• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida Governor to Sue Obama Administration Over Medicaid Expansion

again..when asked to explain again and again how money is part of federalism...you post nothing.....you have no clue, what you are talking about

Because its the system in which we operate in..
 
Because its the system in which we operate in..

again a deflection of not answering the question.....what does federalism have to do with the federal government giving or cutting money to states........explain, this is the third time i have asked........because of you not having a clue of what you are talking about.
 
again a deflection of not answering the question.....what does federalism have to do with the federal government giving or cutting money to states........explain, this is the third time i have asked........because of you not having a clue of what you are talking about.

Because its literally how our system is set up.
 
again no answer...which shows you lacking in knowledge of the constitution, the founders, our system of government.........but i suspect you not lacking on karl marx.

:lamo :lamo You cant be serious? Are you seriously not able to comprehend this?
 
:lamo :lamo You cant be serious? Are you seriously not able to comprehend this?

you have no clue, as to our system of government..........i guess it comes from karl marx thinking.

again for the 4th time.........what does money......giving or cutting money from the federal government to states.......have to do with federalism?
 
you have no clue, as to our system of government..........i guess it comes from karl marx thinking.

again for the 4th time.........what does money......giving or cutting money from the federal government to states.......have to do with federalism?
:doh
Ok lets try this again.
It is under our federal system that the federal government gives certain aid, grants, etc to states. The federalist system allows this to operate, because the federalist system essentially states there are two layers of gov. The federal government and the state governments. The federal government has certain powers and responsibilities allocated to it while the states have all other remaining powers. Many programs are set up, or laws are written in a way to give states some say in how they implement said law, and this is one of those ways. The ACA was written in a way and interpreted in a way where it gives states the option to expand their Medicaid rolls, if they do the federal government will assist them in that measure. Why is the federal government allowed to do this and why our the states allowed to do this? Not only because its the way the ACA is written, its because of our federalist system of government, two layers of government essentially working with eachother in implementation of a law...

Also do you have anything better than ****ty personal attacks?
 
Do you have an excerpt and link for that ruling?
The present program Florida is under is ending.

you are being obtuse it was the main reason they overturned the mandate to expand Medicaid to begin with. the federal government can't coerce states with threat of funding.
yep and the program was going to be extended till this. now the federal government is coercing or attempting to coerce the state of FL direct violation of a SCOTUS decision.
 
you are being obtuse it was the main reason they overturned the mandate to expand Medicaid to begin with. the federal government can't coerce states with threat of funding.
yep and the program was going to be extended till this. now the federal government is coercing or attempting to coerce the state of FL direct violation of a SCOTUS decision.
Obtuse, nope- You made a claim, then provide the information. Very reasonable request.
No, the program was ending as other programs are available. Quite legal.
 
:doh
Ok lets try this again.
It is under our federal system that the federal government gives certain aid, grants, etc to states. The federalist system allows this to operate, because the federalist system essentially states there are two layers of gov. The federal government and the state governments. The federal government has certain powers and responsibilities allocated to it while the states have all other remaining powers. Many programs are set up, or laws are written in a way to give states some say in how they implement said law, and this is one of those ways. The ACA was written in a way and interpreted in a way where it gives states the option to expand their Medicaid rolls, if they do the federal government will assist them in that measure. Why is the federal government allowed to do this and why our the states allowed to do this? Not only because its the way the ACA is written, its because of our federalist system of government, two layers of government essentially working with eachother in implementation of a law...

Also do you have anything better than ****ty personal attacks?

here is your statement which you begin with:

:lamo
The best part about this is that Florida would receive more aid if they simply expanded Medicaid.. But guess what Governor Scott, we live in a system of government called federalism, and in that system the federal government can withhold/cut funds from the lower levels of government if they see the need. Looks like you are on the wrong side of that coin..

this statement above is wrong, because federalism is a separation of powers...is has nothing.nothing to do with money granted or denied to states.

the poster....clearly shows he has no knowledge of american government

the 10th amendment best sums up federalism at it finest.......people who are for a socialist government would hate the 10th amendment which states:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



that all powers which are delegated in the u.s. constitution shall be the power of the federal government, all other powers which are not among the delegated powers, shall remain the power of the states, or to the people.

federalism is about powers........it has nothing to do with money!
 
