Why 8 GOP rats are grabbing for Obama`s Medicaid expansion cheese


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie SEE: Christie Agrees To Medicaid Expansion In Annual Budget Speech

Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, see: Sandoval Announces Nev. Medicaid Expansion

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, SEE: **Gov. Martinez Announces Medicaid Expansion **

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, see: Mich. governor signs on for Obama’s Medicaid expansion

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, see: **Gov. Kasich looks to expand Medicaid in OH **

Florida Gov. Rick Scott, see: Womp: Florida Gov. Scott decides to expand Medicaid

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple, see: Dalrymple: Funding For Obamacare Medicaid Expansion Is “Free Money”

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, see: **Brewer faces tough fight expanding Medicaid **

The excuses offered by these GOP Governors for accepting Obama’s Medicaid cheese are typical of progressive Newspeak. What this Medicaid expansion boils down to is, the money is borrowed from China which is then used to fund particular states asking for government Medicaid cheese to grow the free cheese wagon. And then, our nation’s children and grandchildren across America get stuck with paying the interest and principle on the money borrowed to purchase and disperse federal Medicaid cheese to the particular states choosing to expand the program. In the process millions of more voters are put on these State’s Medicaid free cheese wagon who then have a vested interest to vote for those politicians who hand out federal cheese and want to remain in the free cheese wagon while it is pulled by those taxed and enslaved to fill it.

This is a classic pinko progressive redistribution-of-wealth scheme and it is being embraced by these eight GOP cheese eating Governors who need to be punished for sucking up to Obama and enslaving our nation’s children and grandchildren in the process.


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along with FREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Stuff Party‘s agenda which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.


If they don’t take it, they’re tax payers are just going to be paying for other states’ healthcare costs, correct?


Not so! If the States do not take the money there is no need to borrow that money, and our nation’s Children and Grandchildren will not be enslaved to pay the interest and principal thereon.


If the America People do not rise up and defend the intentions and beliefs under which they adopted their Constitution, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?


I think these GOP cheese eating Governors care more about getting re-elected than sound fiscal policies. Heck, offering free cheese to voters worked for Obama and his progressive thugs. Fortunately in Florida the Legislature may close down Rick Scotts free cheese wagon. SEE: Florida House rejects Obamacare Medicaid expansion despite governor’s support

“Gov. Rick Scott was dealt a blow by fellow Republicans Monday when a House committee killed his push for Medicaid expansion – a day before the start of the 2013 legislative session.

Republicans unified in a 10-5 vote against expansion, with Democrats in the rare position of siding with the governor.”

Why should Rick Scott worry about the cost of Medicaid expansion cheese when our children and grandchildren will be stuck with paying for it?


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create


What is wrong with people who support Obamacare? Do they not know the difference between having the right to choose a health insurance plan tailored to their own personal needs and free to choose the “procedures” they may or may not want as opposed to a “federal approved” health insurance plan where political appointees dictate what procedures will or will not be in that federally approve insurance plan?

Why do they want to re-enslave women and deny them their fundamental right to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices? Do they not realize the court has already stated their notions are “presumptively unconstitutional” because they impinge upon a fundamental right?

When slavery was openly practiced in America was it not a slave’s owner who made the medical and health care decisions for their slaves? Why do Obamacare supporters want to regress into a new state of slavery in America in which this most fundamental and inalienable right of women is trumped by decisions made by public servants?

I kind of suspect their reason is, they want free stuff and are willing to surrender the liberty of America’s entire population to get it.


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create


People still are choosing their own insurance. Don’t you have insurance yourself? Didn’t you choose it?


Under Obamacare you must have federally approved health insurance. This of course impinges upon a women’s fundamental right to make her own medical and health care decisions and choices which includes purchasing health insurance tailored to her own personal needs.

Are you suggesting it is not a fundamental right of women to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices?


“It is of course true that a law that impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution is presumptively unconstitutional.” City of Mobile v. Bolden, 466 U.S. 55, 76, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980)


One of the two biggest problems with ObamaCare is it doesn’t permit true competition in the design of health insurance products. Most people will have to purchase soup to nuts coverage, for mental health and prescription drugs and rehabilitation visits and whole host of other stuff that most folks can self-insure. Insurers can’t compete by creating policies, as johnwk says, that are tailored to personal needs.

