Big Goverment in Arizona by GOPer Brewer

[Anachronism]

So a con admits it....

I don't believe I've ever denied it, Erik. Society cannot function in any meaningful way without rules, regulations, and limitations which are strictly enforced and the violators brutally punished. We've seen that in the last century here in the United States with our societal decline as morals and values have vanished from our culture.

 

[Dr.Drock]

So a con admits it....

I don't believe I've ever denied it, Erik. Society cannot function in any meaningful way without rules, regulations, and limitations which are strictly enforced and the violators brutally punished. We've seen that in the last century here in the United States with our societal decline as morals and values have vanished from our culture.

I dunno if it's been an overall decline, i think it's been a decline in some areas and better in other areas.

I thought fiscally our government operated great the first 70 years of its existence. Socially with how we treated blacks/women it was probably its worst 70 year period.

I think society is better now than it was 50 years ago in terms of how we treat most minorities, smoke less, probably less spousal abuse and worse in terms of things like divorce, glamorizing money, etc.

 

[Oddball]

I just want to be sure no one is confused into thinking you have any idea what you're talking about. That would be a very silly error.

Right here, Mr. Bernays.

I am, however, fluent in Orwellean doblespeak...Which is why career bullshitters like you just don't fool me anymore.

so he called you out, nailed you in your retarded opinion, and he is full of bullshit?
Be a man, admit you where wrong. People might respect you a little.

I got nailed on nothing.

Medicare/Medicaid are "voluntary" the same way that interstate speed limits, seat belt laws and BAC levels were....Oh, you can "opt out" of doing what the feds tell you to do, but you can kiss all the taxes they take from you goodbye....Moreover, the federal reimbursements come in nowhere near 100%, so the states end up having to pick up the slack.

Like I said, in the real world this is known as extortion.

 

[Oddball]

Spin this, Skippy:

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity.

Medicaid is a program that is not solely funded at the federal level. States provide up to half of the funding for the Medicaid program.

Medicaid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Greenbeard]

Medicare/Medicaid are "voluntary" the same way that interstate speed limits, seat belt laws and BAC levels were....Oh, you can "opt out" of doing what the feds tell you to do, but you can kiss all the taxes they take from you goodbye....Moreover, the federal reimbursements come in nowhere near 100%, so the states end up having to pick up the slack.

Muddled nonsense.

Medicare and Medicaid are not the same thing, particularly in the context of this thread and your own misinformed comments. To reiterate what I hope someday becomes common knowledge: Medicare is an entirely federal program the serves people over the age of 65 and certain disabled folks; state governments don't fund it and they don't administer it. As such, it has no place in this thread. It's much easier to listen to criticisms of these programs from people who understand what they are.

The "opt out" being discussed has nothing to do with individuals (individual enrollment in Medicaid is not mandatory anyway), it's about what state governments are compelled to do. This is in your response to your own silly statement that "Governors and state legislatures are mandated by the feds to fund Medicare/Medicaid." A state government loses nothing, other than matching funds, for dismantling its Medicaid program. It faces no penalty, it faces no sanction. "You can kiss all the taxes they take from you goodbye" is irrelevant because 1) it confuses individual federal taxpayers with state government entities, and 2) the folks paying the federal income taxes that fund the federal match component of Medicaid generally aren't themselves receiving Medicaid services.

These arguments are inane.

 

[Oddball]

The topic in the OP is MEDICAID.

If I inadvertently referenced MEDICARE, that's my mistake.

What is not in error is that the states end up, whether by hook or crook, funding a significant portion of MEDICAID .

Now, the moocher class, along with their fifth columnist enablers in politics and the media, piss and moan that they can't live a life of total irresponsibility and still get their freebie form Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

Well, my heart pumps purple peanut butter for the moocher class.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I disagree with that assessment, look at government from 2001-2007, you certainly couldn't say they wanted to add 15 things and subtract 300. Was there any government program that got smaller or any budget that was lowered in that time frame with full republican control?

Both parties are equally fiscally liberal to me.

I don't believe I was discussing either Republicans or Democrats. I was discussing CONSERVATIVES. Now, of course the last one of those to be found in Washington, DC was Andrew Jackson, but that's a different topic. Neither party is anything but both fiscally and socially Liberal. That's the only way to get elected in this country. Now the Tea Partiers talk a little better game than the other two groups, but I'm not confident they really mean it, or are willing to walk the talk. Especially on the topic of social conservatism.

Fair enough, good point. I thought you were countering what I said when I said "does anyone think the GOP stands for small gov't", but you and I are in agreement on that issue.

The only person I have any faith in in government is Ron Paul, and him being just one little house member there's not anything he can do in government besides try to open people's eyes to things.

 

[Greenbeard]

What is not in error is that the states end up, whether by hook or crook, funding a significant portion of MEDICAID .