Last edited:
Federalism

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state.

The amount of power exercised by the federal government is dependant upon how the various provisions of the Constitution are interpreted. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the powers of the federal government when it construed federal powers to include those “necessary and proper” to effect the legislation passed by Congress. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). This construction allows the federal government to exercise power ancillary to those specifically listed in the Constitution, provided the exercise of those powers does not conflict with another Constitutional provision. In contrast, state power is not limited to express grants of power. Under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, States have all powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government, or forbidden to them under the Constitution. For example, although the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax, state governments are also able to levy taxes to support themselves, because that power is not forbidden to them by the Constitution. State governments manage matters of local concern, such as child protective services, public schools, and road maintenance and repair.
 
here is your statement which you begin with:



this statement above is wrong, because federalism is a separation of powers...is has nothing.nothing to do with money granted or denied to states.

the poster....clearly shows he has no knowledge of american government

the 10th amendment best sums up federalism at it finest.......people who are for a socialist government would hate the 10th amendment which states:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



that all powers which are delegated in the u.s. constitution shall be the power of the federal government, all other powers which are not among the delegated powers, shall remain the power of the states, or to the people.

federalism is about powers........it has nothing to do with money!

How does any of that prove my statements wrong at all? Is what I just posted in all my statements not an aspect of federalism!?
 
Obtuse, nope- You made a claim, then provide the information. Very reasonable request.
No, the program was ending as other programs are available. Quite legal.

I don't have to provide common knowledge.

if other programs are available then it still cannot be tied to Medicaid expansion as the federal government cannot coerce states according to the SCOTUS.
 
How does any of that prove my statements wrong at all? Is what I just posted in all my statements not an aspect of federalism!?

wrong, your lead statement talked about MONEY, GIVING OR DENYING IT TO STATES..using the word federalism........which is not about MONEY...but about POWERS of government.

you have been in error since your first post.....you need to do a lot of reading on american government to fully understand it.
 
wrong, your lead statement talked about MONEY, GIVING OR DENYING IT TO STATES..using the word federalism........which is not about MONEY...but about POWERS of government.

you have been in error since your first post.....you need to do a lot of reading on american government to fully understand it.

Money is what our government uses to pay for services. The federal government being allowed to lend this money to the states is power... They have the power to withhold or not to withhold those funds.. Power... Put your thinking cap on.
 
if other programs are available then it still cannot be tied to Medicaid expansion as the federal government cannot coerce states according to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS differentiated between (1) traditional Medicaid, based on discrete eligibility categories, and (2) the ACA's Medicaid expansion which extends Medicaid eligibility to any low-income able-bodied adult. They declared that (2) is essentially a new program, since under traditional Medicaid being low-income isn't a sufficient condition to trigger eligibility. And thus states must voluntarily opt into (2), you couldn't assume they wanted it because they had opted into (1) and so you couldn't tie funding for (1) to (2)--that's what was coercive.

That isn't the situation Florida is in. They had a waiver of pre-ACA federal law that allowed them to partially finance (2). HHS is under no obligation to renew that waiver (particularly since there's no good reason to do so now that federal law allows them to finance (2) directly without a waiver). It's essentially withholding waiver authority for a half-hearted (2) because the state won't commit to (2). Which isn't the situation the SCOTUS had a problem with.

No more waivers for Florida.
 
Money is what our government uses to pay for services. The federal government being allowed to lend this money to the states is power... They have the power to withhold or not to withhold those funds.. Power...

:2razz::lamo............oh brother you are really trying to save face....

if you had read which you didn't, you would have read its about powers and the separation of them, between federal and state........has nothing to do with money....

Federalism

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state.

