What is your opinion of these governors? Even the one in my state, Georgia, has refused? I've never in all my life seen such disrespect for the Office of the Presidency and blatant disregard to laws passed!
Your governor is irrelevant. If he does not set up his health care exchanges the government will come in and do it for him. If he refuses to expand medicaid to his people in his state, he will change his mind when he finds out that the government will pay 90/100 percent of their medicaid cost. He's really upset right now and lost his mind. He will find it again soon.
Lost his mind, yes, but find it again? I've never seen any politician that could find their behind with both hands unless it was covered in either money or votes.
What little mind there is will very likely remain lost forever.
They're merely putting up a bluff to try and suit their parties and voters in these states. They know they can't stop this from becoming reality but will fight it to make it look like they are doing something. Same old same old!
Very well put!! It seems like once they go to Capitol Hill, they never come back the same. Must be something in the water there.
You ever hear of states rights?
The state can legislate out of it.
Yes I have...
South Carolina used it to enforce slavery
States rights is just garbage the conservatives come up with when they don't get their way.
States can't succeed from the union anymore.
States rights is in the Constitution. It's how these states are doing this. It's legal.
The federal government has the right to selective allocation of federal funds and has made it clear it will use those powers to deny states funds if they refuse to implement the ACA since pretty much all of the states refusing depend on federal money to run it's not going to last.
SCOTUS's ruling prohibits penalizing states that refuse to expand Medicaid. My Governor (FL) just announced he's not going to cooperate with any of it, but he is an arrogant SOB who is killing the people of this state with his selfish egocentric attitudes. He's already turned down millions of dollars for other things and doesn't care if he turns down more. It's all legal, but he better enjoy it because there isn't a public employee in this state who will vote for him the next time and neither will the great majority of senior citizens. We NEED this healthcare plan here. He's rich...he doesn't!
Now I know why the IRS bought those shotguns!!
http://www.menwithfoilhats.com/2010/02/ … -shotguns/
If you believe states rights is garbage then you believe the Constitution is garbage.
When the progressives don't get their way they just have the Senate majority leader refuse to allow any opposing bills to the floor for a vote.
What do we expect from our governor in this bastion of religious rightness and racism. I hear the POTUS insulted frequently with racist remarks in our fair (lol) state, screaming!
Randy....I also hear the racist remarks with frequency. Then these so called Christains go to church on Sunday!
You mean like Eric Holder and the DOJ and the White House?
That kind of blatant disregard?
You mean the political Republican witch hunt on Eric Holder? Believe what you want! If you believe if Romney can eliminate the healthcare bill on day one "IF" elected, I have some ocean front property for sale in Kansas! He and the other Republicans (including the Governors) will say and continue to say, whatever they need to, for Romney to get elected! Even though they know it isnt true.
Or like Alberto Gonzalez refusing to honor subpoenas from congress when Bush and his cronies were called to task. Did you bitch about that too, JS? Oh yeah I forgot, you're not too good at answering questions, just espousing your own one-sided opinions.
Actually Randy i did. Go pop a top on another one.,
Brilliant response, JS. But still no answers. I don't blame you though. You don't have any.
You enjoy your Limbaugh flavored Kool-Aid now, ya heah!
See.....this is the kind of thing that gets a feller banned.
You realize there is NOTHING that could have been done to prevent that ATF agent from being murdered...
The gun sales that were part of Fast and Furious were legal sales. Therefore, no one could be prosecuted for them.
That is...unless you think the second amendment should be overturned?
Selling firearms to convicted felons is legal? Are you sure?
Under current federal law, people with felony convictions are not permitted to buy weapons, and those with felony arrests are typically flagged while the FBI conducts a thorough background check.
Court documents show the breakdown involves suspects Jacob Wayne Chambers, 21, and Sean Christopher Stewart, 28, both of Phoenix. Police arrested Chambers for felony burglary and trafficking stolen property in 2008, a year before he began buying more than 70 guns that ended up in the hands of the Sinaloa cartel. Stewart pled guilty to resisting arrest and criminal damage in 2001 and was arrested on drug charges in 2010. He was also charged with violating an order of protection and a local municipal court issued a warrant for his arrest. Stewart purchased 290 weapons.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … z1zVeaJKVf
From your link:
"Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check"
No guns for felons. Most of us are familiar with the rule that a convicted
felon cannot possess a gun. The federal rule is found in one of the main firearm statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone “who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those “pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other
similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices,” per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).
http://www.ncids.org/Defender%20Trainin … -Paper.pdf
Felons cannot purchase guns, regardless of the excuse, it is the law!
