The article is, of course, behind the paywall (I happened to snag the print edition this morning), but WSJ’s Louise Radnofsky and Christopher Weaver have an interesting story today about three Republican governors (Daniels of IN, Walker of WI and Martinez of NM) who are modifying their brave resistance to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion to the extent of accepting the “super-match” available for covering people up to the poverty line, while counting on the feds (and apparently cooperating with them) to cover those up to 133% of poverty through the ACA-authorized exchanges.

Is there is any great principle involved, it’s gaming the system. A limited Medicaid expansion wouldn’t cost the state much, and if federal taxpayers thereby have to pick up 100% of the subsidy costs for everyone else, who cares?

The article quotes Heritage Foundation fellow Edmund Hiaslmaier as deploring this approach as a way to shift health costs onto taxpayers. Yup. “State sovereignty” is apparently only a good idea if its helps screw the deadbeats of the 47%.

Our ideas can save democracy... But we need your help! Donate Now!

Ed Kilgore is a political columnist for New York and managing editor at the Democratic Strategist website. He was a contributing writer at the Washington Monthly from January 2012 until November 2015, and was the principal contributor to the Political Animal blog.