Second, their analysis encompasses a ten year time frame and doesn't look beyond that. Third, it also doesn't consider individuals who sign up under the expansion who were actually eligible pre-expansion and didn't know it. Those folks will not be covered by the feds but rather by the states.
I think when you look at the totality of the circumstances, and particularly consider factors such as immigration and the current administration's desire to legalize everybody, it is easy to see why a place like Texas said thanks but no thanks. I can't speak for the other states.
There are two issues there. First, the idea that the money is free. It's an enormous amount of payoff money that the feds are using to get the states to come into the fold. That in itself could be viewed as objectionable from a federal funding standpoint. Second, their analysis encompasses a ten year time frame and doesn't look beyond that. Third, it also doesn't consider individuals who sign up under the expansion who were actually eligible pre-expansion and didn't know it. Those folks will not be covered by the feds but rather by the states.
I think when you look at the totality of the circumstances, and particularly consider factors such as immigration and the current administration's desire to legalize everybody, it is easy to see why a place like Texas said thanks but no thanks. I can't speak for the other states.