Felons weren't buying the guns though....
And if the state of Arizona had decided to prosecute, this could have ended a long time ago right?
However, there was never a case prosecuted.
Therefore, either the state of Arizona is incompetent (highly likely) or there was nothing illegal. Either way, blaming this on Eric Holder is just a politically convenient way for conservatives to once again transfer blame to someone else. And here I though Obama was the blamer-in-chief?
So far, five members of the alleged gun smuggling ring have pleaded guilty.
Trial for the remaining alleged members of the gun smuggling ring is set for Sept. 25. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges against them.
http://borderissues.us/2012/04/09/fast- … ad-guilty/
Convicted felons are barred from purchasing firearms under federal law… and yet these two bought over 360 guns between them, acting as straw purchases for violent drug cartels. The FBI didn’t stop them. Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives sat and watched them buy their guns via closed-circuit TV
http://www.humanevents.com/2011/07/25/c … ious-guns/
Shades of Iran Contra. Who'll be the next Ollie North or Scooter Libby fall guy do you think?
I would think the Ag will take the fall, if need be. That would be what a loyal team member would do.
The problem I see is that if Obama knew nothing about the program, then executive privilege cannot be invoked. If Obama knew of the program, the AG perjured himself. I feel we are soon to flashback to Watergate! Many (R)'s have been waiting a long time for retribution.
Of course mass murderin Janet Reno never faced the consequences of her crimes against humanity!
Nether did Dubya with the untold numbers of both Americans and Iraqi citizens killed in the false WMD excuse for invading Iraq. Not to mention hiring cronies as mercenaries to torture POWs and to enrich his VPs former company. We can go on and on if you wish.
I would agree with that, it is time that our government stops blatantly breaking its own laws, and then expecting all of us to abide by them. That is why I refuse to contribute to these atrocities, I would not want to violate any NDAA, Patriot Acts, by supporting the greatest terror network the world has ever seen, the Federal Government of the United States!
Yep, I said it
Yes, I believe we can both agree our government is not very efficient in handling the issues we face today, RB. But as common citizens, we can only choose between the lesser of two evils at this point. More's the pity until something changes it for the better. I don't have any realistic idea what this will hopefully be.
True that. There is Gary Johnson, though not getting much attention, he is an alternative to the two evils. I have no belief that Romney or Obama would result in much difference.
"Pick Obama, pick Romney, government's going to be bigger," Johnson told Yahoo News in a phone interview from his home in Taos, New Mexico. "Government's going to be more intrusive."
Funny to hear the mention of Eric Holder. He was held in contempt of Congress for attempting to stop legal gunrunning. As Forture reported, a rogue agent made up the story about Fast & Fusrious agents walking guns across the border. It never happened.
But if we want to stay on topic, Republican governors may unite and not accept increased Medicaid funding. That will keep 10 million children going to ER rooms. Nice guys. In 26 states they have already stopped the programs that fund insurance policies for people who cannot buy them due to being sick. They cannot be forced to allow companies to sell insurance to sick people until 2014.
THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING. As long as you don't live in those states, the tax is federally mandated by the IRS so the states will still have to pay the tax up without receiving the service which means the care will be funded but not received and as their healthcare falls way behind in those states they will change their minds pretty quick, no one wants to pay fro something they won't get.
Because governors are not stupid. At least not the ones refusing to implement this so-called law. That's because when this plan fails, they'll be the ones facing the music as voters hold them responsible for the failure of the state medical welfare system due to the insanity of Obamacare. If you want some idea of how Obamacare will go nationally, just look at the results of Romneycare in Massachusetts.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/ … 0n1-1.html
None of these plans do anything to fix the real problem of healthcare which is the artificial limitation on the supply of healthcare providers. Until and unless monopoly rights are stripped from organizations like the AMA and domestic protection laws are struck down which inhibit competition between healthcare insurers across state lines, you'll only see rationing of healthcare in this nation.
I remember in 1998 when the American Medical Association pushed a bill through Congress to cut medical residencies by 20%. As a result, American school had to cut back 20% on the numbrer of doctors they educate. This is why the AMA is also against expanding immigration of educated people. It would mean more doctors coming in and a lowering of health care costs.
