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.
lol, dropping the caps is one huge reason why everybody paying so much more for healthcare insurance now. You don't seem to understand that. yeah, it is a good thing. lol
I'm done here, not here to convince an Obama fan boy of anything. Only the open minded and people who care about things other than Obama's legacy. It is unpopular law for a reason and pepole aren't stupid when it comes to how much they pay for stuff. lol They know they are paying more now, and remember one of the Propaganda Lies of Obama, that a family of 4 would see their costs go down like 2500 a year or something. Obama's even basically admitting they lied about stuff while pitching the law. He doesn't care. Despite all the lies and speeches , he still had to resort to a using a budget reconiliation thing to get it passed, with only 51 votes. lol Yeah, the nation was demanding this thing, no doubt.
The great thing about being a conservative is we win any debate of importance with liberals, even if they win more elections. I'd rather win the debates. Dems always govern without earned respect.
Tens of millions do now, but we need not make our own toys, when China can do it far more economically. We could move up the food chain, and continue manufacturing higher-end stuff.
Of course the possibilities are endless but it will never happen as long as Americans are willing to be made dependent on the state.
Hmmm, those states not accepting expanded Medicaid are having real financial problems re keeping their hospitals open. Especially their ERs.
That's classic. The UACA cut the DSH payments to safety-net hospitals unless they participated in the Medicaid expansion and now people like you are using those cuts as some sort of political scorecard.
You know, maybe you should scream a little louder about that.
"5. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, 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. Pp. 45-58.
(a) The Spending Clause grants Congress the power "to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States." Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. Congress may use this power to establish cooperative state-federal Spending Clause programs. The legitimacy of Spending Clause legislation, however, depends on whether a State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of such programs. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17. "[T]he Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate." New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 178. When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation's system of federalism. Cf. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 211. Pp. 45-51.
(b) Section 1396c gives the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to penalize States that choose not to participate in the 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 States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion. The Government claims that the expansion is properly viewed as only a modification of the existing program, and that this modification is permissible because Congress reserved the "right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of Medicaid. § 1304. But [*2575] the expansion accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for particular categories of vulnerable individuals. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. 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. 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. Pp. 51-55."
lol, here we go. Democratic propaganda. If you don't support their horrible laws, you want people to die and people will die.
Never mind all the vets who haved died under the Obama admin due to waiting lines at the VA hospitals and whatnot.
So as a Republican, you passionately feel it's a hoax, and so in reality the states who didn't take more Medicaid are now healthier and enjoying lower death rates.
Now everyone gets to see how disingenuous you are by citing crapopedia instead of, say, CMS which pops up first when you google EMTALA.
"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented."
I hope you get a raise for your outstanding work in the C-D Ministry of Propaganda. If not a raise at least a lateral move to the C-D Orwellian Society.
If you took your argument one step further spending $470 billion of taxpayers money for Medicare is a waste and then soon to be $100 billion for VA is a waste. By the way half of the 400 billion is spent on seniors who typically vote Republican. So the Republican base is covered by $770 billion of health care spending. But they oppose $200 billion in Medicaid and $16 billion in Obamacare subsidies.. The group that is collecting $770 billion opposes those collecting $216 billion.
So are you offering to buy them out?
You've already taken the money from their paychecks before they ever saw it and now you're acting like your doing them a favor by giving them what you already owe them.
I'll be the first to sell my Medicare back to the government that has already helped themselves to my hard earned dollars.
Give me back every penny you took (adjusted for inflation) plus compounded interest.
Until you're ready to do that, ****!
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.
Dems always govern without earned respect.
