Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[slotdirt]

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

A bunch of them came out immediately and said they would refuse it, but the pressure is on, as their citizens are angry - the citizens don't want to keep paying for the uninsured freeloaders, when the ACA will instead insure them and pay the majority of the cost across states.

Glad to hear Jindal is changing his mind - one of the poorest and least-insured health care states. I've only read that Christie has said no so far.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

You list Louisiana, where the only thing the Governor has said is that he'll take the new Medicaid population only if he can block grant the entire program. You also list New Jersey, where while Gov. Christie has criticized that portion of the law, also hasn't said definitively whether he wouldn't take the new population or not.

Arkansas has a Democrat governor, so there's that.

beebe has said he's open to expansion, but i'm figuring that the ledge isn't. it's odd how many down here are 'democrats' but then when you start talking to many citizens here, they're actually very conservative minded. anti-abortion, anti-civil rights, pro-gun, fiscally conservative....the only thing democratic that i know of is they're often pro-union.

You're talking about state exchanges versus the Medicaid expansion. One can set up one without tackling the other. They're not mutually exclusive. Jindal's statement above is that he's not going to set up an exchange, which was well within his rights as a state governor before the Supreme Court ever acted on the law

yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.


i have a webinar upcoming that talks about changes from aca. ought to be interesting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yeah, arkansas already said months ago they weren't going to set up an exchange. it's not a requirement, the feds will have one set up. and the scotus removed the medicaid funding rule, so states are free to do as they wish there. they can't be coerced.
.

Actually, what the SCOTUS said was that if a state refuses to expand Medicaid under the ACA, they cannot lose all their current Medicaid funding - only the ACA funding. Losing all their federal Medicaid money was the incentive to expand the program.

That's right - if your state doesn't want to be "coerced" into letting the feds pay for expanding healthcare to the currently poor and uninsured in your state, you will continue to personally pay for those uninsured in your premium costs, doctor and ER costs.

Such a choice, hum?

[Riot]

Found this update, today:

Six governors say they will opt out of Medicaid. How long will they hold out?
Ezra Klein WonkBlog
Posted by Sarah Kliff on July 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...they-hold-out/

If you live in one of the dark-red states, below, citizens will continue to pay for uninsured freeloaders and the poor, as the Gov. has refused the ACA Medicaid expansion the feds will provide:



http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefi...caid-expansion

[bigrun]

[Riot]

Reprinted with permission:

Another day, another Obamacare repeal debate in the House
by Joan McCarter
Tue Jul 10, 2012 at 12:21 PM EDT

For the 31st time in 18 months, Republicans in the House of Representatives are spending today debating a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, with the final vote tomorrow.

This time is extra special, though, since the Supreme Court ruled last month that the ACA is constitutional.

It gives a certain oomph to this iteration of the temper tantrum, the utterly futile "Repeal of Obamacare Act." It will never reach the Senate floor, but if by some miracle it did, it would be vetoed. Like wasting time is going to stop this crop of Republicans.

Demonstrating just how absurd all this is, they actually let Rep. Allen West (R-Crazytown) out in public to act as spokesman.

"I don't think it's symbolic," Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., told ABC Monday evening. "Now that we know that the truth is out there that this is a tax, we need to be able to let the American people know where we stand." [...]

"If you've got orders to take a hill, you're going to keep going until you take the hill," West, R-Fla., explained. "The American people don't want this Patient Protection Affordable Care Act. It's heinous, it's onerous. They want it gone so we as their representatives are going to continue to do what they sent us up here to do which is every way that we possibly can make sure that this bad policy, this bad law is irradiated from our rolls."

Not just repealed. Irradiated. Which is complete gibberish, but it's decisive gibberish. But what's not gibberish is what Republicans are intent upon doing, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) explains:

"It's more than just whether or not they will do it and its politics. It is about the philosophy that is behind it and who they are willing to hurt and whose side they're on. That's what this vote is about. [...] It's making health care affordable for those who have it and for those who do not have it. That is what Republicans do not want to have happen."

Of course, it could also be about Republican members of Congress not wanting to lose the very sweet deal that they have for health care.

During the negotiations, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) offered what he thought would be a cute poison pill amendment, requiring that all members of Congress give up their federal employees health benefits, and shop for their insurance on the new exchanges.

Democrats loved the idea, and it was adopted. And now, Republicans want to get rid of it, and keep their very generous health insurance, which they get to keep for their whole lives, if they want to.

So it's lifetime government health care coverage for them, but not for you. That's the Republican vision of freedom.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...the-nbsp-House

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Since obama signed the tax cut extension, and wants another....how is it still a bush tax cut?

And i wish they would do away with the ss cut on anyone making above 100k. Why is 250k the magic number??

[Danzig]

Matter of fact.....remove the ss tax that the employer pays rather then the employee...how much money would that free to hire more people's?