That's because Medicaid is a state-administered program. Your "inadvertent reference" seems to extend into conceptualizing Medicaid as "Medicare for the poor." It isn't. There's one Medicare program; there are, however, 50-odd Medicaid programs. The reason, of course, is that states design their own Medicaid programs. Nowhere is this more true than in Arizona, which operates its entire program under an 1115 demonstration waiver, which is just about the maximum flexibility you can get and still receive federal money.

Where the feds enter the picture is with financial assistance to states: if the state agrees to meet (fairly low) standards, the feds will give them at least a dollar--and, for all but the wealthiest states, it's more than a dollar--for each health dollar the state spends on its qualifying populations. In other words, states trade some amount of flexibility (while still retaining a large amount) for a good sum of federal matching funds. Every single jurisdiction has judged this tradeoff to be a good deal, which is why every single one has chosen to pursue it.

Those that have done analysis in the wake of the ACA to examine whether this will no longer be a good deal with the new eligibility requirements in 2014 have ended up concluding that, indeed, it's still a good deal for the state and forgoing the federal money in exchange for total programmatic flexibility is not in the best interest of the state.

States fund a good portion of Medicaid because it's their program. A more accurate way to put it is that the federal government funds 50%+ of every state's unique medical assistance program.

 

[Sallow]

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity.

Wow..Death Panel Brewer, who killed 2 people now wants to charge the overweight.

Gosh..compassionate conservativism on the march!

 

[Oddball]

What is not in error is that the states end up, whether by hook or crook, funding a significant portion of MEDICAID .

That's because Medicaid is a state-administered program. Your "inadvertent reference" seems to extend into conceptualizing Medicaid as "Medicare for the poor." It isn't. There's one Medicare program; there are, however, 50-odd Medicaid programs. The reason, of course, is that states design their own Medicaid programs. Nowhere is this more true than in Arizona, which operates its entire program under an 1115 demonstration waiver, which is just about the maximum flexibility you can get and still receive federal money.

Where the feds enter the picture is with financial assistance to states: if the state agrees to meet (fairly low) standards, the feds will give them at least a dollar--and, for all but the wealthiest states, it's more than a dollar--for each health dollar the state spends on its qualifying populations. In other words, states trade some amount of flexibility (while still retaining a large amount) for a good sum of federal matching funds. Every single jurisdiction has judged this tradeoff to be a good deal, which is why every single one has chosen to pursue it.

Those that have done analysis in the wake of the ACA to examine whether this will no longer be a good deal with the new eligibility requirements in 2014 has ended up concluding that, indeed, it's still a good deal for the state and forgoing the federal money in exchange for total programmatic flexibility is not in the best interest of the state.

States fund a good portion of Medicaid because it's their program. A more accurate way to put it is that the federal government funds 50%+ of every state's unique medical assistance program.

So, where the feds get the money, the Tooth Fairy?...Lucky the Leprechaun?...Santa Claus, maybe?

 

[McDowell's]

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity.

What kind of backward ass perspective is this? You're bitching about a "big government" requirement added to MEDICAID to control costs. That's like complaining about a hair growing out of the mutated fetus attached to the side of your head.

 

[Anachronism]

I dunno if it's been an overall decline, i think it's been a decline in some areas and better in other areas.

I thought fiscally our government operated great the first 70 years of its existence. Socially with how we treated blacks/women it was probably its worst 70 year period.

I think society is better now than it was 50 years ago in terms of how we treat most minorities, smoke less, probably less spousal abuse and worse in terms of things like divorce, glamorizing money, etc.

It has most definitely been an overall decline. Compare this country today to what it was even as recently as 100 years ago. I will give you the "minorities" issue, but outside of that there really isn't a whole lot that I see as better now than in 1911 other than technology, and I would say that's very much a double-edged sword.

Fair enough, good point. I thought you were countering what I said when I said "does anyone think the GOP stands for small gov't", but you and I are in agreement on that issue.

The only person I have any faith in in government is Ron Paul, and him being just one little house member there's not anything he can do in government besides try to open people's eyes to things.

I have no faith in Dr. Paul or his fellow Libertarians. To me "Libertarian" means.... "One whose rectal cavity is impailed on the fence post." They have no actual values, morals, or ideals to stand on, so they sit on the fence.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I dunno if it's been an overall decline, i think it's been a decline in some areas and better in other areas.

I thought fiscally our government operated great the first 70 years of its existence. Socially with how we treated blacks/women it was probably its worst 70 year period.

I think society is better now than it was 50 years ago in terms of how we treat most minorities, smoke less, probably less spousal abuse and worse in terms of things like divorce, glamorizing money, etc.

It has most definitely been an overall decline. Compare this country today to what it was even as recently as 100 years ago. I will give you the "minorities" issue, but outside of that there really isn't a whole lot that I see as better now than in 1911 other than technology, and I would say that's very much a double-edged sword.