Exactly, it's nice to find someone who actually gets it. I suppose I should be grateful to Obama though. I have lots of family who are doctors and nurses in Mexico. If I can convince them to open a private clinic for the medical tourism industry, we should all be sitting pretty. That's income our doctors will be losing because of idiots who only see "FREE, FREE" and don't seem to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Of course it's not free, it's paid by those who can afford so those who can't can get it, not a single country which has passed public healthcare has repealed it or had it fail every single one saw a fall in costs and rise in national health. Facts are stubborn things, too bad you have none to back you argument.
It is racism, pure and simple. America's dirty truth.
My curiosity is how all of those federal tax revenue deficient welfare state governments think they are going to pay for the impoverished numb skulls who vote for them.
That's more like Republican Governors attempting to convince the American public that the entire healthcare plan is no good using fear tactics. Most Americans are smarter than that!
I haven't heard anything from our WA governor (D).
Rick Scott won't be reelected in 2014. With his recent voter purge activities, he has lost a lot of support and his approval rating dropped. He's a jerk and finally people are seeing beyond his motives.
These south eastern states are crying the loudest over Obamacare and it's these states that have the highest death rate of it's citizens for not having health care. Go figure. These Republican governors seem to be putting their egos over the people of their state.
@Paul Wingert, you're right! These Republican politicians in Georgia could care less about the middle class Georgian!
How long would it take to recall these governors that betray their people?
What if we had politicians who actually solve the problem, instead of just rewarding their supporters? Given the way the government runs everything else, do you really think healthcare is can be any better at all? Are you even planning for what you're going to do when this whole thing collapses? Or do you really think this is going to work?
I'll just look at that beautiful face of yours and feel great! Where have you been my good friend?
Well I got censored a while back and decided that I'd take a break from the site. Plus I started working again and have had my hands full with that for some time. I was given the OK to work from home so I have a bit more free time on my hands now. Thought I'd give this place another shot.
It's worked very well all around the world, every country that has introduced it has kept it and it has not failed, if all those countries, many of which are much poorer and which have more corruption can do it then I see no reason why the US cannot.
My uncle went to a public hospital in Mexico. He almost died because the doctors there are a) less qualified than those who work in private hospitals and b) they didn't run any tests on him at all. My cousins wound up taking him to a private hospital where, after running tests, they found that he had an infection and had spread throughout his body. The doctor later said if he'd been about 30 more minutes, he'd have died. Don't take my word for it, just give it a few years and you'll see for yourself. Rejoice while you can, you'll suffer from Obamacare soon enough.
Mexico is a poor country, it's hardly a fair comparison, I spend half my year in Australia (I am a citizen) and I use the public health care system here all the time and guess what.... (wait for it) .... it's statistically much better. Predictions of doom and gloom don't scare anyone who has used a similar system in a first world country, so facts vs your "it happened to my father" would you care to compare the potential years of life lost index for the US and some public systems? Let's see: in 2005 the US lost 6291 years of potential life for every 100 000 people public systems Iceland: 2994 Finland: 2995 Italy: 3605 Australia: 3946.
By the evidence public systems provide better care not only better but much better.
Oh so you don't even use the healthcare system here in the States but you're an expert on it? Give me a break. Try talking about something you've experienced instead of regurgitating statistics.
I do use it, I live half the year in the US, those are facts, you just have nothing to counter them with except flimsy anecdotal evidence, your argument is paper thin and lacks any evidence.
Paul Wingert wrote:
States can't succeed from the union anymore.
Exactly. Precisely. Too right. (Freudian slip?)
I see nothing wrong with these governors refusing this "law."
As for the disrespect of the office of the POTUS, the office isn't being disrespected. The "occupant" of that office hasn't earned any respect.
To a lot of Americans, this man is a "Judas." He doesn't believe in what he's been sworn to uphold and protect, the United States Constitution and our country.
You may not like that, Screaming, but respect must be earned. When a man tries to tear down what you grow up believing in, patriotic Americans tend to get a little pissed about that.
Patriotic huh? Disrespectful name attacks. The Republican party the very night he was being sworn in plotting to make him a one term President. Healthcare bill passed helping millions of people without help from Republicans! I voted for President Bush believing by lowing taxes more jobs would be created. It DIDN't HAPPEN! He also promised to sign a bill to allow small businesses to group together for better health insurance rates. It DIDN'T HAPPEN! Did I resort to name calling (Judas or none Patriotic) about Presidnet Bush? No I did not! So perhaps you need to reevaluate the past presidents as well!
