Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is Bobby Jindal Sarah Palin 2.0? This guy is an idiot if he thinks Obamacare will be repelled by Romney. First, Romney is unlikely to win the election. Secondly, the GOP is unlikely to have have 50 Senators... The Republican would need te executive branch, House and Senate to even be in a position to make a change... Long shot at best...
Quote:
The Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law on Thursday, but Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
"We're not going to start implementing Obamacare," Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. "We're committed to working to elect Gov. Romney to repeal Obamacare."
Under the Affordable Care Act, states must set up a health insurance exchange program by Jan. 1, 2014, and will receive grants from the federal government to implement it. Several Republican governors, including both Jindal and McDonnell, have put off setting up the exchanges in the hope that the law would be repealed or struck down by the court. Now that the law has been upheld, Jindal said he won't change course and is looking to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to lead the repeal effort if he takes office in 2013.
And he'll lose federal funding for his fine state.
Dumb choice, but his to make.
It's my understanding (could be wrong) that the court decided that the federal government couldn't penalize states for that. Someone may be able to clarify further.
, Romney is unlikely to win the election. Secondly, the GOP is unlikely to have have 50 Senators... The Republican would need te executive branch, House and Senate to even be in a position to make a change... Long shot at best...
Obama is unlikely to win the election with his approval in the mid 40's given that no incumbent president running for re-election since Carter in 1980 has overperformed his approval rating in terms of the percentage of the vote he received (I still think Romney's chances are about 50/50 and Obama's chances are also, of course, about 50/50 for whatever reason...but you Obama supporters seem to be clueless about this reality). Even Democrats are now starting to realize Obama could lose. This is from the liberals' beloved HuffingtonPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1594957.html
And, the GOP is very likely to have 50 senators even if Obama wins the election (and all it takes is 51 OR 50 plus a Republican VP to pass legislation repealing it using the reconciliation process...Dems could not filibuster), not that it would matter if Obama won the election though. And chances are virtually none for the Democrats to take back the House. And, if Romney is elected, even if Democrats were to control the House and/or Senate - the law provides that the president can simply issue waivers to states - and Romney has said that he would simply issue waivers on his first day in office to all 50 states.
It's my understanding (could be wrong) that the court decided that the federal government couldn't penalize states for that. Someone may be able to clarify further.
That was my understanding also. That was the price for Roberts' vote.
"Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we're not implementing the exchanges," Jindal said. "We don't think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We're going to do what we can to fight it."
LA has a very high Medicaid recipient rate. Maybe it doesn't make sense to have an exchange
for folks to buy insurance from private insurance companies, when most of them get it
free....and they, by virtue of lack of income won't even qualify for the exchange - thus not
accepting grant money.
The rest is just political sensationalism.
And he'll lose federal funding for his fine state.
Dumb choice, but his to make.
Refusing to accept a bribe isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
