(Media Note: 菠萝视频 has a campus broadcast facility with a dedicated fiber optic line for live TV interviews and a radio ISDN line.)
should strike down proposed expansion of , says
Blumstein, 菠萝视频鈥檚 University Professor of Constitutional Law and Health Law and Policy, is available to discuss why he believes the federal government鈥檚 intent to dramatically expand healthcare coverage in the United States is unconstitutional because it presents 鈥渟ubstantial, unforeseeable and fiscally onerous changes鈥� to the states.
Blumstein, who filed a brief in favor of the state鈥檚 objections in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida, believes that the plan violates the federal government鈥檚 鈥渃lear-notice鈥� obligation,鈥� based on the 1981 Supreme Court decision in Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Haldermann.
鈥淭he law of contract draws a critical distinction between the contract-formation stage and the contract-modification stage,鈥� Blumstein said. 鈥淎t contract formation, parties have maximum freedom to determine whether or not to enter into an agreement and to settle on the terms of that agreement. At contract modification, concerns about excessive leveraging significantly constrain the behavior of the contracting parties.鈥�
Blumstein argues that the unforeseen expense the federal government is attempting to get the states to take on through Medicaid expansion violates legal precedent because an existing contract is being modified so that 鈥渢he fiscal implications of remaining in the program have been substantially and unforeseeably ratcheted up.鈥�
Blumstein believes that the federal government can only make the changes if it ends the current Medicaid program entirely, starts the new expanded program and then allows states to 鈥渙pt in鈥� if they choose. President Obama鈥檚 plan allows for individual states to 鈥渙pt out鈥� of the expanded program.
鈥淪tates would then be able to determine knowingly and voluntarily whether or not to participate in new Medicaid,鈥� Blumstein said.