The amount of power exercised by the federal government is dependant upon how the various provisions of the Constitution are interpreted. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the powers of the federal government when it construed federal powers to include those “necessary and proper” to effect the legislation passed by Congress. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). This construction allows the federal government to exercise power ancillary to those specifically listed in the Constitution, provided the exercise of those powers does not conflict with another Constitutional provision. In contrast, state power is not limited to express grants of power. Under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, States have all powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government, or forbidden to them under the Constitution. For example, although the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax, state governments are also able to levy taxes to support themselves, because that power is not forbidden to them by the Constitution. State governments manage matters of local concern, such as child protective services, public schools, and road maintenance and repair.


this is really sad of you....you advocate a system of government based on force [socialism] and not liberty, and do not even know the system of government you have....sad very sad:(
 
I don't have to provide common knowledge.

if other programs are available then it still cannot be tied to Medicaid expansion as the federal government cannot coerce states according to the SCOTUS.

You made the claim, not I. Other programs, moving the goal posts? Why id that?
Back it up and the above as well or move on.
So we are now dawn to you providing 2 SCOTUS rulings on this program
And Jesus told me to write this.
Prove me wrong.
 
:2razz::lamo............oh brother you are really trying to save face....

if you had read which you didn't, you would have read its about powers and the separation of them, between federal and state........has nothing to do with money....

Federalism

Federalism is a system of government in which the same territory is controlled by two levels of government. Generally, an overarching national government governs issues that affect the entire country, and smaller subdivisions govern issues of local concern. Both the national government and the smaller political subdivisions have the power to make laws and both have a certain level of autonomy from each other. The United States has a federal system of governance consisting of the national or federal government, and the government of the individual states.

The U.S. Constitution grants the federal government with power over issues of national concern, while the state governments, generally, have jurisdiction over issues of domestic concern. While the federal government can enact laws governing the entire country, its powers are enumerated, or limited; it only has the specific powers allotted to it in the Constitution. For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracies on the high seas. Any action by the federal government must fall within one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution. For example, the federal government can regulate interstate commerce pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution but has no power to regulate commerce that occurs only within a single state.

The amount of power exercised by the federal government is dependant upon how the various provisions of the Constitution are interpreted. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the powers of the federal government when it construed federal powers to include those “necessary and proper” to effect the legislation passed by Congress. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). This construction allows the federal government to exercise power ancillary to those specifically listed in the Constitution, provided the exercise of those powers does not conflict with another Constitutional provision. In contrast, state power is not limited to express grants of power. Under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, States have all powers that are not specifically granted to the federal government, or forbidden to them under the Constitution. For example, although the Constitution grants the federal government the power to tax, state governments are also able to levy taxes to support themselves, because that power is not forbidden to them by the Constitution. State governments manage matters of local concern, such as child protective services, public schools, and road maintenance and repair.


this is really sad of you....you advocate a system of government based on force [socialism] and not liberty, and do not even know the system of government you have....sad very sad:(
Do you always just copy and paste things and not source them to act like its your own, and then when you have to type resort to ad hominems? Also can you explain to me how any of what you just copied and pasted proves me wrong? How does any of what you just pasted contradict my statements?
 
Do you always just copy and paste things and not source them to act like its your own, and then when you have to type resort to ad hominems? Also can you explain to me how any of what you just copied and pasted proves me wrong? How does any of what you just pasted contradict my statements?

i first posted what federalism is..and stated the 10th amendment was federalism at it finest......which is about power, not money.

then i posted a link from Cornell which showed i was correct.

in the future, it would be better of you if you just started you didn't really know what it meant, and the whole thing would have been forgotten.
 
i first posted what federalism is..and stated the 10th amendment was federalism at it finest......which is about power, not money.

then i posted a link from Cornell which showed i was correct.

in the future, it would be better of you if you just started you didn't really know what it meant, and the whole thing would have been forgotten.

And now put that perspective in regards to the case at hand. The state government have the power to expand medicaid, and the federal government having the power to issue monies to state governments...
 
And now put that perspective in regards to the case at hand. The state government have the power to expand medicaid, and the federal government having the power to issue monies to state governments...

sure... but the issue of federalism would never be part of such a conversation of this thread.

state powers are not limited, but federal powers are..... there is no delegated constitutional power for the federal government to issue money to states.
 
sure... but the issue of federalism would never be part of such a conversation of this thread.
state powers are not limited, but federal powers are..... there is no delegated constitutional power for the federal government to issue money to states.

So money in this case does have something to do with federalism, and I do understand what federalism is.. And that his argument is simply erroneous because the federal government does not have to issue these funds because its not required by our constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom