Two blue states cut medicaid ????

[bendog]

Utah's governor is dealing with our legi right now to accept a deal that the feds have made with him: $250 million dollars with work and training requirements attached. I have always believed that government assistance should have work and training requirements for those who are able to do so.

Gov. Herbert Deal is done with Obama administration on Medicaid alternative The Salt Lake Tribune

That's interesting. Ark did something similar. Miss's legislature is TPM controlled, so they'd rather do absolutely nothing, and they'd dissolve govt totally if they could. LOL. But, in a sane world, a state that really fears a budget implosion, when the fed dollars drop to fund Medicaid, should be able to use the federal dollars to fund private insurance for the working poor, and chip in what the state can afford of it's own revenue. That preserves federalism, and does something to address the very real problem of uninsured workers.

 

[Listening]

I trounced you, kid.

I will do it every time, without a doubt.

You have a big mouth.

You have no balls (and not much more in the way of brains).

Everyone can see that.

BullRing: Yes or No......You are gutless.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I tell the truth when I say you got your ass kicked here.

But . . . you know now the difference between medicaid ad medicare, that dem states are doing reform of the programs, and Utah is working its own program with work requirements with the money company from the feds.

Listening is not worthy of the bull ring. I will let her know when she is.

 

[Listening]

I tell the truth when I say you got your ass kicked here.

But . . . you know now the difference between medicaid ad medicare, that dem states are doing reform of the programs, and Utah is working its own program with work requirements with the money company from the feds.

Listening is not worthy of the bull ring. I will let her know when she is.

Jake at work....



You tell the truth......

What we know is that you hide under the skirts of your imaginary friends telling yourself that you somehow "won". Everyone knows you are such a moron that you would gladly take someone on in the Bullring if you thought you could win.

But you can't.......

So you keep avoiding answering my challenge.....

A simple yes or no (even though we all know the answer is no 'cause you are so gutless).

I know it is next to impossible for you to man up and admit it.

Instead you keep showing what an idiot you are....

 

[hipeter924]

Listening didn't change any thinking when it comes to state programs....Fakey.

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

You are so desperate to look smart you'll make up anything.

Well, that's a good point. For instance Vermont is bared from establishing a UHC system because of Federal healthcare laws. Really the only way alternatives to the ACA can develop is if states have control over their own healthcare system, since Federal level healthcare requires every state implement healthcare in a certain way - and not every state is going to agree.

 

[Listening]

Listening didn't change any thinking when it comes to state programs....Fakey.

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

You are so desperate to look smart you'll make up anything.

Well, that's a good point. For instance Vermont is bared from establishing a UHC system because of Federal healthcare laws. Really the only way alternatives to the ACA can develop is if states have control over their own healthcare system, since Federal level healthcare requires every state implement healthcare in a certain way - and not every state is going to agree.

The whole concept of federalism was that there was an optimum place for government to do things.

Most of the time, it is not at the federal level.

The GOP blew it when they (meaning all those whining asswipe mainstreamers) would not take up the issue and define it as it should have been defined. Then states could have exerted themselves if their citizens wanted it.

This is the Red Herring the left throws up when we hear about RomneyCare.

The people of Mass decided they wanted it and were willing to put the regs and taxes (if required) in place. That is their perogative based on how the constitution is structured.

RomneyCare does not translate to Federal Healthcare.

And what a joke that a state is prevented from doing it's own thing by the ACA.

I may not want MY state to have health care programs. But if the people of my state vote to do so...that is legitimate and I'd rather see it happen that way. That way I can move if I don't like it.

Piss-for-brains like Jake don't get it.

 

[bendog]

Listening didn't change any thinking when it comes to state programs....Fakey.

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

You are so desperate to look smart you'll make up anything.

Well, that's a good point. For instance Vermont is bared from establishing a UHC system because of Federal healthcare laws. Really the only way alternatives to the ACA can develop is if states have control over their own healthcare system, since Federal level healthcare requires every state implement healthcare in a certain way - and not every state is going to agree.

The whole concept of federalism was that there was an optimum place for government to do things.

Most of the time, it is not at the federal level.

The GOP blew it when they (meaning all those whining asswipe mainstreamers) would not take up the issue and define it as it should have been defined. Then states could have exerted themselves if their citizens wanted it.

This is the Red Herring the left throws up when we hear about RomneyCare.

The people of Mass decided they wanted it and were willing to put the regs and taxes (if required) in place. That is their perogative based on how the constitution is structured.

RomneyCare does not translate to Federal Healthcare.

And what a joke that a state is prevented from doing it's own thing by the ACA.