Fair enough, good point. I thought you were countering what I said when I said "does anyone think the GOP stands for small gov't", but you and I are in agreement on that issue.

The only person I have any faith in in government is Ron Paul, and him being just one little house member there's not anything he can do in government besides try to open people's eyes to things.

I have no faith in Dr. Paul or his fellow Libertarians. To me "Libertarian" means.... "One whose rectal cavity is impailed on the fence post." They have no actual values, morals, or ideals to stand on, so they sit on the fence.

I don't lump Ron Paul in with libertarians entirely, in my view he's as different from Bob Barr as he is George Bush.

I disagree on the morals as well, someone that doesn't share your desire to have government enforced morals doesn't mean they don't have them. Just means they have more faith in humanity to do things on their own than you do.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity.

Odd, you have no issue with me and you being forced to care for people that can't work but have the money to buy smokes.

Then you expect me to be upset that beggers that live on my dime are being chraged $50 bucks for not following doctors orders?

jeezuz

The only overstep would be for people that actaully can't work. People that can't work can't exercise, and therefore will have a harder time controlling their wieght.

fyi; people on medicare are more than likely on welfare. WTF are these people doing buying smokes with money that's supposed to feed them?

 

[Anachronism]

I don't lump Ron Paul in with libertarians entirely, in my view he's as different from Bob Barr as he is George Bush.

Either way, he does not seem to have an all-encompassing philosophy that his viewpoints are based on. He's over here on one thing and way over there on another. That lack of a consistant philosophy is a large part of why I have no interest in him or those of his political ilk.

I disagree on the morals as well, someone that doesn't share your desire to have government enforced morals doesn't mean they don't have them. Just means they have more faith in humanity to do things on their own than you do.

Anyone who is more than four years old and still has ANY faith in humanity is either completely naive, a liar, or mentally deficient. Sorry, but that's just the truth. I can count on the fingers of my two hands, with digits to spare, the number of people I've met in my life who I have ever been able to have any amount of faith in.

 

[kaz]

Governors and state legislatures are mandated by the feds to fund Medicare/Medicaid.

State governments don't fund Medicare. And they're certainly not required to have a Medicaid program.

I'm curious why you don't Google statements like this so you know they are wrong before you make them

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Arizona Proposes Medicaid Fat Fee

Arizona's governor on Thursday proposed levying a $50 fee on some enrollees in the state's cash-starved Medicaid program, including obese people who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen and smokers.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time the state-federal health-care program for the poor has charged people for engaging in behavior deemed unhealthy

Arizona Proposes Medicare Fat Fee - WSJ.com

So here we Brewer telling people that have to be thinner and they must not eat in a unhealthy manner or smoke, it's going to cost them! She actually wrote wrote legislation controlling people's lives.

I expect all the anti-Big Government types and Michelle Obama haters to chime in on these facts. Brewer is making a law about obesity and the far right slammed Michelle Obama hard for her simple comments about child obesity.

So why aren't you Big Government Goose Steppers applauding her? You sound like you disagree with her or something. Am i wrong? Personally i think this is wrong.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm sure there will be a whole lot of dishonesty & hypocrisy on this one. But it will be the Big Government Goose Steppers who will be expressing all this dishonesty & hypocrisy. Real Conservatives will of course oppose this. But Big Government Goose Steppers should be all for it.

 

[Oddball]

I'm sure there will be a whole lot of dishonesty & hypocrisy on this one. But it will be the Big Government Goose Steppers who will be expressing all this dishonesty & hypocrisy. Real Conservatives will of course oppose this. But Big Government Goose Steppers should be all for it.

Even though the last thing I am is a "Big Gubmint Goose Stepper", I hardly find it outrageous to limit the potential damage to the taxpayer when forced to accept the premise of a massive bureaucracy.

Now, if we want to talk about eliminating the program altogether, then let's have that discussion as a stand-alone.

 

[kiwiman127]

The topic in the OP is MEDICAID.

If I inadvertently referenced MEDICARE, that's my mistake.

What is not in error is that the states end up, whether by hook or crook, funding a significant portion of MEDICAID .

Now, the moocher class, along with their fifth columnist enablers in politics and the media, piss and moan that they can't live a life of total irresponsibility and still get their freebie form Big Daddy Big Gubmint.

Well, my heart pumps purple peanut butter for the moocher class.

"The topic in the OP is MEDICAID" Oddball

No it isn't. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? The topic is government telling you want to do, Big Government by Tea Party fav Jan Brewer.
I just knew you and your far right buds would deny and deflect Brewer's Big Government move. You folks get all riled up about smokers rights calling for Big Government to get off your ass. You folks bash Michelle Obama for her comments on obesity, yet "mum is the word" when Brewer tries to get a actual law regarding obesity.
Talk about solid convictions!!!