Yes, IMHO, Obama is the least patriotic president this country has ever had, hopefully ever will have. My comparison of him to Judas is simple. Judas didn't believe in Christ even after seeing all He'd done. Sold Him out for 30 pieces of silver. Obama doesn't believe in the U.S. Constitution as a true American does - in his heart. I firmly believe the man hates this country and all it was founded on - liberty and freedom.
You're right, screaming, Bush wasn't the best president we've ever had but, even on his worst day, he was far and away better than Obama as an AMERICAN president.
Barack Hussein Obama would be a great president if this country were Venezuela, China, or Cuba but this is America and Obama is, in no way that I've seen, an American in his heart.
Yes, no doubt your judgement is spot on. By the way, were one of those who thought Sarah Palin was a good prospect to be in line for the presidency if McCain had been elected and died during office--which was entirely possible with the strain of the job? Do you believe she would have been much better at the position than Obama?
You betcha! Or am I wrong about what great judgement you've exhibited as far as political candidates are concerned. Anyone who voted to possibly put such a dingbat into the most powerful position in the world has very little right to cast aspersions on the present officeholder. But then, perhaps I am wrong about you and you voted for Obama.
No, Randy, I voted for McCain but lets compare oranges to oranges - VP candidates. You voted for Obama meaning you also voted for the foot-in-mouth idiot, Joe Biden.
Perhaps you should come at this from a different angle. Biden is certainly no better as we both know that man couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a map. And, no, I wasn't happy with Palin but I saw Barack Hussein Obama for what he is before the election and voted for McCain instead.
Well then, lets compare bananas to fruit loops, if we're going to get into it. The possibility of Obama dying in office was much less--because of age and health issues--than the same happening to McCain. And you have the nerve to use the "foot-in-mouth" description about Biden when the moron you preferred to be VP had her actual words used as a comedic dialog on Saturday Night Live?
Her interviews where she was asked to name some newspapers she read and couldn't name one tells loads about her actual knowledge of world events, not to mention other completely ridiculous statements she made. Did you really think she could see Russia from her house?
Yet, you are lambasting someone so much more intelligent than the choice YOU made. I'm sorry, but the opinion of anyone who gave any chance at all for that looney toons to be president and have responsibility for nuclear weapons, says it all. What a freaking joke! Sure, I respect your judgement on national affairs!!
Next thing you know, you'll try and choose someone from some freaky Mormon cult for president!
And we both know Saturday Night Live is just as left-leaning liberal as the main stream media, Randy.
Like I said, I wasn't at all happy with Palin. Hell, I wasn't all that happy with McCain either. I did see Barack Hussein Obama for what was and is so I voted for, IMHO, the lesser of two evils when I would have much rather have voted FOR someone rather than AGAINST another.
Simple fact is I have absolutely no respect for Obama as an American as I don't think he is one in his heart. I know you don't agree with that, Randy. That's cool. We're Americans so we can still do that.
As for the faith of the current or future presidents, I didn't vote against Obama because of his faith as I didn't and still don't know what his is. I will vote for Romney but his religion won't be a factor.
What will be a factor is how I think he'll lead and govern this country. I've seen nothing to show Obama deserves my vote for Dog Catcher much less a second term as president. So, yes, I'll be voting for Romney.
Sorry Longhunter, but you aren't psychic and cannot answer for what we BOTH know about SNL, just as you do not have the ability to know what a dangerous person you wanted to put into office. I suppose anyone or any media you disagree with comes under the guise of "left-leaning" if your previous posts are any indication.
Palin's words on SNL were used verbatim with no need to change them because they were so hilarious and ridiculous. This is why she refused to finish her role on the show when she found out how her actual words were taken as actual comedic lines. No one from SNL had to make up anything as coming from her mouth as the real statements were hilarious enough. And this type of person is who YOU tend to wish running our country.
I've no doubt that many who supported Hitler used the same excuse after he was in a position to cause all manner of death and destruction in the world. Ane the same may be said for those who voted for Dubya when he started a terrible war with a dictator who he falsely blamed for threatening us with WMDS and being responsible for 911. Our country would be much better off now if we were still arguing with Sadaam with thousands of our fine young men and women still alive or unmutilated and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens--not to mention--billions of dollars gone from our treasury. But some thought he was a good choice for president too, didn't they?
