Medicaid Expansion and State Representative Rick Perales in Yellow Springs
Posted in the Xenia Forum
#1 Nov 4, 2013
our State Representative Rick Perales to agree to come to Yellow Springs on the 5th of November at 3pm at the Yellow Springs Senior Citizen Center to explain why he signed the letter not supporting Medicaid expansion and we are going to explain to Representative Percales why we support Medicaid Expansion.
The concurrent resolution was adopted.
We, the undersigned members of the Ohio House of Representatives, hereby
protest the filing of a controlling board request by the Director of Medicaid,
John McCarthy, seeking to appropriate additional funds specifically not
appropriated in the prevailing appropriation act of the 130th General
Assembly, Amended Substitute House Bill 59.
Specifically, the request seeks to expand Medicaid by making an
"appropriation [that] would provide Medicaid coverage to adults without
dependent children between 0%-138% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and
parents otherwise not covered by current Medicaid eligibility levels up to
138% FPL." (emphasis added). However, the request does not carry out the
clear intent of the General Assembly as indicated in its passage of Am. Sub.
House Bill 59 and should be denied.
Pursuant to R.C. 127.17, "[t]he controlling board shall take no action which
does not carry out the legislative intent of the general assembly regarding
program goals and levels of support of state agencies as expressed in the
prevailing appropriation acts of the general assembly." In State ex rel. Meshel
v. Keip, 66 Ohio St. 2d379 (1981), the Ohio Supreme Court applied R.C.
127.17 to declare a nullity an action by the Controlling Board that was
contrary to the clear intent of the General Assembly.
Here, the clear intent of the Ohio General Assembly not to appropriate the
funds contained in the request was expressed in its prevailing appropriation
act, Am. Sub. HB 59:
1) The General Assembly included the following prohibition in Am. Sub HB
59: "The medicaid program shall not cover the group in the "Social Security
Act," section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII)." (emphasis added). The requested
appropriation seeks "[t]o cover individuals listed under Section
1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) of the Social Security Act" (emphasis added);
2) The General Assembly added over $400M in additional Medicaid funding
to Am. Sub. HB 59 as a result of removing from the budget the same
appropriation currently being requested by the Director of Medicaid;
3) The General Assembly did not appropriate any funds "[t]o cover
individuals listed under Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) of the Social Security
Act," even though estimated state costs to do so are $13 to $22M.
The Ohio Constitution grants legislative authority solely to the Ohio General
Assembly, an authority which cannot be delegated. This request is
thinly-veiled legislation creating new eligibility levels and funding levels for
Medicaid. In fact, the request itself admits as much.
Our protest is not about the merits or lack of merit in expanding Medicaid.
Our protest goes to the fundamental form of government upon which our country was founded-a Republic of checks and balances and separation of powers. The General Assembly is a co-equal branch of government that made its intent abundantly clear. The controlling board request attempts to subvert that intent, and is contrary to the Ohio Constitution and current statutory law. For all these reasons, we protest the filing of the above described controlling board request.
Add your comments below
|3 children die in Ohio house fire (Sep '09)||6 hr||bre||4|
|Abortion Nuts cost Republicans votes!||6 hr||Bloomp||9|
|USA to Trump: "You're Fired."||12 hr||Bloomp||8|
|Three busted for drug trafficking in Warren County||12 hr||Bloomp||3|
|The Cult of Trumpism||13 hr||AmericanWoman||4|
|Moment autistic boy bonds with service dog touc...||13 hr||Bloomp||1|
|Dayton Police investigate string of car break-ins||13 hr||Bloomp||1|
Find what you want!
Search Xenia Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC