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.
I don't think that is right. I thought there were almost 20 states that weren't implementing expanded medicaid.
20 anti-Obama states. Imagine that. Although I think there are more than 20, so having only 20 states choosing to not participate in something Obama came up with is impressive!
20 anti-Obama states. Imagine that. Although I think there are more than 20, so having only 20 states choosing to not participate in something Obama came up with is impressive!
Back to the OP. Did not the same commission/panel/whatever recently hold a hearing in Irmo where a women said (paraphrasing): Well some people are meant to be poor and not have squat.
And that is a huge motivation for 90% of politics in South Carolina: Spite. I love this state, but HATE the politics of it.
Our politicians preach how much they despise the government, and how much they hate taxes and hate welfare and how people should "be self sufficient".
YET........South Carolina TAKES more money from the federal government than it sends in taxes. We are, literally, a welfare state.
I don't see the state sending that money back to remain ideologically consistent, though.
What I find disgusting is that 90% from the feds and the 10% from the state would have created a need for more jobs. Don't we need that here? Apparently not. We like paying benefits to low income folks! Keeping them dependent on the state or feds is what our state government wants. I will remember this when I vote. I hope you will too!
Outside observers expect that, regardless of any initial bravado, most states won’t be able to resist a huge injection of federal money into their health-care system and their economy. They point to the example of Medicaid itself: When the program was established in 1965, only half of the states initially participated. But within the next few years, 49 were on board. Arizona held out until 1982. “They all did the math and had to ask, ‘Why am I leaving all this money on the table?’ Usually, in the history of the world, math trumps ideology,” says George Mason’s Nichols. “It’s a deal that most states will not be able to refuse in the long run. That’s why the administration is acting confident that all states will come in.”
What I find disgusting is that 90% from the feds and the 10% from the state would have created a need for more jobs. Don't we need that here? Apparently not. We like paying benefits to low income folks! Keeping them dependent on the state or feds is what our state government wants. I will remember this when I vote. I hope you will too!
I don't quite understand how you claim that expanding Medicaid will result in more jobs. Can you explain that? At the end of the day, I see it as an additional expenditure for the state - a state you point out that can hardly afford its current expenditures. Would that not represent a hardship on the state, even if the cost is 10%, especially given the lack of funds our states already face?
I love how pro ACA folks wave the SC ruling as an affirmation of the Act. All it does is say the government can tax and the ACA fine is a tax. It doesn't say the Act is the right legislation for the country.
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.
