Republicans Governors around the nation are putting politics ahead of the lives of their constituents

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
Thom Hartmann A...
Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture

At least 15 Republican Governors have promised to opt-out of Obamacare and not take free money from the federal government to expand their Medicaid programs to cover more of the uninsured.  In Republican southern states, adult uninsured populations are projected to shrink by 50% under the expansion.  But Governors are saying no way.

For example, in South Carolina – where Medicaid expansion would reduce the uninsured population by 76% - Governor Nikki Haley is turning down the funding.  The same is true in Louisiana, where Medicaid expansion could cut down on the uninsured by 74%.  Studies have shown that lack of health insurance kills tens of thousands of Americans every year.

And when a lifeline is offered to these uninsured Americans, Republicans Governors are more than eager to cut it loose.

Comments

Commonsense461
Thom you and I both know

Thom you and I both know there is no such thing as a free lunch. By taking that money states become leveraged to the federal government. We know from history the federal government will use that leverage to get the states to inact unpopular laws. The best example of this is when the federal government pulled highway funding untilsatiates changed the drinking age. Now is it out of the question that the same thing could happen with this money? The other big problem is that the federal funding is not Permenant so all it really does is put more intitlment spending on the states.

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: Thom

Commonsense461 wrote:

Thom you and I both know there is no such thing as a free lunch. By taking that money states become leveraged to the federal government. We know from history the federal government will use that leverage to get the states to inact unpopular laws. The best example of this is when the federal government pulled highway funding untilsatiates changed the drinking age. Now is it out of the question that the same thing could happen with this money? The other big problem is that the federal funding is not Permenant so all it really does is put more intitlment spending on the states.

Who cares!  Are you telling me that it's better to have people dying from a lack of health care than to give up some leverage over unpopular laws?  Drinking age?  Really?  I know you can't mean that. 

Commonsense461
So I only have to choices

So I only have to choices statism or nihilism?

Bush_Wacker
Bush_Wacker's picture
Commonsense461 wrote: So I

Commonsense461 wrote:

So I only have to choices statism or nihilism?

Of course not.  I don't like the new health care law as it stands.  I think they need to come up with a plan that insures all children until the age of 21 and all seniors over the age of 65.  Everyone in between can be handled in a different way.  It would be much more affordable for one thing and I would be able to sleep at night for another.  There has to be more choices than either the ACA or nothing.

Commonsense461
Then maybe these govenors are

Then maybe these govenors are correct to reject a one size fits all program and instead institute their own system.

 

 

delete jan in iowa
Let's see what the governors

Let's see what the governors come up with, if anything.

Commonsense461
Welli know perry is against

Welli know perry is against it not because of the ideas but because he don't want to expand the broken Medicare system.

camaroman
camaroman's picture
Plus the federal (taxpayers

Plus the federal (taxpayers money) will begin to dry up after 3 years? or is it 2years, I've seen that somewhere but can't remember./ The Sate of Texas is in fairly decent financil shpe be cause of our Constitution that limit government strictly and Perry doesn't want to break the state. People and children are not dying in the streets because they don't have access to INSURANCE, they still have access to medical care. EMTALA