Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 136

Thread: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

  1. #121
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,071

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by wbcoleman View Post
    The 2010 election was a referendum on Obamacare.

    I realize I am getting older by the day but I distinctly remember voting in 2010 and the Affordable Health care act was not on the ballot.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  2. #122
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The benefit of this program is hardly going to help that much.
    As long as the benefits are at least 1/10 of the costs, it's to the advantage of every state to sign up for the expansion. It's one thing to argue that the benefits of Medicaid are less than the costs, but would you seriously contend that the benefits of Medicaid are less than 1/10 the costs?

    It's already been demonstrated that people on government medical programs already us the ER at much higher rates, than the regularly insured.
    What does this have to do with the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Medicaid?

    Medicaid co pays are nominal, Medicaid payments to medical facilities and doctors is low.
    It's more than the $0 they get if the person doesn't pay their bills because they don't have any money.

    It's not going to help them all that much, when many are limiting or dropping the program.
    States are prohibited from cutting back on Medicaid until 2014 (although Maine is currently challenging that provision in court). But to the larger point, it's one thing to cut back if you're only getting a 1-to-1 federal match...it's very different to cut back if you're getting a 9-to-1 federal match.

    All it will represent is an increased cost to states, with nothing else.
    Like I said, that money doesn't just disappear into a black hole. The states are actually buying something of value with their money.

    Most states, (both red and blue) are cutting back on Medicaid because the tax money isn't there.
    Most states (both red and blue) limit Medicaid to those are disabled, pregnant, under 18 or elderly.

    Sorry.
    The states with the stingiest Medicaid programs tend to be very conservative states...and these are precisely the states that will benefit the most, since the federal government is offering to foot the bill for most of the cost of the expansion to bring them into compliance with the Affordable Care Act.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #123
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    As long as the benefits are at least 1/10 of the costs, it's to the advantage of every state to sign up for the expansion. It's one thing to argue that the benefits of Medicaid are less than the costs, but would you seriously contend that the benefits of Medicaid are less than 1/10 the costs?
    Yes.
    I dispute it.
    I don't think the benefits of it will outweigh the costs.

    Most states seem to be in agreement, as they are cutting services.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What does this have to do with the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Medicaid?
    Medicaid should exist for people who need it most, children and the disabled.
    Piling more people into the program, which can cause more medical providers to limit service or drop out completely isn't good for those individuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    It's more than the $0 they get if the person doesn't pay their bills because they don't have any money.
    I'd rather get $0 than -$1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    States are prohibited from cutting back on Medicaid until 2014 (although Maine is currently challenging that provision in court). But to the larger point, it's one thing to cut back if you're only getting a 1-to-1 federal match...it's very different to cut back if you're getting a 9-to-1 federal match.
    It still represents an increase in costs.
    No matter which way you spin it.

    You can argue that there may be some benefit to states, because people are covered medically, but I think that benefit is marginal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Like I said, that money doesn't just disappear into a black hole. The states are actually buying something of value with their money.
    That's disputable.
    It depends on how these individuals utilize medicaid.
    If they waste it on colds and things that can't be cured and don't require doctors services, it's a waste.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The states with the stingiest Medicaid programs tend to be very conservative states...and these are precisely the states that will benefit the most, since the federal government is offering to foot the bill for most of the cost of the expansion to bring them into compliance with the Affordable Care Act.
    I don't believe that to be the case.
    I'd like to see some facts on that.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #124
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yes.
    I dispute it.
    I don't think the benefits of it will outweigh the costs.

    Most states seem to be in agreement, as they are cutting services.



    Medicaid should exist for people who need it most, children and the disabled.
    Piling more people into the program, which can cause more medical providers to limit service or drop out completely isn't good for those individuals.



    I'd rather get $0 than -$1.



    It still represents an increase in costs.
    No matter which way you spin it.

