Should the Administration withdraw all of Indiana's Medicaid funding?

[cali]

<snip>

"Federal law provides that a state can’t be selective in allocating Medicaid funds to medical providers who serve Medicaid patients. By signing the bill, Daniels would be taking a risk that the feds will withdraw the state’s Medicaid funding entirely as a penalty."

<snip>

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/29/breaking-mitch-daniels-to-sign-bill-defunding-indiana-planned-parenthood/

OK, the quote comes from a wingnut outlet, but if it's true, then should the administration halt all of Indiana's Medicaid funding until Indiana complies by restoring Planned Parenthood of Indiana's funding?

[elleng]

1. And hurt whom?

Daniels already knows the pros + cons of his quandary.

[cali]

2. yes, it would hurt people, but I'd bet Daniels would comply pretty damned fast

and what Indiana has done is hurting thousands of women in Indiana.

[Turbineguy]

3. Yeah slap sanction on Daniels.

He'll be in power there longer than Castro.

[Scuba]

4. No. Congress should pass Medicare for All.....

...in the absence of that, the feds should keep funding Medicaid. Why should the poor people of Indiana further suffer just because their governor is a fascist?

[cali]

5. yeah, well if wishes were horses.....

Medicare for all is not going to happen in the near future, but Indiana is illegally depriving women- mostly POOR women, vital medical care by defunding PP. Why should they suffer? I think it's safe to say that Daniels would fold quickly. What do YOU suggest be done about the situation in Indiana? Nothing is not acceptable.

[democraticinsurgent]

6. Political move for Daniels

I think he's signing it so he can say he supported it, knowing full well it might get overturned by the Feds.

It's a clear indication that he's running for the presidential nomination. Gives him some cred with the Tea Partiers that he desperately needs in order to get the nomination.

[madmom]

7. NO, but I think they should withdraw daniels government funded benefits.

[cali]

8. as that's not a possibility what do you think should be done about Indiana's

violation of federal law?

[Arkana]

9. No, because that would hurt people that don't deserve to be hurt

just because their governor hates women.

[cali]

10. uh, what do you think is happening now?

what do you think the administration should do?

[Arkana]

12. I think that pulling all their Medicaid funding would not only hurt undeserving Hoosiers

but it would make Daniels a conservative folk hero and prohibitive favorite for the nomination.

[enlightenment]

11. Women aren't people?

Or are you saying that women deserve to be hurt? I'm confused by your post.

Women are not political bargaining chips; unfortunately, that is exactly how they are treated by both the right and the left.

[Arkana]

13. No, I said that pulling Medicaid funding

in retaliation for Daniels signing the bill would hurt more people. Daniels is an ass, but the people of Indiana shouldn't suffer further because he's an ass. Yanking Medicaid funding from their state would do that. It would make Obama look like a vindictive prick and it would puff Daniels up as the HERO GUVNER WHAT STOOD UP TO BIG GUMMINT.

Jesus, what is it with you people?

[enlightenment]

15. So, one group of people

should be hurt so that others won't be.

It would be interesting to see the number of women who will suffer for this so that others won't have to suffer. Maybe there just aren't that many women in Indiana, so it will only be a few suffering for many.

That makes it better, I'm sure.

[MH1]

14. Just curious. Do you think none of the people who would be hurt

voted for Daniels?

I'm betting some of them 'deserve' it as much as anyone ever deserves the consequences of their vote.

A whole lot of people will be hurt regardless. But most of the rest won't give a shit unless it affects them too, and some of them will even applaud it.

It may seem hardhearted but the rule is there for a reason, and I think it should be enforced.