Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides

[Flaylo]

Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides


Hypocrite, nothing new, lets see the shitty excuses the rightwing dipshits of USMB come up with.

 

[Oddball]

*yawn*

 

[boedicca]

Indeed.

*yawn*

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

 

[Flaylo]

*yawn*

Shut the **** up you whiny *****, you're worse than CG.

 

[Flaylo]

Indeed.

*yawn*

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

If thats the case why ***** about government spending in the first place you deceiving fucktard? We all know thats not the reason he took that money, and if it was that money should go straight to the people of Florida, so what happened to it?

 

[draconius]

Rick scott is a nightmare. He was elected because the intelligent people left in this state were asleep at the wheel. Any way we can get a serious petition going to get him recalled? If not, I'm leaving the state.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides


Hypocrite, nothing new, lets see the shitty excuses the rightwing dipshits of USMB come up with.

Before you label anyone a hypocrite, consider why the link does not provide the specific section of the PPACA which 'provides' the funds.

It is possible the state has no choice, as the PPACA is chock full of mandates.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rick scott is a nightmare. He was elected because the intelligent people left in this state were asleep at the wheel. Any way we can get a serious petition going to get him recalled? If not, I'm leaving the state.

Welcome to the board, Draconius.

Is it possible that you are a liberal/progressive?

I suggest same, because it is a hallmark of same to characterize anyone with a different view as stupid, or dumb, or challenged in some manner.

So, how'd I do?

 

[WillowTree]

Rick scott is a nightmare. He was elected because the intelligent people left in this state were asleep at the wheel. Any way we can get a serious petition going to get him recalled? If not, I'm leaving the state.

Ta Ta asswipe, take grayson and wasserman schlitz wit ya.

 

[Greenbeard]

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

And thus those funds rightfully belong to the state's government? Or to the state's poor?

It's not clear what point you're trying to make.

Before you label anyone a hypocrite, consider why the link does not provide the specific section of the PPACA which 'provides' the funds.

It is possible the state has no choice, as the PPACA is chock full of mandates.

The article clearly identifies the funds as being in the form of a Money Follows the Person grant (new funding was authorized in section 2704 of the ACA).

And no, states aren't required to seek MFP grants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Indeed.

*yawn*

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

Maybe he should just take it and burn it.

 

[The T]

Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides


Hypocrite, nothing new, lets see the shitty excuses the rightwing dipshits of USMB come up with.

Before you label anyone a hypocrite, consider why the link does not provide the specific section of the PPACA which 'provides' the funds.

It is possible the state has no choice, as the PPACA is chock full of mandates.

Fail and Go is a mindless moron. He has no clue as to 'UNFUNDED MANDATES' that every State must contend with

 

[PoliticalChic]

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

And thus those funds rightfully belong to the state's government? Or to the state's poor?

It's not clear what point you're trying to make.

Before you label anyone a hypocrite, consider why the link does not provide the specific section of the PPACA which 'provides' the funds.

It is possible the state has no choice, as the PPACA is chock full of mandates.

The article clearly identifies the funds as being in the form of a Money Follows the Person grant (new funding was authorized in section 2704 of the ACA).

And no, states aren't required to seek MFP grants.

Being a complete phony and mouthpiece for this statist, job-killing, tax-incrasing legislation, of course you would pretend that there is actually a set program in Obamacare...

The truth is that it is vague, and meant to be exacltly that.

"The illusion is perpetuated by ambiguity in the writing, administrative complexity, thousands of pages of legislative text and deferred decision making." http://www.aei.org/docLib/MillerHealthAffairsPoliticsofHealthReform.pdf

The section that you name as 2704 is characterized by the government itself as follows:

"Section 2704
The comments on the interim regulations indicate that PPACA Section 2704 goes beyond HIPPA in that it not only bans an exclusion of coverage of specific benefits associated with a preexisting condition in the case of an enrollee, but a complete exclusion from such plan or coverage, if that exclusion is based on a preexisting condition. We are unsure what this means....Depending on the interpretation of the regulation, this well could impact the underwriting processes for insurers offering individual policies. Will the departments be issuing additional guidance on what constitutes exclusion from a plan based on a preexisting condition under PPACA and how that is or is not different from guaranteed issue?"
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/1210-AB43-0015.pdf

This difficulty in reading, understanding and counting on the sections to remain beyond 'interim regulations' is designed to make certain that it is difficult to pin down.

You, on the other hand, are easy to understand, a mouthpiece for the Left-wing government known as the Obama administration.

BTW, you never revealed whether or not you are paid to obfuscate?

