Obama wins!!! Obama Care is legal!!!

"...Yawn..."

A response by the befuddled who are caught with their pants down and can't even manage to construct a screen.

Also upheld was a provision that expands Medicaid coverage to include all adults with annual incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, which is currently $14,404 for an individual. The federal government will pick up the total cost of the expensive expansion for the first three years, after which the funding will phase down to 90%.

The expansion could reduce the number of uninsured adults with incomes under 133% of poverty by more than 11 million by 2019, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation estimate.

But here's the catch: The states can opt out of the Medicaid expansion program, since the court said the federal government can't penalize them by withholding all Medicaid funding. Instead, these states wouldn't get the additional Medicaid money to cover newly eligible enrollees.

And that could mean trouble for many poor adults who are not eligible for Medicaid under the current system but would have qualified under the expansion. (Read: Doctors may have to quit their practices)

Now, state officials will have to consider whether to participate in the expansion program, weighing the policy, political and fiscal implications, said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

In states that do opt out, those who are just above the poverty line will be able to buy private coverage through new insurance exchanges. The federal government will help them cover the cost.

"For the lower end of the income scale, the subsidies are very large," Salo said.

But those below the poverty line aren't eligible for the subsidies. So in the states that opt not to expand Medicaid, millions of poor adults will likely be left without insurance.

"There is a gap in coverage for very vulnerable, low income people," said Edwin Park, vice president for health policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Some experts believe that states will come under tremendous pressure, particularly from medical providers, to participate in the expansion. That's because they currently have to care for the uninsured poor at their or the state's expense.

If states participate in the expansion program, the federal government will pick up nearly all of the tab. That's a powerful incentive, as is the additional economic impact from the additional federal spending, said Gary Claxton, director of the Health Care Marketplace Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"Probably, at the end of the day, states will want to do it," he said

Yes, you've hit the nail on the head jcboy. Jindal, Walker and Scott hate the poor and they have seized upon this decision to find a way to eradicate them.

They don't hate the poor, and they don't want to eradicate them. Indeed, the opposite: there's no noble class without serfs to support it. Republicans want to GROW the number of poor folks, or at the very least, maintain them sufficiently to keep the game going.

Cycloptichorn

Finn never got a job from a poor person, so we must tax the poor and let the rich keep their money.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They don't hate the poor, and they don't want to eradicate them. Indeed, the opposite: there's no noble class without serfs to support it. Republicans want to GROW the number of poor folks, or at the very least, maintain them sufficiently to keep the game going.

Cycloptichorn

Not true at all. Republicans want every poor person to become a rich person so they can all go yachting together or some other exclusive activity.

Unlike the Democrats who love the poor so much that they want everyone to be poor so they can buy their votes with SSI and handouts.

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They don't hate the poor, and they don't want to eradicate them. Indeed, the opposite: there's no noble class without serfs to support it. Republicans want to GROW the number of poor folks, or at the very least, maintain them sufficiently to keep the game going.

Cycloptichorn

Not true at all. Republicans want every poor person to become a rich person so they can all go yachting together or some other exclusive activity.

I think this is absolutely and totally untrue. You're describing equality of outcome, the very thing that Republicans rail against constantly and accuse the Dems of trying to institute via various socialist policies.

Quote:

Unlike the Democrats who love the poor so much that they want everyone to be poor so they can buy their votes with SSI and handouts.

Quick quiz for you, McG. Which party is responsible for the largest deductions and credits the poor can take, to minimize their tax burden or even get a refund in excess of what they paid in? If you say anyone but the GOP, you're totally and completely wrong. The Earned Income Credit (instituted under GOP leadership, expanded greatly by Reagan and Bush younger) and the Child tax Credit (instituted by Clinton, but with a heavy push from the GOP-controlled Legislature, expanded greatly by Bush younger) combine to provide more in handouts to poor folks than ANYTHING the Dems could have imagined. When Conservatives like to throw around the 'half of taxpayers pay no tax' line, they conveniently forget that these two policies that they pushed for are the reason for this.

So, in short, you're full of ****. The GOP buys votes from the poor using tax policy, on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They don't hate the poor, and they don't want to eradicate them. Indeed, the opposite: there's no noble class without serfs to support it. Republicans want to GROW the number of poor folks, or at the very least, maintain them sufficiently to keep the game going.

Cycloptichorn

Not true at all. Republicans want every poor person to become a rich person so they can all go yachting together or some other exclusive activity.

I think this is absolutely and totally untrue. You're describing equality of outcome, the very thing that Republicans rail against constantly and accuse the Dems of trying to institute via various socialist policies.

uh, no. That's not what I am describing at all. I am describing the American dream of having the opportunity to achieve through hard work, dedication, perseverance and little bit of luck. It's quite possible to become a wealthy individual if you put the effort into it. I've seen it happen.

Republicans want every poor person to become a rich person so they can all go yachting together

Quote:

Quote:

Unlike the Democrats who love the poor so much that they want everyone to be poor so they can buy their votes with SSI and handouts.

Quick quiz for you, McG. Which party is responsible for the largest deductions and credits the poor can take, to minimize their tax burden or even get a refund in excess of what they paid in? If you say anyone but the GOP, you're totally and completely wrong. The Earned Income Credit (instituted under GOP leadership, expanded greatly by Reagan and Bush younger) and the Child tax Credit (instituted by Clinton, but with a heavy push from the GOP-controlled Legislature, expanded greatly by Bush younger) combine to provide more in handouts to poor folks than ANYTHING the Dems could have imagined. When Conservatives like to throw around the 'half of taxpayers pay no tax' line, they conveniently forget that these two policies that they pushed for are the reason for this.

So, in short, you're full of ****. The GOP buys votes from the poor using tax policy, on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn

So, let me get this straight... Give poor people a break by giving them a child tax credit (which I have been in love with since it's inception and one of the reasons I'll hate it if the Bush tax cuts go away) and give them an EIC to help pay their bills as they try to make a go of it... yet the way you make it seem, that's a bad thing. Thanks for proving that the GOP is not just a bunch of ogres out for the blood of the poor folk. Giving them a leg up is not pushing them down and keeping them poor, nor is it buying their votes.

I don't think you have a good grasp on Republican values. You seem to be blinded by the rhetoric of the extremists.

It's about reducing the deficit by cutting spending. The country gets enough money in taxes to pay the bills if congress would stop spending what they don't have. Obama and Congress are both equally at blame for out of control spending. You can't keep blaming Bush anymore.

Unlike the Democrats who love the poor so much that they want everyone to be poor so they can buy their votes with SSI and handouts.