The ruling cost 460,000 residents of the Bluegrass state their vision and dental bene

Dec 2014
13,584
4,286
The Milky Way
#1
Stupid leftist judge.


The ruling cost 460,000 residents of the Bluegrass state their vision and dental benefits


Before federal Judge James Boasberg vacated Kentucky HEALTH, a Medicaid demonstration project approved by HHS in January and due to be launched on July 1, he should have taken the time to learn about its benefits. State officials tried to tell him that non-medical vision and dental coverage were available only through that project, and that these benefits would have to be cut if he struck it down. But the Obama-appointed judicial hack was so intent on killing its “community engagement” provision that nearly half a million Kentucky residents became collateral damage in the Democratic war against work. AP reports:

Gov. Matt Bevin’s administration cut dental and vision coverage for as many as 460,000 Kentuckians after his Medicaid overhaul plan was rejected in court. The state Cabinet for Health and Family Services called the cuts an “unfortunate consequence” of Friday’s ruling by a federal judge.​

Predictably, when state officials notified the enrollees of this inevitable result of Judge Boasberg’s ruling, Kentucky Democrats and their media enablers began claiming that it was cruel retaliation by Gov. Matt Bevin’s administration for its legal defeat. This is a transparent lie, of course, but prevarication is what Democrats and “news” media do. Never mind that Adam Meier, the state’s secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, issued an unambiguous warning in advance of Judge Boasberg’s ruling that, without implementation of Kentucky HEALTH, the state would have to make these very benefit reductions:

Probably right away dental and vision would be removed from the low income adult group, likely pharmacy as well… Kentucky HEALTH is our plan, is our way of maintaining expansion, maintaining coverage and maintaining access, so without having the waiver approved, we lose our ability to do that effectively.​

Hilariously, the Democrats are questioning the legality of the cuts. Despite being told that non-medical vision and dental coverage were available only through the Kentucky HEALTH demonstration project, they now claim it’s illegal to stop these benefits even after a federal Judge has vacated that project. WAVE 3 News reports, “Kentucky Democrats said they believe the loss of dental and vision coverage will have to be decided by the courts again, similar to the work requirement waiver.” These clowns still don’t get that the lost benefits were inextricably tied to the work requirement program they just killed.


https://spectator.org/judges-meddling-in-kentucky-medicaid-causes-benefit-cuts/
 
Dec 2014
13,584
4,286
The Milky Way
#4
Likes: 1 person
Jul 2016
3,419
2,750
DS9
#5
Stupid rightist governor.

Ky. governor cancels Medicaid dental, vision benefits after losing work requirement ruling | TheHill

Ky. governor cancels Medicaid dental, vision benefits after losing work requirement ruling

Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin's (R) administration is canceling dental and vision benefits for thousands of people on Medicaid in the state following a judge blocking the state's Medicaid work requirements.

The cancellation of dental and vision coverage for almost 500,000 enrollees in the state's Medicaid expansion is "an unfortunate consequence of the judge's ruling," Doug Hogan, a spokesman for the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services, told the Louisville Courier-Journal.

Democrats denounced the move and said they did not think Bevin had the legal authority to cancel the benefits.
 
Likes: 5 people
Sep 2013
38,838
30,834
On a hill
#6
No, wrong, as outlined in the OP. Try reading the OP rahter than relying on fake news CNN.
Why?

Medicaid in California offers vision, and dental care without the work requirement. (i just looked it up)

Apparently the difficulty is state created, and can be state uncreated.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 6 people
Jun 2013
16,601
14,124
Here
#7
Yes, let's not depend upon "fake" news, but depend upon biased sourced "news".....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator


The Russians or whomever has flooded the internet as enemies of more humane Western Culture, seem hell bent on confusing Americans, exploiting greed and ignorance to set them against one another, with wedges and distrust for its free press, the very thing that was protected in the Constitution for the reasons that tyrants want to control information and ensure it presents nothing, but flattery, for those who wish to control information. In other words, Amendment I protects whistleblowers from facing retaliation for revealing truths about those in government. It was NOT intended to protect liars from facing consequences for their lying, but just the opposite. It was intended to protect those revealing the lies, from being jailed or worse for revealing corruption.

Think of it this way. How would Trump and his supporters have treated a Woodward and Bernstein today?
 
Last edited:
Likes: 2 people
Jun 2006
100,729
10,991
Vancouver
#8
The OP is blatantly a hack piece.

“I told them if they crossed me I’d cut benefits, and they crossed me. So I cut benefits. They KNEW it would happen. So it’s THEIR fault.
 
Likes: 6 people
Sep 2013
38,838
30,834
On a hill
#10
Yes, let's not depend upon "fake" news, but depend upon biased sourced "news".....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Spectator


The Russians or whomever has flooded the internet as enemies of more humane Western Culture, seem hell bent on confusing Americans, exploiting greed and ignorance to set them against one another, with wedges and distrust for its free press, the very thing that was protected in the Constitution for the reasons that tyrants want to control information and ensure it presents nothing, but flattery, for those who wish to control information. In other words, Amendment I protects whistleblowers from facing retaliation for revealing truths about those in government. It was NOT intended to protect liars from facing consequences for their lying, but just the opposite. It was intended to protect those revealing the lies, from being jailed or worse for revealing corruption.

Think of it this way. How would Trump and his supporters have treated a Woodward and Bernstein today?
They'd be enemies of the state.
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions