Obama Slaps States That Don't Comply With Obamacare

Objective Voice said:

I think it's the right thing to do.

Look, the PPACA provides block grants to the states to set up their HIEs. As such, no state really has to spend a dime. Moreover, the Treasury would provide additional non-matching funds for Medicaid for the first 2-yrs once the PPACA goes into effect in 2014. Yet, Republican governors are refusing to establish the state-sponsored HIEs even after most of them stated publically they'd hold off starting them until after the election - a clear indication that if Romney won they'd do nothing except wait for the law to be repealed. But that wait-and-see approach backfired and now these Republican governors have to wait on their congressional Republican colleagues to either defund the PPACA or hope one of their law suits finally wins over the Supreme Court.

It's more obstructionism, plain and simple. Regardless, the law clearly states that if the states choose not to set-up an exchange, the fed would do it for them and charge them accordingly. At this point, those states that continue to refuse to adhere to the law have only themselves to blame and their residents can bitch to their Governor.

Click to expand...

Medicaid Expansion, Regulations & Spending Clause
As a part of the Medicaid Expansion of PPACA, States are compelled to follow new regulations or risk losing their current Medicaid funding. This part of the bill was also under the constitutional microscope. The result was a 5-4 overturning of this part of the bill. Here is the crux of the issue:

Congress may use its spending power to create incentives for States to act in accordance with federal policies. But when “pressure turns into compulsion,” ibid., the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.

More specifically, the decision came down to the accountability of our democratic system:

…when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability…

“[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.” Id., at 169.

Had non-compliance only risked loss of the medicaid expansion funding, it may have survived constitutionality in this regard:

…Spending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds.

Implications:

For practical purposes, the threat of losing current medicaid funding will not be permitted to induce compliance to the new regulations. The decision, also, sets a strict precedent limiting the power of the federal to govern the states.

Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry j, but I linked them. You confuse one thing with another. And the only people being dishonest are those whining about health reform. Factually, republican ideas are all through it.

Click to expand...

And j, there is nothing silly about calling the whining what is. If you need more links, a fill this thread up with them. The facts are the facts.

Click to expand...

j-mac said:

Listen Joe, The proposal that Heritage put forth in the '90s in response to Hillarycare, was a salvo to help undermine this sort of government take over....In fact Obama himself blasted Hillary in the '08 primaries when she tried to defend her plan as close to Romneycare in Ma. He said something to the effect that people in Ma. were being financially harmed, that it had not increased access, levied fines that people couldn't afford, and still left them uncovered. Then what did he do, well, like we see from the past two years, completely the opposite of what he said in that primary, and rammed through this monstrosity anyway, against the will of the people, in the dead of night. The senate republican's have this to say of this horrible plan.

"During the debate over Obamacare, Democrats and the president claimed that the law would lower health care costs, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, protect Medicare, and allow Americans to keep their health care plans. Two years later, it's clear that not one of those promises will be kept. Instead, the health care law will drive up families' premiums by more than $2,000, force cash-strapped state governments to shoulder more than $100 billion in new Medicaid costs, take more than half a trillion dollars from Medicare, and encourage employers to drop health care coverage for up to 35 million Americans. And far from creating jobs, the health care law will actually result in 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. It's time to repeal Obamacare and replace it with commonsense, step-by-step reforms that will actually lower costs."

Obamacare: Two Years Later, It's Making Things Worse - Our View - Republican.Senate.Gov

So, you can say all you want about how it's this, or it's that, the bottom line is that it is going to break the bank, and Obama cynically knew that, which is why they passed it to pave the way for an even worse plan, and that is single payer. Libs/Progressives, and more importantly, Obama and crew, are just plain liars.



You've got a lot of nerve calling people complaining about the massive tax hike hidden within this putrid pile of dung, whiners, and speaking of "facts" when the fact of the matter is that when passing the bill Obama said it was not a tax, then the only way he could get it to stand was to call it a tax....Obama and libs are degenerate, compulsive, corrupt liars. Period.

Click to expand...

ttwtt78640 said:

What? Would you care to show us that portion of the PPACA law? This was the portion of PPACA that the SCOTUS struck down as unconstitutional by a 5-4 decision - it called for withholding the federal Medicaid for states that "opted out" of setting up their own exchanges.

Click to expand...