One of the possible consequences of ObamaCare is that states might come out ahead financially ┬áby dropping out of Medicaid–and without reducing the number of people receiving taxpayer assistance.

First, here’s a quick review of Medicaid. No state has to have a Medicaid program, but all of them do. That’s because if they do, they get matching funds from the U.S. Government. Poor states such as Kentucky get more, rich states such as Minnesota get less, but in any case, once a state sets up a Medicaid program, the U.S. Government calls the shots. (It can and does grant “waivers,” which are exceptions to its rules, but states must play the “mother May I?” game.)

Unlike Medicare, a federal program limited (for the most part) to people who are 65 years old and older, Medicaid is (allegedly) limited to only to the poor. I saw allegedly because states have over time let more and more non-poor people receive health care through Medicaid.

ObamaCare calls for states to set up artificial markets for insurance, called exchanges, and then for the U.S. Government to give people–mostly the non-poor–subsidies with which they can purchase health insurance policies sold through the exchange.

According to an analysis conducted by The Heritage Foundation, states as a whole could do well financially if they simply stop participating in Medicaid.