Yes, bad choices have bad consequences. Those who make them have little hope of being respected after the fact nor deserve to be listened to in matters concerning the future. Do feel any responsibility for the loss of so many lives and treasure because of your previous choices? I doubt it seriously. But you have the nerve to complain about the present choice after the misery your past choices have caused. There's a name for such folks, you know.
And Yes, I'm sure you will continue to try and put your "kind" into office as you haven't learned anything at all about making bad choices, even after the horrible deaths and cost to our country's economy as a result of your votes for the previous POTUS. Sure, we will continue to disagree. You choose death and destruction while I choose someone who is trying to help those struggling with health and economic issues in our country. I suppose it depends on one's priorities and what they consider patriotism to consist of.
You keep going back to Palin and I've already stated I wasn't happy with her. She a non-entity as far I'm concerned and you're just using her in try to insult me. Are you going to continue to beat a dead horse? Move past it, Randy.
You question my choice for president. Okay, I got that. I question yours. We're never going to see eye to eye. We'll just have to agree to disagree because I can tell you're spoiling for a fight but you're not going to get from me today.
What I want is small, conservative, constitutional government, not Socialism. So, I've made up my mind, Randy, and, frankly, I'm voting for what I see as the lesser of two evils. I'm voting for Romney.
If liberals actually celebrate the Fourth, I hope you and yours have a good one.
"If liberals actually celebrate the Fourth,"
I'm sure you want to take that back.
"I'm sure you want to take that back."
That's funny but, no, I'm absolutely positive there's no way in hell I would ever want to take that back.
As a liberal, if you actually celebrate the Fourth of July, have a good one. If not, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
I just saw an article from the Daily Kos about how you are a bootlicker for celebrating the 4th unless you are a rebel.
Since those of us who are Conservative are now the anti-establishment I guess that makes me a rebel and I have every right to celebrate.
Seriously that article is hideous. Naturally it takes us all to task for celebrating because this is after all, to them, the most horrible place in the world.
Perhaps you are right. I am certain he probably plays golf better than she does, He's had lots of practice.
The Supreme Court says its a tax, not socialism. C'mon, your opinions are kind of one-sided.
And Obama says it's not a tax so which is it? A tax? Socialism? Or just plain BS?
Affordable health care isn't going to happen when the government chooses to get involved.
The willful ignorance in the thought that government can do something right when so much evidence is available to dispute it, is an atrocity.
You know except that governments have successfully done it all over the world and medicare saved millions of lives.
If it ain't broke and you're singing its praises, why screw it up with Obamacare?
It doesn't go far enough is all, it's much better than nothing is all I am saying. But I think having any Americans dying because they are uninsured is unacceptable let alone 45 000 yearly and any Americans dying because their insurance spending limit runs out let alone 30 000 more yearly.
You know this is the most common misconception about this entire topic.
People don't die because they are uninsured. People die because they didn't take care of their health.
Sure all those fools who got cancer should have just... Or you know who were born with heart defects or were injured in a freak accident or were born with multiple sclerosis the worst are those kids with the temerity to get Leukemia, what were they thinking just living like that?
You know, you using this as an example to dispute what I said is ridiculous.
And how is the responsibility of anyone else other than the parents who decided to have children? Having a child brings the responsibility of buying insurance, so you can have assistance.
And, if the parents were responsible, then they would have no problem affording health care or health insurance for that fact.
Like I said, I approve of the fact that insurance companies cannot deny people access to health care or health insurance. It is something which should have been done a long time ago. I'm glad it is addressed.
I don't mind the regulation, but that should be the extent of the government's involvement.
"And how is the responsibility of anyone else other than the parents who decided to have children? Having a child brings the responsibility of buying insurance, so you can have assistance"
While I agree it's the parent's responsibility you think the children should die because their parents failed to do so? Caring for the people of the nation is a responsibility we all share and that is particularly true with children.
My favorite explanation of this in practical terms is loosely paraphrased from a book more than a hundred years old "Those wise amongst us should see the urgent need to care for the children as a community, if a child is starved, beaten and left to fend for himself he will grow to prey on his community, to turn to crime and violence on the other hand if a child is nurtured, fed and cared for he will flourish and become an asset to his community." The statistics back that up entirely caring for the children of the country is not only ethical it's a smart move from a practical perspective. Perhaps our failure to do so has something to do with our enormous crime rates.
This is going to sound harsh and there's no easy way to say it, so I'm going to come out and say it.
Ignorant people shouldn't breed. The willfully stupid are the same. If you're unable to handle the responsibility, then don't do it.
It's just as bad as the morons who get pregnant and then go get an abortion, using it as a birth control method.
I have no problem with helping a family and a child who isn't covered by insurance. I think it would be good to have a system setup to help with that, but leaving it up to government, either at state level or federal level, is just plain stupidity in motion because the government cannot under any circumstance do something right. It doesn't know how to.
I'm not saying that as a Nation we shouldn't aid them. It should be done responsibly and government isn't responsible. The only responsibility government lives up to is passing out distortion and misinformation to citizens, so division is permanent.
Our failure is the illusion that government gives a damn.
45,000 will still die yearly. People die. This law won't stop it.
45 000 fewer will die yearly yes the law wills stop it because they will be insured.
Really? My mother is insured and she is going to die regardless.
And, if the insurance company allowed her surgery, I would be able to take her off the prescription medicine she is presently taking daily to monitor her blood flow through her heart.
It would save prescription copays for medicine saving her over $300 per year for one prescription. Never mind she is taking 5 others.
There will be NOTHING the government's Affordable Health Care Act will do to help her. Absolutely, NOTHING.
Not true by removing spending limits and introducing decision review the chances are by 2014 your mother when ACA is fully implemented (and I honestly hope she is still well by then) will be applicable for the surgery.
All the study I am referencing on the 45 000 says is simply 45 000 people die in the Us every single year because they do not have insurance.
And you really think the drug manufacturers are going to give up this power? It's re-occurring monthly revenue of billions of dollars. The government is NOT going to mess with that income. Presently with this bill, it will play into the hands of the insurance companies and the entire upper 1% of the world's wealthiest pocket.
It would be nice if government could be trusted, but it cannot. It's failed too many times.
And there's no physical way for them to prove that. You don't realize that. They may be able to make a connection between those who don't have insurance and those who do have insurance, but there's no way possible for them to link uninsured as a cause of death.
It would be ambiguity at best.
Again, I'll say it. So what what other countries do. The fact that you use countries that have lessor ideals set forth in documentation than that of our Constitution, then I cannot help you get over it.
Liberty, the Pursuit for Happiness and the LIFE that is to be created from our Constitution is the freedom people deserve to have and government's role is to be minimized AT ALL costs. Increasing government involvement in anything on an individual level is going to increase the costs associated with it. It's been proven, time and time again. Look and learn from history. Since it keeps repeating because people lack the knowledge to move beyond it.
And because government is handling that program it is trillions in debt.
What part do you NOT understand?
The Affordable Care Act is now ratified supreme law which supercedes state & local, thereby documented as such in the archives - so I guess the regressive psycho Republican Governors who are not in compliance are breaking said law, and therefore, maybe it's time a few of these radical helmet headed rogues start dating prison bars and what's between em' as an shining example of the consequences incurred when attempting to strip essential health care away from Americans who desperately need it - I wonder how Bobby "Brady Bunch" Jindal would fare at Leavenworth for a few months?
I wonder if Chris Christy will follow suit and try to deny New Jersyites their fair share of ObamaCare rights?
Lord knows if anyone has the authoritative conviction to dictate who gets care and who doesn't, and who needs a revised fitness plan and who doesn't it's this glowing example of a superbly conditioned physical specimen -
Actually, the states have a legal right not to take on the ACA's Medicare expansion, though I'm quite positive eventually they will all take it on. But in principal (and it also should be in practice), the US federalism needs states' acknowledgment and consent to implement policies.
If a state opts out, they should have an arternative plan. Oregon has the Oregon Health Plan, which, in theory, would only need expansion.
It is about time that the states stand up and fight the federal government when they overstep their boundaries. The states know that the program will not be able to be sustained with the taxes that we have now. Our government wants this nation to become a mirror of Europe and it is unfortunate that we as voters have fallen for the promises that the left have promised. The States are telling the federal government that they will no longer stand by and be told what to do as they have the right to govern the people within their states the way they believe will benefit the citizens of their state. Our Federal governments only responsibility is national defense, commerce, and highways for interstate travel
Most who now oppose the Affordable Healthcare Act and ridicule Obama will be the first in line when their "as" is sick or hurt and when they or someone in their family needs medical attention.