    You can argue that there may be some benefit to states, because people are covered medically, but I think that benefit is marginal.
    If there is no benefit (or only a marginal benefit) to providing people with medical coverage, then why would people who CAN afford it be willing to shell out thousands of dollars in premiums and/or foregone salary in order to obtain it? The average Medicaid expenditure per capita is about $14,000. Even if we assume that the expansion will cost the same per capita (and it'll probably be less since the Medicaid newbies probably won't be quite as poor as the people who were already on Medicaid), that means that it will only cost the states $1,400 per person. Do you really think that health insurance coverage - especially for someone probably disproportionately more likely than average to get sick - is worth less than $1,400?

    That's disputable.
    It depends on how these individuals utilize medicaid.
    If they waste it on colds and things that can't be cured and don't require doctors services, it's a waste.
    I'm talking about in the aggregate, not individual cases.

    I don't believe that to be the case.
    I'd like to see some facts on that.
    PPACA calls for participants in the Medicaid expansion to open it up to anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty line. The cost of the expansion (i.e. the difference between wherever the states are now, and the new PPACA level) will be paid 100% by the federal government for the first few years and 90% thereafter. This means that the stingier states currently are, the more federal money they'll be eligible to receive. Here's a couple recent blog posts about it:

    A More Points About Medicaid Expansion Super-Happy Fun-Time! - redeyechicago.com

    The Affordable Care Act's big giveaway to stingy red states
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-13-12 at 07:11 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #125
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    If there is no benefit (or only a marginal benefit) to providing people with medical coverage, then why would people who CAN afford it be willing to shell out thousands of dollars in premiums and/or foregone salary in order to obtain it? The average Medicaid expenditure per capita is about $14,000. Even if we assume that the expansion will cost the same per capita (and it'll probably be less since the Medicaid newbies probably won't be quite as poor as the people who were already on Medicaid), that means that it will only cost the states $1,400 per person. Do you really think that health insurance coverage - especially for someone probably disproportionately more likely than average to get sick - is worth less than $1,400?
    Because individuals choosing to buy coverage is quite different than the state covering people, at virtually 0 cost (to the individual).
    I'm disputing that the long term effects of medicaid expansion will provide a net benefit.
    Rather than leave the program to focus on those who need it most, we're going to dilute it for everyone under X income.
    As it is, Medicaid pays less than 60%, of what private insures pay, adding more people (most of which are not in dire need) will not better things.

    Not only this, but it adds an unintended side effect.
    When recessions hit, more people will qualify for the program and at the same time, states will have lower taxes to fund said program.
    That would require the program to cut services to a greater degree, which hurts those who need it most, worse.

    Something you missed, is that Medicaid already comes with federal subsidization, from 50% to up to 85%.
    States are still cutting these services, regardless of current federal subsidy.
    Medicaid represents the 2nd largest budget item in most/all states, behind education spending, that's with federal subsidy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm talking about in the aggregate, not individual cases.
    And if in the aggregate, most people use it irresponsibly, then it may not work out well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    PPACA calls for participants in the Medicaid expansion to open it up to anyone earning less than 133% of the poverty line. The cost of the expansion (i.e. the difference between wherever the states are now, and the new PPACA level) will be paid 100% by the federal government for the first few years and 90% thereafter. This means that the stingier states currently are, the more federal money they'll be eligible to receive. Here's a couple recent blog posts about it:

    A More Points About Medicaid Expansion Super-Happy Fun-Time! - redeyechicago.com

    The Affordable Care Act's big giveaway to stingy red states
    I already know all this.
    Describing "red states" as stingy, needs some backing.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #126
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Because individuals choosing to buy coverage is quite different than the state covering people, at virtually 0 cost (to the individual).
    I'm disputing that the long term effects of medicaid expansion will provide a net benefit.
    Rather than leave the program to focus on those who need it most, we're going to dilute it for everyone under X income.
    Some states don't cover those who need it the most. In Texas, if you're a single person earning $3,000 per year, you are too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid. PPACA expands Medicaid to those earning less than 133% of the poverty line. That's $14,856 for a single person, or $30,656 for a family of four. Not exactly people rolling in cash, and not exactly what I would call "diluting it."

