"The Secretary never adequately considered whether Kentucky HEALTH would in fact help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, a central objective of Medicaid." ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_p…
"The Secretary never provided a bottom-line estimate of how many people would lose Medicaid with Kentucky HEALTH in place. This oversight is glaring, especially given that the risk of lost coverage was 'factually substantiated in the record.'"
Guys, Judge Boasberg is extremely not impressed: "For starters, the Secretary never once mentions the estimated 95,000 people who would lose coverage, which gives the Court little reason to think that he seriously grappled with the bottomline impact on healthcare."
"While Plaintiffs and their amici assert that these proclaimed health benefits are unsupported by substantial evidence... the Court need not enter that thicket. The Secretary’s analysis, instead, fails for a more basic reason: it is little more than a sleight of hand." 🔥
I am deceased.
"... imagine that the Secretary could exercise his waiver authority solely to promote health, rather than cover
healthcare costs. Nothing could stop him from conditioning Medicaid coverage on consuming more broccoli (at least on an experimental basis)."
"... imagine that the Secretary could exercise his waiver authority solely to promote health, rather than cover
healthcare costs. Nothing could stop him from conditioning Medicaid coverage on consuming more broccoli (at least on an experimental basis)."
The beginning of the Remedy section is *chef kisses fingers* 
Okay, I'm done, we're going to have to do this all over again in a few months in appeals court.