I have insurance. I don't need ACA and the only reason I would have it is if forced by a tyrannical government which is coming down the road.
How much is the limit on your insurance plan? Do you have a no expulsion clause? Does your insurance companies have investigative privilege before payment?
I don't know. I am sure most people don't know those things they just know they are covered. That's mainly their concern.
The average person has an insurance spending limit of 20 000 a year, cancer treatment can cost three times that, as of Obamacare passing that rose to 750 000 and in 2014 will become unlimited thus if you get cancer you will be covered and won't be abandoned by your insurance company like more than 10% of US cancer sufferers (isn't just the most moral thing to abandon people who is dying or weakened by chemo and surgery.)
Tens of thousands of people last year were expelled from their insurance coverage when it came time for the company to pay, if your bill is of a large size they will have private investigators research your life, people have been expelled for failing to report occasional headaches or for not reporting that their great grandfather had an illness they did not know about.
Just being covered is not an accurate portrayal of what can happen, the above kills tens of thousands of people yearly.
And tens of thousands of people will continue to die yearly after it is fully implemented. Maybe more.
tens of thousands fewer will, factually they are now covered by an 750 000 dollar limit, that has already started saving lives. Your conclusion has no evidence at all, that care is being instituted as we speak and will save tens of thousands of lives according to professional estimates.
When those taxes which are supposed to fund this start getting diverted by the politicians....and they will....this house of cards will fall.
Like has happened in precisely none of the dozens of countries which have done this.
Like they don't have politicians who are as greedy as ours who have had decades of status quo. It's different Josak. They are not all shining divine beings.
H'mm, I always thought the job of "Public Servants" was to carry out the work and the will of the people. If the changes are introduced, but not implimented by others, then those others are obviously looking for some kind of "incentive" to do it.
My experience of politicians is that they are always privately wondering "what's in it for me?"...
But maybe I am wrong, as I don't follow American politics so much...
Vermont is going forward to be the first state to implement a single payer health insurance system in the US.
If my analysis is correct and they usually are when I dedicated some attention to an issue, this would mean that, provided the voters of Vermont remain steadfast in their ideals and they keep electing people like the great Mr. Bernie Sanders, in less than a decade, New York, Washington, California, Hawaii & Illinois will follow suit.
Once the obvious benefits of the single payer system become evident and immune to negative ads and propaganda, it would be inconceivable for any state to ignore the implication of the Obama healthcare reforms.
Vermont is no surprise and Bernie Sanders is an avowed Socialist.
See he is actual socialist (quite a mild one but a real socialist)
Vermont has one of the lowest unemployment in the country, fewest foreclosures, tiny crime rates and poverty rates and great education stats, I hope that success continues.
Obamacare - Affordable Health Care Act = Status Quo Checkmate!
Let's see. Governors. Publicly dissing Obamacare (but not their citizens, of course).
I can't imagine that ALL these governors are angling to be tapped by Romney, can you?
There must be some other logical explanation.
Why didn't Obama tout the Vermont plan when he was talking about expanding medicare to help more people?
It seems like the better sell would have been to introduce this legislation as a stop-gap until enough states were on board with the single-payer system. Granted, the GOP (and their supporters) would NEVER go for it. However, it probably would have won over enough moderates (assuming they still exist) and independents to avoid the yelling and howling from the right.
by My Esoteric2 years ago
... are trying to encourage those who fall in the Medicaid gap they created to move out of their State? Hospitals in those States are reporting increased unpaid (meaning you paid) emergency room visits from this...
by Scott Bateman28 hours ago
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-eo-233950Note the steady decline in employer and Medicare costs on the attached chart from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and other sources.
by Alexander A. Villarasa3 years ago
Obama and his leftist ideology, coupled by sheer incompetence has come back to haunt/daunt him and bite him in so many places, that people are wondering if his Presidency would ever recover from the myriad...
by OLYHOOCH5 years ago
Gingrich’s Big Flip-Flop: Was For Insurance Mandate Before He Was Against ItNewt Gingrich was for the individual mandate for health insurance before he was against it -– that was the impression given Monday...
by Credence23 years ago
"Solving that conundrum exposes one of the ugly little secrets of the Republican right today — and one of many reasons why that movement no longer merits the honorable title of "conservative." For...
by mio cid4 years ago
In the latest of Mitt Romney's string of gaffes he says that our healthcare reform to help those who don't have health insurance is to call an ambulance and take them to the emergency room.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.