    As it is, Medicaid pays less than 60%, of what private insures pay, adding more people (most of which are not in dire need) will not better things.
    See above re: "dire need."
    And comparing Medicaid to private insurance companies is a flawed comparison, because that isn't the choice that most Medicaid recipients face. Medicaid's 60% rate is considerably higher than the approximately 0% rate of what the uninsured poor pay.

    Not only this, but it adds an unintended side effect.
    When recessions hit, more people will qualify for the program and at the same time, states will have lower taxes to fund said program.
    That would require the program to cut services to a greater degree, which hurts those who need it most, worse.
    States will have a higher tax base in the first place, due to a healthier population that misses fewer days of work/school, and due to higher salaries resulting from fewer employers providing health benefits. Furthermore, the federal government is picking up 90% of the cost of the expansion, meaning that state Medicaid budgets will be mostly insulated from the effects of recession since the federal government is not constrained by budgets in the same ways that states are.

    Something you missed, is that Medicaid already comes with federal subsidization, from 50% to up to 85%.
    States are still cutting these services, regardless of current federal subsidy.
    There is a huge difference between cutting Medicaid when you're getting a 50% subsidy versus when you're getting a 90% subsidy. In the latter case, states are getting NINE TIMES more federal assistance for every dollar they contribute.

    Medicaid represents the 2nd largest budget item in most/all states, behind education spending, that's with federal subsidy.
    States are already paying the health care costs of their uninsured residents, the costs are just more hidden and usually don't appear on any government balance sheet. The economic costs include hospitals or state governments directly picking up the tab for treating the uninsured, a lower tax base and less educated population due to absenteeism, increased risk aversion which discourages entrepreneurship and higher education, reduced job mobility which promotes economic stasis, etc.

    Putting these residents on Medicaid doesn't create a new cost to the states...it just makes it clearer what the state was ALREADY paying and allows them to shift 90% of the cost to the federal government.

    And if in the aggregate, most people use it irresponsibly, then it may not work out well.
    Why would Medicaid recipients be more likely to use health care irresponsibly than anyone else who has health insurance? I think there are some rather nasty moral assumptions about people in poverty here.

    I already know all this.
    Describing "red states" as stingy, needs some backing.
    Eligibility requirements are generally much stricter in conservative states. These states therefore will have the most federal subsidies coming their way starting in 2014, should they choose to participate.
    http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7993-02.pdf
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-14-12 at 06:06 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #127
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Some states don't cover those who need it the most. In Texas, if you're a single person earning $3,000 per year, you are too wealthy to qualify for Medicaid. PPACA expands Medicaid to those earning less than 133% of the poverty line. That's $14,856 for a single person, or $30,656 for a family of four. Not exactly people rolling in cash, and not exactly what I would call "diluting it."
    Sure it's diluting it.
    Adding more people to an underpaying system, increases the underpayments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    See above re: "dire need."
    And comparing Medicaid to private insurance companies is a flawed comparison, because that isn't the choice that most Medicaid recipients face. Medicaid's 60% rate is considerably higher than the approximately 0% rate of what the uninsured poor pay.
    That's assuming people will behave the same, when insured and uninsured.
    These programs cause changes in behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    States will have a higher tax base in the first place, due to a healthier population that misses fewer days of work/school, and due to higher salaries resulting from fewer employers providing health benefits. Furthermore, the federal government is picking up 90% of the cost of the expansion, meaning that state Medicaid budgets will be mostly insulated from the effects of recession since the federal government is not constrained by budgets in the same ways that states are.
    Another gross assumption.
    You won't have that much higher of a tax base, if the people you're serving aren't taxed.
    The income levels you're citing don't get taxed at all, in many states and get thousands in refunds from the feds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    There is a huge difference between cutting Medicaid when you're getting a 50% subsidy versus when you're getting a 90% subsidy. In the latter case, states are getting NINE TIMES more federal assistance for every dollar they contribute.
    You're just low balling it.
    The effective matching rate is some where around 65%, for most states.
    Regardless of subsidy, these increased costs will require cuts during economic recession, when you have the added load of people on the programs, who've lost income.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    States are already paying the health care costs of their uninsured residents, the costs are just more hidden and usually don't appear on any government balance sheet. The economic costs include hospitals or state governments directly picking up the tab for treating the uninsured, a lower tax base and less educated population due to absenteeism, increased risk aversion which discourages entrepreneurship and higher education, reduced job mobility which promotes economic stasis, etc.

