Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refuses to implement Obamacare despite Supreme Court ruling (legal, premium)

[Minethatbird]

Well let's see ..... we have BO deciding he's not going to follow immigration laws if he doesn't feel like it.

We have his AG deciding he's not going to obey supeonas if he doesn't feel like it.

Maybe Gov Jindal is following the example set by those in Washington.

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by geeoro

So Jindal has decided he does NOT have to live by the same rules that the rest of us do.
Jindal will IGNORE the President and IGNORE the Supreme Court and while he is about it he will ignore the electorate when it suits him too...... and i thought the Republican's were so hot on obeying the Law of the land and the Constitution............. obviously NOT!

Just following Obama's lead. Ignores the SC on the AZ immigration ruling. Check. Ignore DOM act. Check. Ignore requests for information about F&F. Check.

[summers73]

Originally Posted by geeoro

So Jindal has decided he does NOT have to live by the same rules that the rest of us do.
Jindal will IGNORE the President and IGNORE the Supreme Court and while he is about it he will ignore the electorate when it suits him too...... and i thought the Republican's were so hot on obeying the Law of the land and the Constitution............. obviously NOT!

It's Constitutional to opt out and there's little penalty in doing so. Checks out by me. Again, what's so foolish?

He didn't ignore the supreme court since Roberts' vote came with that high price tag.

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

Romney will repeal via executive order.

If it goes to the Supreme Court again, we're back where we started.......then what??

[wildflower82]

Originally Posted by Little-Acorn

Isn't it cute how quickly little chielgirl tried to change what she had said, from "federal funding" to "health care"?

A common reaction from liberals who can't refute the truth when it's pointed out to them.

Kind of got a little Nancy Pelsoi going on.........hurry up and change the word, those peasants will never catch it, once we say it differently.

[Isitmeorarethingsnuts?]

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

Sad but it is probably going to be a toss up between him and Rubio... Two losers...

Yikes!!!!

Is this a racial issue?

[earthlyfather]

Are you Progressives really this dense?

Any state declining to participate in the medicaid expansion is within its constitutional rights, now, and forever. It is a business decision that needs to be made at the proper time. Prudence, due diligence, and caution is smart, contrary to what you think.

From the ruling, itself.

[SIZE=1]5. C[/SIZE][SIZE=1]HIEF [/SIZE][SIZE=1]J[/SIZE][SIZE=1]USTICE [/SIZE][SIZE=1]R[/SIZE][SIZE=1]OBERTS[/SIZE][SIZE=1], joined by J[/SIZE][SIZE=1]USTICE [/SIZE][SIZE=1]B[/SIZE][SIZE=1]REYER [/SIZE][SIZE=1]and J[/SIZE][SIZE=1]USTICE [/SIZE][SIZE=1]K[/SIZE][SIZE=1]AGAN[/SIZE][SIZE=1], concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=1][LEFT][/LEFT]
[SIZE=1](b) Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate inthe Medicaid expansion by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.

[LEFT][/LEFT]
[SIZE=1][LEFT][/LEFT]
[SIZE=1]Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entirenonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the povertylevel. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress’s reservation of the right to "alter" or "amend" the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically. [/SIZE]The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion.
[SIZE=1][SIZE=1]
(c) The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SHABAZZ310]

Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?

Yikes!!!!

Is this a racial issue?

What are you talking about? Bobby Jindal is clearly differentiating himself and a Rubio pick will ensure Florida goes GOP...

[Isitmeorarethingsnuts?]

Originally Posted by texdav

The problemm is like Obama discussed in his debates with Hillary;how. One only has to point to the states ignorig federal drug laws and even cities ignoring immgrations laws for decades before Obama dream decision. With the president's decision on ignorig the immagratio law it just adds to the problem when the rule of law is ignored even more.The courts i its decisio to not allow federal governamnt to punish for not passing mediciad laws to confm witht eh orginal law has established a resonable reason that states do not themselves have to do nayhtig to enforce federal laws. Even the administration has taken this stance in sayig states can not enforce federal immagration laws.Should be interesting.

This post brings up some very interesting points, IMO.

Challenging the states over immigration law could come back to bite them.

[Isitmeorarethingsnuts?]

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

What are you talking about? Bobby Jindal is clearly differentiating himself and a Rubio pick will ensure Florida goes GOP...

So you actually CAN be against a minority candidate without being a racist? Good to know!