Well? Are you?

 

[Greenbeard]

Apologies for the typo, that should say Section 2403. That is, the section about Money Follows the Person grants--you know, those things we're talking about.

 

[Trajan]

Oh PC better people than you and I have asked that question, and and answer was sorta given, not here but hey....

 

[The T]

A governor accepts money back from the Feds which was taken from his state'a citizens in the first place.

And thus those funds rightfully belong to the state's government? Or to the state's poor?

It's not clear what point you're trying to make.

Before you label anyone a hypocrite, consider why the link does not provide the specific section of the PPACA which 'provides' the funds.

It is possible the state has no choice, as the PPACA is chock full of mandates.

The article clearly identifies the funds as being in the form of a Money Follows the Person grant (new funding was authorized in section 2704 of the ACA).

And no, states aren't required to seek MFP grants.

Being a complete phony and mouthpiece for this statist, job-killing, tax-incrasing legislation, of course you would pretend that there is actually a set program in Obamacare...

The truth is that it is vague, and meant to be exacltly that.

"The illusion is perpetuated by ambiguity in the writing, administrative complexity, thousands of pages of legislative text and deferred decision making." http://www.aei.org/docLib/MillerHealthAffairsPoliticsofHealthReform.pdf

The section that you name as 2704 is characterized by the government itself as follows:

"Section 2704
The comments on the interim regulations indicate that PPACA Section 2704 goes beyond HIPPA in that it not only bans an exclusion of coverage of specific benefits associated with a preexisting condition in the case of an enrollee, but a complete exclusion from such plan or coverage, if that exclusion is based on a preexisting condition. We are unsure what this means....Depending on the interpretation of the regulation, this well could impact the underwriting processes for insurers offering individual policies. Will the departments be issuing additional guidance on what constitutes exclusion from a plan based on a preexisting condition under PPACA and how that is or is not different from guaranteed issue?"
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/1210-AB43-0015.pdf

This difficulty in reading, understanding and counting on the sections to remain beyond 'interim regulations' is designed to make certain that it is difficult to pin down.

You, on the other hand, are easy to understand, a mouthpiece for the Left-wing government known as the Obama administration.

BTW, you never revealed whether or not you are paid to obfuscate?

Well? Are you?

Of Course he *IS*. What Dolt would want Obama, or much less the Government to run thier lives unless Greenteeth is a total ******* DOLT?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Apologies for the typo, that should say Section 2403. That is, the section about Money Follows the Person grants--you know, those things we're talking about.

1. "...you know, those things we're talking about."
How amusing....you think you're going to dictate the discussion.... Not.

2. I made the point that the PPACA, Obamacare, is designed to be purposely deceitful...and that, of course, makes you the perfect spokesman for same. No response from you.

3. I quoted the following:
"The illusion is perpetuated by ambiguity in the writing, administrative complexity, thousands of pages of legislative text and deferred decision making." http://www.aei.org/docLib/MillerHeal...althReform.pdf
Don't you wish to deny this?
No?
Then it must be so.

4. Let's cut to the chase...there has been some chatter on the board at the time that Obamacare was originally being discussed, that the powers to whom passage was essential, Leftists, statists, those financially involved, has surreptitiously placed posters on the board to talk up the fraudulent bill....and they disappeared when the bill passed.

Now, I've asked you two or three times if you were such a 'seminar poster' and your only response has been a neg rep.
Why is that?
Tough question?

So? Are you paid or assigned to post in favor of this budget-busting, job-destroying, totalitarian piece of junk bill?

Well?

 

[Greenbeard]

1. "...you know, those things we're talking about."
How amusing....you think you're going to dictate the discussion.... Not.

It doesn't take much more than reading the title of the thread to discern the topic of discussion: "Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides."

The $35 million in question is, of course, a Money Follows the Person grant funded by the ACA.

 

[The T]

1. "...you know, those things we're talking about."
How amusing....you think you're going to dictate the discussion.... Not.

It doesn't take much more than reading the title of the thread to discern the topic of discussion: "Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides."

The $35 million in question is, of course, a Money Follows the Person grant funded by the ACA.

Translation...

"I choose to DODGE the question because *I* am a paid shill..."

 

[Avatar4321]

Rick Scott Hates Health Care Reform, But Will Take The $35 Million It Provides


Hypocrite, nothing new, lets see the shitty excuses the rightwing dipshits of USMB come up with.

So the federal government forces huge costs increases on the state and you oppose that, it's then hypocritical for you to take your the federal money to pay for the mandates they created?

That makes no sense.