    Putting these residents on Medicaid doesn't create a new cost to the states...it just makes it clearer what the state was ALREADY paying and allows them to shift 90% of the cost to the federal government.
    You're making these assumptions based on static behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why would Medicaid recipients be more likely to use health care irresponsibly than anyone else who has health insurance? I think there are some rather nasty moral assumptions about people in poverty here.
    Over utilization is nearly guaranteed when co pays are nominal and there are virtually no out of pocket expenses for the individual.
    It costs practically nothing to use their Medicaid benefits for anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Eligibility requirements are generally much stricter in conservative states. These states therefore will have the most federal subsidies coming their way starting in 2014, should they choose to participate.
    http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/7993-02.pdf
    So that amounts to "stingy" a negative value judgement?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  8. #128
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Sure it's diluting it.
    Adding more people to an underpaying system, increases the underpayments.
    You keep saying it's an "underpaying system," but your only basis of comparison is another system that is generally not available to the people on Medicaid. If it was, then they wouldn't *be* on Medicaid.

    That's assuming people will behave the same, when insured and uninsured.
    These programs cause changes in behavior.
    What does that have to do with the payment rate? If Medicaid pays 60% the rate of private insurance (using your numbers), and the uninsured poor pay almost nothing, what possible behavior modifications do you think would tip the balance to Medicaid being a raw deal? Especially since the behavior in question isn't the behavior of the patient, but rather the behavior of the entity paying the bills?

    Another gross assumption.
    You won't have that much higher of a tax base, if the people you're serving aren't taxed.
    The income levels you're citing don't get taxed at all, in many states and get thousands in refunds from the feds.
    I'm not just talking about the current income of the Medicaid recipients themselves. Their employers pay taxes based on the profits they get from the person's added value...which is reduced due to absenteeism. Additionally, the recipient himself will earn more in the future if he/she is able to work and/or go to school...which is less likely without health insurance.

    You're just low balling it.
    The effective matching rate is some where around 65%, for most states.
    You're still comparing a 2-to-1 matching grant to a 9-to-1 matching grant. Those are quite different.

    Regardless of subsidy, these increased costs will require cuts during economic recession, when you have the added load of people on the programs, who've lost income.
    This is simply not true. The higher the matching grant, the LESS the states will be willing to cut. A 9-to-1 match is practically free money, and under those circumstances the calculus is such that states will cut less important things before they cut Medicaid.

    You're making these assumptions based on static behavior.
    And you're going to need more than this vague assertion to show that their behavior will change. Specific examples of HOW their behavior will change and why...and its relevance to acknowledging the economic costs that already exist and shifting 90% of them to the federal government.

    Over utilization is nearly guaranteed when co pays are nominal and there are virtually no out of pocket expenses for the individual.
    It costs practically nothing to use their Medicaid benefits for anything.
    This problem is no worse for Medicaid patients than it is for anyone else who has private insurance. Free health care is fundamentally different than free widgets; very few people enjoy being at the doctor's office and getting extra tests, so no one intentionally takes more health care than they need. And although it's true that overutilization is a problem, we'd be far better off by enacting policies that encouraging higher deductibles for those who CAN afford it, rather than excluding people from Medicaid who CAN'T afford it.