I may not want MY state to have health care programs. But if the people of my state vote to do so...that is legitimate and I'd rather see it happen that way. That way I can move if I don't like it.

Piss-for-brains like Jake don't get it.

There's no feasible way of doing it "AT THE STATE LEVEL." The dollars aren't there, and states don't have taxing leverage over natl and international insurance and medical equipment and drug suppliers. The funding has to be at the federal level. However, there was/is no reason to require a federal agency vet and regulate every insurance contract, because state insurance commissioners do that every day. Assuming a gop potus, or even Hill, it may work out that the federal dollars are more or less like a Reagan era blockgrant program, and the Medicaid expansion can be undone. And, insurance companies will have to offer the same policy in every other state that they offer in any one state.

 

[Listening]

Listening didn't change any thinking when it comes to state programs....Fakey.

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

You are so desperate to look smart you'll make up anything.

Well, that's a good point. For instance Vermont is bared from establishing a UHC system because of Federal healthcare laws. Really the only way alternatives to the ACA can develop is if states have control over their own healthcare system, since Federal level healthcare requires every state implement healthcare in a certain way - and not every state is going to agree.

The whole concept of federalism was that there was an optimum place for government to do things.

Most of the time, it is not at the federal level.

The GOP blew it when they (meaning all those whining asswipe mainstreamers) would not take up the issue and define it as it should have been defined. Then states could have exerted themselves if their citizens wanted it.

This is the Red Herring the left throws up when we hear about RomneyCare.

The people of Mass decided they wanted it and were willing to put the regs and taxes (if required) in place. That is their perogative based on how the constitution is structured.

RomneyCare does not translate to Federal Healthcare.

And what a joke that a state is prevented from doing it's own thing by the ACA.

I may not want MY state to have health care programs. But if the people of my state vote to do so...that is legitimate and I'd rather see it happen that way. That way I can move if I don't like it.

Piss-for-brains like Jake don't get it.

There's no feasible way of doing it "AT THE STATE LEVEL." The dollars aren't there, and states don't have taxing leverage over natl and international insurance and medical equipment and drug suppliers. The funding has to be at the federal level. However, there was/is no reason to require a federal agency vet and regulate every insurance contract, because state insurance commissioners do that every day. Assuming a gop potus, or even Hill, it may work out that the federal dollars are more or less like a Reagan era blockgrant program, and the Medicaid expansion can be undone. And, insurance companies will have to offer the same policy in every other state that they offer in any one state.

Not everyone wants to do it.....

That is the first thing to realize. Some states simply will not offer a state run program.

So, I am opposed to the federal block program you suggest.

I think it could be done. It's a whole new paradigm for some. And if you can't do it at the state level, just what did RomneyCare do ?

Beyond that.....you hit a key point. We need to make insurance more competative and we need the government out of writing policies. Some people may want a blanke that the state could require (to be offered) simply because they don't want to shop around.

The flip side of this is that we need penalties for those who are not insured. Not welfare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listening forgets that the right failed to support affordable, accessible, quality care for everybody.

We have what we have because the right becauses it hands tied back its back by the Listenings.

I am glad Listening is begging to do some research, what she should have done before posting a thread that righteously blew up in her face.

Listening, I will kick your ass every time you do this, like I have since you have come to the board.

 

[bendog]

Well whether Mississippi or SC doesn't want to participate in receiving support for the working poor to access HC via insurance, isn't really the pt, Listening. The fed govt has the power to uniformly tax, and it probably couldn't levy taxes in 49 states and leave one out. Moreover, Roberts didn't want to rely on the commerce clause because he wants to roll back congressional power to before LBJ, but we have had 50 years of the commerce clause supporting things like Medicaid.

Federalism doesn't allow a state to opt out of a constitutionally permissible federal law. Yes, they can choose to opt totally out of Medicaid, but their citizens are still paying taxes into general revenues. One need not enroll in Medicare, but one would be very stupid not to do so ... and one still pays the taxes.

From a federalist perspective, the problem with Obamacare is that the feds rule what must be in every policy and what every person must purchase, and the fed further rules states must contribute Xdollars for each federal dollar expended in the federal plan.

 

[Listening]

Well whether Mississippi or SC doesn't want to participate in receiving support for the working poor to access HC via insurance, isn't really the pt, Listening. The fed govt has the power to uniformly tax, and it probably couldn't levy taxes in 49 states and leave one out. Moreover, Roberts didn't want to rely on the commerce clause because he wants to roll back congressional power to before LBJ, but we have had 50 years of the commerce clause supporting things like Medicaid.

Federalism doesn't allow a state to opt out of a constitutionally permissible federal law. Yes, they can choose to opt totally out of Medicaid, but their citizens are still paying taxes into general revenues. One need not enroll in Medicare, but one would be very stupid not to do so ... and one still pays the taxes.

