Dictator Obama's naive belief that Republican Governors had the best interests of their citizens in mind is his undoing. He should have overruled state sovereignty and states rights to force the states to take care of their citizens. Got it. LOL
Yes. States are rejecting federal dollars to make a political stand at the expense of their citizens. One by one, the more reasonable governors seem to be realizing this and slowly changing their mind as they realize the sheer stupidity of it.
ROFL, IIRC, it was the Supreme Court which gave the states the ability to opt out, not Obama or the legislators (and their aides) who actually wrote the legislation. Nice try, though, good to see you are still able to post without actually thinking about WHAT you post.
of course my point again sailed right over your head and comprehension the point is that they should have had the foresight to design something that the SCOTUS wouldn't make more difficult. Maybe if Obama wouldn't have ramrodded this down our throats and passed it through a shady process he could have achieved that. But he instead chose the lazier way of just ramrodding it without getting Republican agreement.
So the difficult part is getting elected officials to accept things beneficial to their people? This seems like a much bigger issue than the craft of a piece of legislation. So I guessing if Obama said states must accept funding you would be ok with it?
Who couldve forseen that? The Supreme Court's rationale was idiotic. They ruled that states should have a "genuine choice" and that the government's threat to revoke existing medicaid funds was unfair coercion. Yet the feds have a huge history of threatening the states in such a manner. The national drinking age of 21 is a perfect example of the government threatening the states (in that case with transportation money) in order to coerce them to enact something. Why the Supreme Court decided to put its foot down now is bizarre. Also, I'd love to see a state sue the government and argue that the national minimum drinking age act is unconstitutional since I'm pretty sure they'd win based on the ACA ruling.
Should have known this in advance, or at least thought it through. That's the downfall of ramrodding things through and "hope" they work. "Hope" isn't a viable strategy, despite Obama's desire for it to be one...
It is not a fact that "hope" is the strategy of ACA. It is sad you have chosen to put the blame on Obama when it is people at the state level who are responsible. It is sad that your bias blinds you. Obama gave states money for medicaid, which some rejected, leaving millions in trouble and it is Obama's fault for not allowing states to not accept funding? Meanwhile we in Texas look even dumber. We screw over our citizen, allow our tax money to go to other states, and are proud of not taking medicaid funds? LOL
ever heard of accountability? It's what good leaders do. That's why Obama sucks so bad -- he passes blame and can't work with others. Total disaster because he's incompetent.
Seriosuly? You one passing the blame. This is a problem where state are accepting medicaid funding. He provide a framework for an expansion of medicaid, one that some states chose to reject. So when you can't get it because your state leaders rejected it, look at them.
LOLing at l'il t. OBAMA SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT REPUBLICANS' HATRED OF THE BROWN DUDE IN THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD OUTWEIGH THE WELL BEING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. LEADERSHIP FAIL!1!!1
It's simple. Democrat wants Obamacare to succeed, to insure the poor with some new taxes. Republican wants Obamacare to fail, so no new taxes at the expense of the poor. The kicker is this has a chance of working, help the poor, reduces ER expenses, lower health care expenses at very modest new taxes and even reduce the deficit. I think it will still get there, but on a very bumpy road thanks to considerate effort by the Right to block progress for Americans. The Right obstructing progress to derail Obamacare while at the same time arguing for the individual goodies of Obamacare are hypocrites. e.g. 5M folks will not get insurance because Republican governors would not accept free federal money already paid by their tax payers is due to Obamacare and not them.
...and of course you had to resort to pulling the race card because you're unable to argue based on fact, logic and reason. NEXT
Apparently, you ignored the entire 14 month long process they went through in crafting the legislation, a process which included more Republican amendments than Democratic ones. Now, you're saying that they should have been clairvoyant so that they could have foreseen the SCOTUS changes. Your desire for a President with ESP is noted, but unrealistic.
How? Tax payers in Texas, and all state rejecting medicaid expansion, are still on the hook tax wise, just now our money will be used to fund other states medicaid expansion. We do not save any money by rejecting medicaid. Rejecting billions of dollars so someone else can have it is a good deal?
Those of us on the west coast thank Texas citizens for helping to pay for providing insurance to our citizens. We will think of you during our DREs.
The SC let states opt out because it wasn't just the federal government giving money to the states. There were strings attached to the money and the amount of the medicaid expansion that government would cover decreased over time meaning states would see costs go up down the road. (I believe it was after 2016)