    So that amounts to "stingy" a negative value judgement?
    Conservative states generally have extremely strict eligibility requirements for Medicaid, thus I call it "stingy." You can call it whatever you like; the point is the same no matter what you call it.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-14-12 at 06:34 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #129
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You keep saying it's an "underpaying system," but your only basis of comparison is another system that is generally not available to the people on Medicaid. If it was, then they wouldn't *be* on Medicaid.
    It under pays based on insurance compensation.
    If doctors can't make as much with Medicaid, they will start to reduce or eliminate the amount of Medicaid patients they see.
    (This has already been happening, btw.)

    The people who need it most (disabled, children, pregnant women) will find themselves with further reduced options, because of the increase in patients seeking care, with a system that under pays regular service rates.
    So you're taking away from some, to give to others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What does that have to do with the payment rate? If Medicaid pays 60% the rate of private insurance (using your numbers), and the uninsured poor pay almost nothing, what possible behavior modifications do you think would tip the balance to Medicaid being a raw deal? Especially since the behavior in question isn't the behavior of the patient, but rather the behavior of the entity paying the bills?
    Currently having 0 insurance, of any kind, is a pretty big barrier to treatment, from both necessary care to superfluous care.
    Putting people on Medicaid, when it has nominal cost sharing, reverses this in the opposite direction.
    The barriers of entry, for both types of care are eliminated.
    Which can be good if most often, these people needed necessary care, but that's often not the case.

    The amount of care people will seek for colds and the flu, which generally can not be helped, will increase and so will the cost.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm not just talking about the current income of the Medicaid recipients themselves. Their employers pay taxes based on the profits they get from the person's added value...which is reduced due to absenteeism. Additionally, the recipient himself will earn more in the future if he/she is able to work and/or go to school...which is less likely without health insurance.
    That's assuming that most were somehow sick beforehand and them not receiving care, prevented them from working.
    Do you have any numbers to prove that those who will be newly minted Medicaid recipients needed it that much?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You're still comparing a 2-to-1 matching grant to a 9-to-1 matching grant. Those are quite different.
    It varies from 2-1, on up.
    50% is the base, but can go up to 85%.
    West Virginia receives the most subsidy of Medicaid currently, nearing the 85% mark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is simply not true. The higher the matching grant, the LESS the states will be willing to cut. A 9-to-1 match is practically free money, and under those circumstances the calculus is such that states will cut less important things before they cut Medicaid.
    The 100% to 9-1 match is only for newly minted Medicaid eligible people.
    It still represents a cost increase for states, regardless of how much the match is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And you're going to need more than this vague assertion to show that their behavior will change. Specific examples of HOW their behavior will change and why...and its relevance to acknowledging the economic costs that already exists and shifting 90% of them to the federal government.
    You changed the barriers of entry from completely cost prohibitive (in some areas) to completely nominal.
    People can seek care, for any reason under Medicaid and only incur nominal costs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This problem is no worse for Medicaid patients than it is for anyone else who has private insurance. Free health care is fundamentally different than free widgets; very few people enjoy being at the doctor's office and getting extra tests. And although it's true that overutilization is a problem, we'd be far better off by enacting policies that encouraging higher deductibles for those who CAN afford it, rather than excluding people from Medicaid who CAN'T afford it.
    It's not enjoyment, it's fear + no barrier to entry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Conservative states generally have extremely strict eligibility requirements for Medicaid, thus I call it "stingy." You can call it whatever you like; the point is the same no matter what you call it.
    The problem is, that using federal poverty guidelines, for 50 states with 50 different costs of living and localized rates of inflation, don't paint a true picture in terms of "stinginess."
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #130
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Southern governors secede from Medicaid

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I realize I am getting older by the day but I distinctly remember voting in 2010 and the Affordable Health care act was not on the ballot.
    Cute. But also avoidance - the Tea Party wave of 2010 was indeed a reaction to the Bailouts, the Stimulus, and Obamacare.

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •