The republicans want to cut healthcare for US citizens

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
45,808
Reaction score
5,084
Points
1,860
Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) sent a detailed letter to Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Alex Azar today reminding the Secretary that the Department does not have legal authority to implement a block grant or per capita cap on the Medicaid program. The letter follows reports that the Trump Administration is actively considering approving waiver requests from Republican-controlled states to implement block grants or per capita caps on their Medicaid programs, which, if implemented, would threaten access to health care for millions of Americans across the country.

“As the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with jurisdiction over Medicaid, it is my responsibility to ensure that the program is administered in compliance with federal law,” Pallone wrote to Secretary Azar. “The plain language of the statute prohibits the Secretary from approving a waiver that requests a block grant or per capita cap in Medicaid through a cap on federal funds.”

Pallone continued, “Legislative history and the Administration’s own budget acknowledge that converting Medicaid to a block grant or per capita cap would require a statutory change. Other changes that allow states to develop their own caps are similarly outside your authority. Accordingly, it is troubling to learn that you are putting your radical agenda ahead of your responsibility to implement the law faithfully.”

The President’s budget request estimates that such a change would cut $1.4 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years, threatening access to services for children with complex medical needs, people with disabilities, seniors, and others who rely on Medicaid. The American Hospital Association has said the deep cuts from such a proposal “would reduce federal Medicaid funding to unsustainable levels,” and “will have serious negative consequences for communities across America.”

As part of his inquiry into the Administration’s secretive efforts, Pallone included a series of questions requesting information on the Administration’s ongoing work to implement Medicaid block grants or per capita caps, which is referred to within HHS as the State Medicaid Director Letter: Medicaid Value and Accountability Demonstration Opportunity. According to press reports, the letter to state Medicaid directors is intended to provide a roadmap to Republican-led states on how to gain approval from the Trump Administration on their requests to cap their Medicaid programs. Pallone requested responses to his questions by July 15, 2019.

Pallone to Azar: Block Granting Medicaid is Illegal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That would mean children from the womb to the ventilator (if on Medicaid) would be taken off once they have reached their cap. Who is it now that wants to euthanize citizens of the US?? if and when they reach their lifetime cap.

They also plan on lowering the poverty rate for Hud, Medicaid, etc.
 
Last edited:

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
And your dumbocrats want to give free EVERYTHING to anyone but American citizens... Fucking hypocrite left tards...
Someone posts something relatively straight forward and you come in cussing and name calling.

Great way to win ppl over.
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) sent a detailed letter to Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Alex Azar today reminding the Secretary that the Department does not have legal authority to implement a block grant or per capita cap on the Medicaid program. The letter follows reports that the Trump Administration is actively considering approving waiver requests from Republican-controlled states to implement block grants or per capita caps on their Medicaid programs, which, if implemented, would threaten access to health care for millions of Americans across the country.

“As the Chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce with jurisdiction over Medicaid, it is my responsibility to ensure that the program is administered in compliance with federal law,” Pallone wrote to Secretary Azar. “The plain language of the statute prohibits the Secretary from approving a waiver that requests a block grant or per capita cap in Medicaid through a cap on federal funds.”

Pallone continued, “Legislative history and the Administration’s own budget acknowledge that converting Medicaid to a block grant or per capita cap would require a statutory change. Other changes that allow states to develop their own caps are similarly outside your authority. Accordingly, it is troubling to learn that you are putting your radical agenda ahead of your responsibility to implement the law faithfully.”

The President’s budget request estimates that such a change would cut $1.4 trillion from Medicaid over 10 years, threatening access to services for children with complex medical needs, people with disabilities, seniors, and others who rely on Medicaid. The American Hospital Association has said the deep cuts from such a proposal “would reduce federal Medicaid funding to unsustainable levels,” and “will have serious negative consequences for communities across America.”

As part of his inquiry into the Administration’s secretive efforts, Pallone included a series of questions requesting information on the Administration’s ongoing work to implement Medicaid block grants or per capita caps, which is referred to within HHS as the State Medicaid Director Letter: Medicaid Value and Accountability Demonstration Opportunity. According to press reports, the letter to state Medicaid directors is intended to provide a roadmap to Republican-led states on how to gain approval from the Trump Administration on their requests to cap their Medicaid programs. Pallone requested responses to his questions by July 15, 2019.

Pallone to Azar: Block Granting Medicaid is Illegal
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

That would mean children from the womb to the ventilator (if on Medicaid) would be taken off once they have reached their cap. Who is it now that wants to euthanize citizens of the US?? if and when they reach their lifetime cap.

They also plan on lowering the poverty rate for Hud, Medicaid, etc.
You'd probably do better w/o the signature.

I'm thinking this is going to come down to the usual healthcare debate in which the end game is ppl willingly accepting that $250,000 heart or stem cell transplant is beyond their means or the means of society to give everyone.
 

DGS49

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
8,829
Reaction score
2,606
Points
290
Location
Pittsburgh
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,782
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
And your dumbocrats want to give free EVERYTHING to anyone but American citizens... Fucking hypocrite left tards...
Someone posts something relatively straight forward and you come in cussing and name calling.

Great way to win ppl over.

straight forward my ass,,,the feds have no authority to be involved in healthcare,,,

and anyone that says different needs to move their ass to another country,,,
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,782
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!

other than regulation of drugs by the FDA you are spot on,,,
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,725
Reaction score
3,141
Points
1,130
The government has lots of money. They should pay for all my shit.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!
The above OPINION is brought to you by the Callous Conservative Coalition, a set of people who never (metaphorically) walk in the shoes of others and step over the aged, infirm, disabled and children as nothing more than a bump in the road.
 

Toronado3800

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
7,608
Reaction score
559
Points
140
And your dumbocrats want to give free EVERYTHING to anyone but American citizens... Fucking hypocrite left tards...
Someone posts something relatively straight forward and you come in cussing and name calling.

Great way to win ppl over.

straight forward my ass,,,the feds have no authority to be involved in healthcare,,,

and anyone that says different needs to move their ass to another country,,,
Really I think Obamacare was unconstitutional. Given how the "constitutional" party apparently feels in these debates of drivers licenses and all it isn't surprising it passed.

BTW, I also think the time has come for Obam/Romney care or whatever.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
19,095
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!

other than regulation of drugs by the FDA you are spot on,,,
The FDA is a total shit show....Biggest protection racket on the globe.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
19,095
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!
The above OPINION is brought to you by the Callous Conservative Coalition, a set of people who never (metaphorically) walk in the shoes of others and step over the aged, infirm, disabled and children as nothing more than a bump in the road.
Yeah, that's it....Rather than argue the facts, revert to your rote and substance-free "callous conservative" and appeal to emotions idiot-gram format.

GFY.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,782
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
Talk about a fucked up world-view.

Let's take stock:

YOU are responsible for your own health care. YOU are responsible, when you need medical testing, treatment, medications, therapy, etc., to PAY FOR IT!

If you cannot pay for it, then YOU have an obligation to see that it is paid otherwise, USUALLY BY INSURANCE, for which YOU are obliged to pay. Many people pay in, so that when someone needs care, there is enough in the pot to cover it. Insurance. Get it?

OK, that takes care of 80% of the U.S. population who either self-insure their medical care, purchase health insurance, or get health insurance through their employer.

That leaves 20% who have healthcare needs that they cannot personally pay for or get covered by insurance.

The Federal Government has NO LEGITIMATE ROLE IN HEALTHCARE, other than regulation of drugs by the FDA. These MUST be take care of by the States or the people (see the Tenth Amendment).

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM GETTING HEALTH CARE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO OBTAIN HEALTHCARE FOR ANYONE (Other than government employees). To the extent that the Feds make funds available to the states, that relieves the states of some of the burden THAT THE STATES VOLUNTARILY ASSUME (IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO).

But a change, reduction or restriction of BORROWED FEDERAL MONEY going to the states CANNOT "CUT HEALTHCARE" FOR ANYONE!!!!! It is not the obligation of the Federal taxpayers to see to it that every fucking medical bill in the country is paid. See third paragraph above!

other than regulation of drugs by the FDA you are spot on,,,
The FDA is a total shit show....Biggest protection racket on the globe.

I have no problem with the research part of them,,but when they claim law enforcement I have a big problem
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
80,865
Reaction score
18,492
Points
2,220
And your dumbocrats want to give free EVERYTHING to anyone but American citizens... Fucking hypocrite left tards...
Someone posts something relatively straight forward and you come in cussing and name calling.

Great way to win ppl over.
At this point with the amount of treason, hate and filth you libs support daily, no one cares about winning any of you over. We only want to you be restrained by whatever means needed.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
62,876
Reaction score
19,095
Points
2,260
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I have no problem with the research part of them,,but when they claim law enforcement I have a big problem
I have a major problem with their "research"....It causes the costs of over $500 million and the delay of over a decade for new medications and devices to come to market...Only the biggest of BigPharm companies can bear such costs...It's a defacto protection racket that favors them over smaller and start-up labs.

Hell, they prevented doctors and EMS personnel from administering aspirin -fucking ASPIRIN- to AMI and CVA patients, for years and years after its effectiveness was known.

Fuck the FDA.
 

progressive hunter

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
15,782
Reaction score
3,331
Points
290
I have no problem with the research part of them,,but when they claim law enforcement I have a big problem
I have a major problem with their "research"....It causes the costs of over $500 million and the delay of over a decade for new medications and devices to come to market...Only the biggest of BigPharm companies can bear such costs...It's a defacto protection racket that favors them over smaller and start-up labs.

Hell, they prevented doctors and EMS personnel from administering aspirin -fucking ASPIRIN- to AMI and CVA patients, for years and years after its effectiveness was known.

Fuck the FDA.
all thats a result of their enforcement powers,
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top