Eh, the timing obviously shows the administration held off on pushing her to resign since it happened when the news is good as opposed to when it was initially bad. They played it right politically.
Much of the Obama spoon-fed news is bogus. Actual sign-up numbers not nearly as rosy. Plus the people at the bottom (who need help the most) are literally not helped; it is same-o, same-o for them.
Enrollment figures looking up recently, number insured too. No one can really argue against the increased transparency that has resulted or the culture shift either. Not a perfect law, but a start.
(by the way on the most needy, did you see my response to your post in the other thread? I think you were partly misinformed)
You realize as I said in the other thread that the medicaid expansion is a large part of it, right? That helps all those needy poor as long as their state decides to participate (and it came down to that because of the SCOTUS ruling) and as long as they themselves decide to sign up for it or don't slip through the cracks they can get coverage.
Problem is, many states deemed it unaffordable (i.e. would break their budget), and therefore opted out.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER PRESENT UNFUNDED MANDATES!!!
The Fed govt is funding what like 90% of it? Financially itd prob save the states money, especially in the long run. Make no doubt about it- the resistance is political, not financial. That is also why it isn't the financially worse-off states hesitant to expand, but instead many of the ones controlled by Republicans/conservatives who oppose this administration politically. It is sad that they hurt their own states and poor in exchange for political points- regardless of your view on obamacare, it is pretty obvious that from a state's view the medicaid expansion is a goldmine and at the end of the day the governors and state legislatures are supposed to rep their respective state and the people of that state. Of course there are some notable exceptions and kudos to them for looking out for their constituents.
For only two years or something like that.
100% first three years, 90+ after that I believe. Yea, it is politics that is holding them back.
But if I understand you right are you wishing for more Federal involvement and spending in reform if you are for a medicaid expansion but don't like the costs it places on states (even though they are pretty much negligible given what they get in return)?
More like economics & principle.
I already addressed those points. Economically, it is stupid not to expand. If you want to help the poor, then it is a no-brainer to expand considering you are paying almost nothing to do it. Didn't you already say you wanted a medicaid expansion in the other thread anyway? Is your preference a 100% federally funded expansion as opposed to ~90?
Last edited:
I have no doubt that many more States (if not all) would join in Medicaid expansion, if they cancelled Obamacare in its entirety at the same time, as Obamacare boondoggle is totally unneeded with a sufficient Medicaid expansion.
The States are waiting until 2016, for those things to have a chance of happen.
At this point you're talking out of your ass for the hell of it.
A large part of Obamacare IS the MEDICAID EXPANSION and what we are specifically discussing here is whether states opt into that medicaid expansion. So you want states to expand medicaid but you want them to wait to repeal a law that isn't going to be repealed so that you can pass a new law that offers the same medicaid expansion and that they will accept? Sounds like you are okay with hurting the poor for political reasons too. And it is funny because if you look at the "repeal and replace" crowd's proposals over time, the proposals seem to be getting asymptotically closer to what Obamacare is as of now anyway. Politics.
On another note, while helping the poor is a part of it, to suggest that healthcare reform on a broader level isn't needed in general is stupid. Look at costs and where they have gone and continue to go, even for those not at or near the FPL. And then weigh it against outcomes and it is even more depressing. Structural reforms were needed. Again, this law is far from perfect, but it is better than nothing and can be seen as a start to build upon with further reforms.
Oh....is that all.
We should have known this many years ago.
Damn...that's right, we did and no one was able to do anything about it. Instead we all got to sit back and watch it get incredibly worse.
Finally someone just forced it and is getting slammed for doing so.
Similar threads
