However, it did not establish absolute federal control over the states. States still maintain their sovereignty and no Northern state would have consented to going to war if they knew they were giving up their sovereignty.
The 10th amendment still stands, and laws are still struck down on 10th amendment grounds. the mandatory aspect of the Medicaid expansion being the most recent example: 7-2 vote. Even some liberal justices are Tenthers.
They managed to set it up in such a way as to make it stupid and inhumane to refuse Medicaid expansion. They underestimated the staunch patriotism of Republican governors and their willingness to stare straight into the face of full retard and say:
“Give me liberty or give me death! Mostly for the poor folks, sure, but they are totally worried about big government!..What they really care about, medicine for their kids is down the list…”
They tried to set it up so that all Medicaid funding would be pulled if they refused the expansion. Turns out getting states dependent on federal funds, which are revenues poached from the states’ tax base to begin with, is not a legitimate way to get around constitutional limits.
Of course not, but only irrational Republican Governors would assume that most people will be ok with the numbskull move of choosing to not get federal money in the long run. IOW, you have another big hole opening with independents and women that Democrats will then use in the states that think that using those constitutional limits would be a good idea.
As I remember seeing that in Florida a lot of the poor voters voted to support also health care reform, I expect to then see Texas turning blue much sooner.
The states are already bearing a heavy burden from current Medicaid spending. Although the feds pay most of the cost of the expansion, the states will still have to raise taxes to cover the new Medicaid spending, since unlike the feds, most of the states can’t just borrow from the next generation.
Will the public support higher sales taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion? We’ll find out.
I like the chances of more of those states turning blue.
Obamacare a winning issue? even in blue states, that’s crazy talk. But we’ll see. 2014 is going to settle a lot of debates we’ve been having here.
Uh, the votes already took place and even the supreme court rendered the verdict, your side lost. You are still debating 2009.
Obamacare wasn’t a big issue in 2012 as it was in 2010. With implementation starting in 2014, it will be THE issue. If it’s a success, it will be great for the Democrats. If they screw it up though…
Of course, the Democratic line will be that Obama can’t be blamed for bad implementation, it’s other people’s fault. Probably Republican people.
Tap dancing, it won already so the crazy point was not mine. The future enforcement and application will depend indeed on the ones that will govern well, most Republicans states that are opposed to it are in reality not governed well, and things like Obamacare will show many in those mismanaged states the reality of that mismanagement.
If there is no change soon regarding the continuous opposition to Obamacare in Texas I expect then it changing to Blue sooner rather than later as it was expected.
The most remarkable aspect of that to me is that the Teabagger-controlled states who are choosing not to participate in Obamacare any more than necessary, i.e. by not participating in setting up the exchanges but throwing a snit and making the feds do it for them, are thereby choosing to *increase *federal control of health care in their states. Either they don’t get it or they don’t think it matters.
I’m actually for that - they’re helping advance an eventual national single-payer system that we know from experience in so many other places would be far more cost-efficient and probably more universal.
The blueing of Texas is probably more due to ethnicity and immigration policies than health care, but yes, it’s true. The blueing of Florida is already a fact that makes it impossible for a Presidential candidate of today’s GOP to win, and adding Texas would make it unthinkable.
Republicans have controlled the State legislature for some time, and the governor’s office since 1998. They can win Presidential elections, and our minority population is probably the most GOP-leaning in the country, thanks to the Cuban refugees.
As for the federal exchanges, the states aren’t setting them up because a) it costs them money, and b) it doesn’t give them any control. You have to do it the feds’ way whether you do it yourself or they do it for you. So make them do it.
Oh, you mean the Cuban-Americans that also supported Obamacare? (not in impressive numbers but still the Democrats won their vote in part thanks to health care reform)
As others point out, don’t mind then when the people do not vote for the Republicans when they see how other states have better deals.
We’ll see what happens. Support for Obamacare is low overall, to the point where Democrats don’t even want to talk about it unless they are in the bluest of districts.
But it’s good to know they were willing to talk about it in Spanish. Let’s see if we can’t get that to be the main debate in English in 2014. You obviously seem to think it’s a winning issue, so let’s make it the issue.
We saw that already,** it already took place**. but denial of what the Cuban Americans actually did makes your points to be ridiculous once again.
As pointed out, too late, you are really clueless.
/golfclap
Way to play the xenophobe card, adaher.
:rolleyes: