 
     |
| SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor. Yeah, she just said that. (Page 2/2) |
|
randye
|
JAN 14, 06:06 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
I heard the 2nd ruling was for health care facility workers who accept Medicare and Medicaid. The court said HHS can require certain things of those who accept federal money.
|
|
If that is the legal rationale then it's very thin gruel and it will almost definitely be drawing another legal challenge....and the plaintiff(s) will prevail.
AFAIK Medicare / Medicaid dollars are "patient dependent", in other words the money is allocated to a hospital, clinic or healthcare provider on the basis of an individual patient's use of his / her entitlement. It's not a "bulk" government funding periodically issued to hospitals.
I won't know until I have a chance to read the entire SCOTUS ruling but I suspect that the carve out for healthcare workers has more to do with the CARES act funding than it does Medicare or Medicaid.
If I'm correct on that it means that it's also very "self limiting" to when the funds are exhausted by each healthcare provider.
https://www.kff .org/coronav...20patient%20revenue.[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-14-2022).]
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 14, 06:13 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by randye:
If that is the legal rationale then it's very thin gruel and it will almost definitely be drawing another legal challenge....and the plaintiff(s) will prevail.
AFAIK Medicare / Medicaid dollars are "patient dependent", in other words the money is allocated to a hospital, clinic or healthcare provider on the basis of an individual patient's use of his / her entitlement. It's not a "bulk" government funding periodically issued to hospitals.
I won't know until I have a chance to read the entire SCOTUS ruling but I suspect that the carve out for healthcare workers has more to do with the CARES act funding than it does Medicare or Medicaid.
https://www.kff .org/coronav...20patient%20revenue. |
|
You may be correct, I haven't been able to actually read the findings but, what I feel certain of is that the decision is somehow linked to federal dollars and how it's spent and the federal government's demands/requirements.
Rams
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
JAN 14, 08:36 PM
|
|
|
It was something about the federal government can mandate how those patients are cared for including who can provide care under federal guidelines.
|
|
|
|
blackrams
|
JAN 15, 01:33 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
It was something about the federal government can mandate how those patients are cared for including who can provide care under federal guidelines. |
|
I can see the court going that direction and using that as reasoning. I don't necessarily agree but then, I'm not one of those nine justices. 
Rams
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 15, 02:02 AM
|
|
Biden's panel or commission on the Supreme Court was a "bust". I don't even know how they tried to dress up whatever they produced in the way of a report.
I recommend the "old one-two" :- Increase the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9, to 13, to match the number (13) of U.S. Circuit Courts.
- Term limit the Supreme Court justices. That can be accomplished without a Constitutional Amendment.
|
|
|
