Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
States rights----the reason Obamacare is dead in the water
Topic Started: Nov 18 2011, 02:05 AM (129 Views)
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2011/11/15/the-states-have-de-facto-control-over-the-general-government-states-may-nullify-u-s-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare/

With more than half of the 50 states opposing the law and some states passing legislation of their own to prevent it's coming on line within the jurisdiction of the states, this law is dead. Visit the link above and you might gain some insight behind the real battle that lies ahead for the federal government.
Edited by Pat, Nov 18 2011, 02:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Our right wing attorney general has joined in the suit. Can't say he represents all the people though. Our Republican governor has called for setting up the exchanges. He said even if they weren't mandated it would be a good idea. He is a rare bird, a moderate republican. He is the wealthy ex Gateway exec, and not beholden to the Tea Party nuts and their financiers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
If you guys in Michigan want to endorse and embrace Obamacare in some form, that's your business. There are sister states that will not, and therefore a standoff exists.

The problem Tom is many fold but let's use immigration enforcement as an example here. The federal government claims they have the sole jurisdiction of immigration law. But they refuse to pay the states when the lack of or refusal of enforcement puts a strain on state and local finances. Setting aside the constitutional arguments Tom, Obamacare is an even greater threat to state and local finances. There are enough funding holes in the law, that a fleet of semi trucks side by side can drive through it. And all of the those holes will be passed onto already financially impaired state and local finances. As much as the left loves socialized medicine Tom, and embrace the federal government as a means of feeding their insatiable desire for government interference in their lives, somebody has to pay for all of this.

There is no state conspiracy here to oppose Obama and his law. What you have is intelligent people at the local and state level having reviewed the law and determined it is unworkable and too expensive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Everyone knew the Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) was not perfect, and adjustments would need to be made. That's one of the reasons it was being implemented slowly and phased in. Too just dump it and go back to the expensive, inefficient mess we now have that works for only some of the people is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure it's what the health care execs would like, they want to preserve their feeding at the health care trough. Like most issues these days, it would seem the right is more concerned about preserving the wealth of a few, than promoting the general welfare of the majority. It's too bad it has been so propogandized, that people who would benefit have been convinced it won't. Just part of the continual koch-sham exploiting peoples biases that has been perpetrated on the american people. Eventually people will wake up, if they finally succeed in screwing us on medicare enacting the Ryan proposals or similar. Let's hope people wise up before that happens.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I've read similar posts Tom as the healthcare debate has devolved into a series of attacks against the wealthy, but the arguments have all failed to address the two overriding factors. .

1. When a light of truth is shown on the law, the government exaggerated on the savings end of things and under reported on the cost to implement the law.

2. There has been an overwhelming lack of public support for the law, and especially in some of the individual states.

Some states have citizens that I guess welcome further intrusion into their affairs. Others don't and in fact object vehemently on this attack on states rights.

Tell me Tom how the state of Michigan can afford to implement the law? Detroit is near bankruptcy and so are some surrounding cities.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/detroit-mayor-concessions_n_1098547.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tomdrobin
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
The opposition to Obamacare on the state level claiming it will be serious drain on state budgets is politically driven. How would have guessed? :tongue: It reminds me of the death panels, the birther issue, and the plethora of other right wing propoganda financed by the likes of the Kochs and funneled throught their propoganda outlets like Heritage Foundation and Cato, for consumption by their flock of "true believers".

Quote:
 
Feds Will Pay Much Of Medicaid Expansion Costs For States, Study Finds

May 26, 2010


The Washington Post: "The federal government will bear virtually the entire cost of expanding Medicaid under the new health-care law, according to a comprehensive new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation that directly rebuts the loud protests of governors warning about its impact on their strapped state budgets. About half of the increase in health insurance coverage under the new law is expected to come from expanding Medicaid in 2014 to a new nationwide eligibility threshold of 133 percent of the poverty level -- $14,400 for a single adult or $29,300 for a family of four." The Post notes that a "disproportionate share" of the people likely to enroll in the expanded Medicaid will come from the South and West. Many of these states currently have "stringent eligibility rules" for childless low-income adults. (KHN is a project of the foundation.)

Many governors "have predicted fiscal calamity" will result, but "nder the new law, the federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost for all newly eligible people through 2016, a rate that will drop gradually to a 90 percent match in 2020 and beyond" (MacGillis, 5/26).


Reuters: "That means that under conservative estimates, Maine's Medicaid spending will decrease 1.5 percent and Colorado's will slip 0.5 percent, according to the study. Massachusetts and Vermont, which established their own health plans, will spend 2.1 percent and 0.6 percent less, respectively. … When healthcare reform was working its way through Congress in November, California's chief deputy director of health care programs said the state could not afford its current Medicaid program -- let alone an expansion. California will have the most new enrollees, at least 2.01 million people through 2019, according to the Kaiser study. Still, the most populous state will have to pay only 1.5 percent more for Medicaid, while federal spending there on the program will rise at least 23 percent. … Oregon will experience the largest jump in federal spending on Medicaid -- 51 percent. Meanwhile, Mississippi will have the biggest increase in state spending at 5 percent" (Lambert, 5/26).

Dallas Morning News Blog: "'For a relatively small investment of state dollars, states could see huge returns -- with federal dollars covering the bulk of the bill,' said Diane Rowland, who heads the Kaiser Family Foundation's Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, which sponsored the study. For example, compared with what would have happened to our state's Medicaid program if the federal law hadn't been passed, 'Texas could see an increase in enrollment [by impoverished adults] of 46 percent but an increase in state spending of about 3 percent,' said researchers John Holahan and Irene Headen of the Urban Institute, who did the study for the foundation. Federal spending in Texas, meanwhile, probably will increase by 39 percent over levels that could've been expected without the federal overhaul, they said" (Garrett, 5/26).

Louisville Courier-Journal: "Indiana's Medicaid costs could increase by as much as 5 percent because of the federal health care overhaul. ... That spending will result in a much bigger increase in the number of Hoosiers on Medicaid -- a jump of between 29 percent and 42 percent -- because the federal government is picking up most of the additional cost for the required expansion. … Still, the additional cost to Indiana could be between $478 million and $899 million between 2014 and 2019" (Groppe, 5/26).

The (Tennessee) Jackson Sun: "Five years into the recently passed health care reform law Tennessee could have nearly a half million more residents on Medicaid, according to a report released today. And the state could be paying an extra $1.5 billion for those services over five years, the Kaiser Family Foundation report estimates. ... The report estimated that under normal participation rates Tennessee would add 330,932 new enrollees as of 2019 at a cost of $716 million for the years 2014-2019. ... Nationwide, the analysis projects Medicaid enrollment would increase by 15.9 million at a total cost of $464 billion. The federal government would pay $443.5 billion of that total" (Theobald, 5/26).

This is part of Kaiser Health News' Daily Report - a summary of health policy coverage from more than 300 news organizations. The full summary of the day's news can be found here and you can sign up for e-mail subscriptions to the Daily Report here. In addition, our staff of reporters and correspondents file original stories each day, which you can find on our home page.


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/May/26/Kaiser-Medicaid.aspx
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Did you notice Tom, the increases in spending this law places on the states? Do you understand that the states are broke and do not have the revenue to pay for added medicaid expenses? This takes us right back to my earlier post.

Can you answer a simple question for me. If the law has been shown to not have the savings or the revenue to pay for all the promises, then where is the money going to come from for the federal government to pick up all that they claimed they would? Remeber, the article from 2010 you posted, was prior to the gaps in savings and revenue that have been shown the light of day.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis