meanings in different contexts and if we were to do what you're suggesting we would take the idea of expansion populations in portland adventist and here and give a different meaning or disproportionate percentage of low income persons and it is so the point is that when you get down to the medicaid the way to figuring it out that's supposed to be a proxy for low income but you still have  nineteen the district court below applied and looked at sectional one hundred fifteen in the context of the same language that we're talking about here obviously and prove that there is a single quaver on the other sign of the arguments that you're raising that many people may believe that they're better off to have this demonstration project to have benefits where they have not asked for even the small cost and expansion group or a medically needy group which is also an optional group or upshall categorically needy group there's a lot of discretion that the state has but this but this but just because a person is in one have more serious matters i can go in and there are certain things here we they don't charge a co pay that's why going to doing this i mean you're really pushing the envelope you're going to break the bank and i don't want to be part of this and you're making all those people be part of it because you think because you're plaintiffs think it's it's better i mean i just think about most of because number one you make them part of it and number two you're saying the only reason to make them part of it is  reason that we all want the class action is because there are members of your individuals out there who are being affected by heightened premiums and co payments and suppose you go to the doctor populations thirteen ninety six zero eight applies to a favored group of people in contains certain premium and co payment restrictions for those favor groups and then the and attend a actually includes yeah i ten and actually includes under subdivision to certain optional population so it's not exactly the thirteen ninety six  has accepted the district court's decision that the co payments must be stricken from the standard so what we're talking about here on plaintiff's cross appeal are just the premiums in oh h be standard and they're governed by sub three is the same language from thirteen ninety six zero both of them tracking co payments not premiums the premium language is contained in thirteen ninety six  was never made or it was rejected but that's there i mean i appreciate that and i probably would not tarry further on that we have the courts capable of deciding what probably better stands for but there's another important point that we haven't gotten to ye by congress and people who are provided for by congress thirteen ninety six zero b doesn't contain that explicit rights creating language that we're looking for it doesn't on ambiguously confer a federal right on anybody covered this class complaint they clearly didn't because this class of plaintiffs is foreign to the concept of of medicaid as the statutes written for this or i mean this all comes back to the same thing if you because these demonstration projects are created by the state what you're hypothesizing is that the state is in control of granting federal rights to these individuals but as they wouldn't have federal rights under the medicaid statute except to the extent that they're covered in the standard straighten project and that makes that means that we're not really asking the question what did congress intend when the congress intend it anybody to grant federal rights to when it   decided either yes congress did intend to confer federal rights or no congress didn't intend to confer federal rights and it all turns on the language of the statute issue and what we may glean about yes they can but that's because they are actually described in the medicaid act in some portion of the medicaid act that person has been protected by congressional language here when congress passed the ninety six  under the federal regulations companies can exceed three dollars but under the plan for prescription drugs generic spits charge two dollars so that would be within the federal regulations brand drugs get charged fifteen dollars obviously to discourage use of brand drugs and you know channel people into generics and so in the consequence of the district court's ruling is that that it's foreclosed because the district court says now every aspect of the medicaid co payment restriction has to be picked up and put on to these expansion populations no matter what the consequence premiums are differing as the district court recognized thirteen ninety six zero zero f which restricts co pay waivers doesn't apply to premiums to the secretary schedule and the secretary schedule has lower premiums that the organs get right so what would have to happen is the secretary would have to waive that provision s premiums are being used to finance the program but as a practical matter if the court says portman a dentist is controlling here in the states are not going to be able to charge this type of cocaine and it's not just the two year problem it's all the other aspects of thirteen that the benefits to the recipients would exceed any rest are claiming is that these provisions make no sense when you're talking about expansion faculties as they really only make sense when you're talking about people who are categorically eligible and medically needy and already conquered and you actually look at the provision on its face well you can expense of that as applied to people who are actually in the program the medicaid recipients which are now we're not going to really use cocaine is to discourage the but it really does it  sense because you could think of those people as being somehow worse off if if you know they were in the program they're entitled to the benefits and you can imagine saying but we're not going to try some cocoa but you know significant co payments but we're talking about people who aren't even in the program have a very real possibility that it's not these plaintiffs and then the back the money will come out of you know the benefits for pregnant women and children it's you know it's going to come from somewhere and although i recognize the hypothetical po fourteen does not incorporate section thirteen ninety six by reference the d c circuit court of appeals in the pharma decision looked at a similar question and noted that there are provision one that meets the text and structure of the statute is crafted to toward individuals it mentions the word individual repeatedly both pri provisions that use the word individuals and so for example in the case of the court a tallis dies the word individual and some of those provisions are important because they are directed at an individual and clearly here in our provisions congress has repeatedly used the word individual thank you