From a federalist perspective, the problem with Obamacare is that the feds rule what must be in every policy and what every person must purchase, and the fed further rules states must contribute Xdollars for each federal dollar expended in the federal plan.

BD, Just because the fed CAN do something does not mean they SHOULD.

I'll leave others to argue over Roberts motives. Let's just leave it at....they can uniformely tax. That is both necessary and proper....for the right things. Health Care ? Don't agree.

To your second point. Yes, they can't nulify. I've never argued they could. But the citizens of some states are not interested in having the federal government run the program. People pay taxes for schools when they don't have kids that go. Two of my children (in school) could qualify for food stamps, but don't. Using your argument, they'd be stupid not to do so. They are just a little to independent and I am fully behind them.

Your last paragraph is a prime example of why the fed SHOULD not be in healthcare in spite of Roberts. They screwed it up from the start and it's only getting worse.

 

[Judicial review]

I'm soo... hungry. Going for a beer run.

 

[Listening]

Listening forgets that the right failed to support affordable, accessible, quality care for everybody.

We have what we have because the right becauses it hands tied back its back by the Listenings.

I am glad Listening is begging to do some research, what she should have done before posting a thread that righteously blew up in her face.

Listening, I will kick your ass every time you do this, like I have since you have come to the board.

Shut up asshole.

The right didn't fail. It was you dumbass mainstreamers. I've been calling for a discussion health insurance for 20 years and have always states as much on the board. Post 66, which in your hasted to look like the fool you are you ran right past, says as much.

Fakey, you are nothing but a loud mouth piss-for-brains coward. You couldn't win an argument if you were the only one in it.

Your "Business" must be performing as clowns at birthday parties because that is all YOU are qualified for.

Meet me in the bull ring: Yes or No.

You are not man enough to accept the challenge.

And you don't have the balls to say no and show everyone what a shitforbrains you really are.

It's time to start a thread in the Flame Zone that captures all your lip flapping cowardice for more to see.

 

[Listening]

I'm soo... hungry. Going for a beer run.

Enjoy !!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listening continues to pant and rant, to squall and bawl.

She will never have the last word here because she was wrong and can't admit it, like a young teenage girl.

Thus she will not be allowed to have the last word here.

 

[Greenbeard]

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

Out of curiosity, if you had to pick between enrolling in your state's Medicaid program and enrolling in Medicare, you would choose the former?

Never thought about it.

Medicare as defined by......

I'm not sure what you're asking. Medicare, the program that exists right now.

You were arguing that public health insurance programs should be run at the state level, not by the federal government. Well, we've got examples of both right now.

Your state's Medicaid program is run by your state; Medicare, on the other hand, is a federal program.

Which is why I was wondering which you would personally choose to enroll in if you had to choose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

She is probably already enrolled in Medicaid, and in a few short years, she will be in Medicare.

 

[Listening]

She is probably already enrolled in Medicaid, and in a few short years, she will be in Medicare.

How's the clown business Fakey.

I'll bet the kids think you are the real deal.

 

[Listening]

Listening continues to pant and rant, to squall and bawl.

She will never have the last word here because she was wrong and can't admit it, like a young teenage girl.

Thus she will not be allowed to have the last word here.

You can have the last work Fakey. Here are your options:

Option 1: Yes, I'll meet you in the Bullring.

Option 2: No, I am a coward and won't meet you in the Bullring.

The choice is yours.

Option 3: Just dodge and hope that there is a 1 in a million chance people won't realize you are a jackass.

You keep exercising option 3 and the odds were never in your favor.

 

[Listening]

I've always said that if there was to be government run health care it should be at the state level.

Out of curiosity, if you had to pick between enrolling in your state's Medicaid program and enrolling in Medicare, you would choose the former?

Never thought about it.

Medicare as defined by......

I'm not sure what you're asking. Medicare, the program that exists right now.

You were arguing that public health insurance programs should be run at the state level, not by the federal government. Well, we've got examples of both right now.

Your state's Medicaid program is run by your state; Medicare, on the other hand, is a federal program.

Which is why I was wondering which you would personally choose to enroll in if you had to choose.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't know much about either. The only exception being my mother's efforts to help people fight off greedy doctors and also reporting these same doctors to the government when they bilked the government for tens of thousands via fraud (and not seeing much response from said government).

My comment is that IF there is to be a state (government supplied) program, it should be run at the state level. Some states could chose to bind together (say SD, ND, and Nebraska) to run a single program. The residents of the state get to chose.

But since you are going to argue on merits, you need to realize I am arguing an ideology.