Y kant America draft legislation?
If you literally want people who say specifically that they want no poor to have healthcare, yes, there aren’t that many of those.
However, if you want, as I assumed you did, people who want to enact policies that will cause many of the poor to have no access to health care, the GOP is your fella.
Medicaid was not created to provide healthcare to “poor people.” It was Obamacare that was supposed to turn it into that.
Whether or not you buy the explanation, what I have most often heard is that they have zero confidence that the Feds will continue to fund it, thereby creating an enormous entitlement that the state can’t afford but politically can’t reduce. Given the state of our national debt, this is not a crazy notion.
Isn’t that pretty much the very reason that Medicaid was created? To make sure poor people had access to health care?
One need only look to Texas to understand how this works. Perry turned down Medicaid expansion allegedly because federal money is evil, which means either the uninsured poor will die when they get sick or else they’ll wind up in the ER which will cost the taxpayers more. But when a Texas fertilizer plant exploded, Rick Perry immediately demanded federal money, and when Texas was hit by wildfires Perry complained that the feds weren’t providing enough money and weren’t providing it fast enough. One also notes that part of his angst is that Perry, believing as he does in small government before the wildfires hit, had cut his own state’s forest services budget.
Quoted from the first link above:
Cite?
And they may think that creating a huge entitlement that cannot be sustained is bad because people will come to rely on it and then it will collapse, creating a worse problem than before.
Has this ever happened in the US?
What, you’re unpersuaded by my existing cites that Rick Perry makes a hypocritical show of shunning federal money when it’s politically expedient? You think he rejected the free Medicaid money because he possesses some innate wisdom that the rest of us lack, prompting headlines like Gov. Rick Perry stands firm on no federal money into Texas? This is the shameless hypocrite who started a petition titled "No Government Bailouts"and then accepted $6.4 billion in federal bailout money the very same day.
So your view is that health care is some kind of discretionary option, like a luxury vacation? What is it that those who can’t afford it are supposed to do when they get sick?
The last, huge, housing mortgage bubble that should never have been allowed to happen, comes to mind. The government knew about, but chose not to curtail, the sub-prime ARM’s that had become popular but were doomed to eventual failure.
The sub-primes was the entitlement that shouldn’t have been allowed.
Because the U.S. Congress has lost it’s ability to compromise.
It’s the “our way or the highway” mantra that Senators and Congressmen cling to which makes reasonable or logical legislation almost impossible write, read, pass, or correct. That places the issues into the courts for clarification. SSDD.
It’s up to the voters to chose legislators who are willing to compromise or suffer with their current choices.
Subprimes and the associated securities and strategies were the unethical and at times criminal creations of the financial industry. It had nothing to do with any government program and isn’t remotely an “entitlement” in any normal meaning of the word. So IOW the answer is “no”, the “collapse” proposed by Bricker is entirely a red herring, being used to justify conservatives once again screwing the poorest sector of society.
Not really.
I don’t think SCOTUS would act before an en banc hearing and if that reverses the original decision then there is no issue for Scotus to address.
You don’t think the appellant (Halbig) would appeal a negative ruling from the en banc panel!?!
Regardless of how an en banc panel rules, this one is destined for the Supreme Court.
I’m not a lawyer, but seriously?
Does anybody honestly think that the SCOTUS is inkling for the chance to rule on the ACA for a THIRD FUCKING TIME? Give me a break, I think it’s more likely that the Justices would rather relocate the Court to Mars.
This same Supreme Court, which - amongst its many accomplishments - just gave religious rights to corporations, handed the presidency to George W. Bush, & eviscerated the greatest civil rights law of the last century IS NOT yearning to be put on the spotlight AGAIN just so that it can teach Congress a lesson in grammar.
This entire lawsuit is preposterous in every damn sense of the word, and the Court isn’t going to touch the ACA issue again with a ten foot pole.
No, this case isn’t “destined” for the SCOTUS, because it will be settled in all the lower courts UNANIMOUSLY. Common sense shall prevail.
Your claim: “One need only look to Texas to understand how this works. Perry turned down Medicaid expansion allegedly because federal money is evil…”
Which cite supports that claim? Please be specific.
What are the rest of us supposed to do when we can’t afford to continue covering the cost of those who get sick and can’t afford it?
Would you care to place a bet on that confident prediction?
Insist they never get sick? Tell them to just die already?
The time to argue the feasibility of the ACA was before it was passed by Congress and signed into law. That day has passed.