The other big problem is that it penalizes employers who don’t want to maintain group health plans, regardless if they are perfectly willing to help their employees out with health care expenses. The creation of the individual exchanges presents a tremendous opportunity that is being squandered. If everyone can now go out into the individual marketplace and get insurance, then why can’t employers just give their employees the money to do just that, without having to run a health plan and without having to pay a $2,000 per head government tax? It’s nuckin’ futs, and it’s the single biggest reason that the current “recovery” is, for so many, a jobless and debilitating one.


Additionally, there is no real connection between requiring everyone to have federally approved health insurance and providing health care to indigent individuals who cannot afford to pay for their own health care needs.

Let us recall before our federal government got involved in taxing and financing the health care needs of those who could not afford it, a number of denominational churches and private institutions voluntarily provided health care to these people. And, the first time I know of when our federal government did involved itself in taxing and spending for the health care needs of people was under the Act for the relief of sick and disable seamen which involved licensed American flag ships engaged in commerce among the States and/or with foreign nations. The Act was also directed at our Navy and its personnel over which Congress has jurisdiction. But the Act had nothing to do with the kind of despotic intrusion our federal government is now attempting with regard to the American People’s inalienable right to make their own medical and health care decisions. In fact, under the above mentioned act the revenue raised was to be used to build “Hospitals for the accommodation of sick and disabled seamen.”

Should we not consider the same for the poor and destitute, but each state being in total charge of these hospitals/clinics? Seems to me the who idea behind federally approved health insurance is not to deliver health care to the needy, but to seize control over our nation’s entire medical delivery system, and ignore the fundamental right of people being free to make their own medical and health care decisions and choices.


If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?


There are so many flies in the Obamacare ointment it is impossible to adequately contemplate all the known consequences of his “Affordable Care Act”, let alone the unintended consequences that will certainly surface. Jazzhead hit on a couple of flaws, although I don’t not agree with his view of the exchanges.

In any event, I think JH’s most significant point is the fact that the plan circumvents any and all competition among insurers. As a result, there is NOTHING in the plan that will bend the cost curve downward. It is important to understand - as well as probably being too late to matter - that anytime the government sets itself up between the commodity (in this case insurance/medical care) and the consumer - the consumer has less of the commodity available and what is available comes at a higher price.

With respect to scarcity of actual medical care delivery - allow me to speak as a retired doctor. Under the KNOWN guidelines set out under the “Affordable Healthcare Act” we are going to end up with a severe shortage of qualified physicians. Notice I’m not suggesting we might - I am guaranteeing that a shortage will take place. There are several reasons for this, but the back-breaker is that an individual that has trained for virtually his/her entire adult life in developing the skills/insights/judgments/ necessary to deliver quality medical care is NOT going to be satisfied answering to a beauracratic body primarily consisting of bean-counters with a political agenda.

Instead of the damage that is being/will be inflicted, our leaders could have/should have opted to allow insurance companies to COMPETE across state lines, while offering cafeteria style coverages instead of the ridiculous/costly one-size-fits-all coverage regime. In addition to that, limiting litigation/size of awards would have provided for very significant cost savings to the consumer as it would have meant reduced cost of practicing medicine for the physician, as well as reduced the redundancy associated with practicing “defensive medicine” as a means of self-protection on the part of doctors.

These two relatively simple adjustments would have actually addressed two basic problems associated with our system of medical delivery/costs. Obama’s/Congressional Dem’s 2600 pages of beauracratic BS/Mumbo Jumbo will be a disaster - a disaster that will never be unwound. What a shame.

Of course, if expanding the beauracracy, the size and the scope of government was/is the goal then the Affordable Healthcare Act - aka: Obamacare - makes pefect sense.



Your points as well as Jazzhead’s are very much on target, especially as related to “competition” being a necessary ingredient in the health insurance debate. And this is why I have long stated that part of health insurance reform starts with a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Let me tell you why.

As a result of a Senate investigation in 1888-1889 which found a number of Trusts [sugar, beef, oil] were interfering with free trade among the States, the Sherman Anti Trust Act was passed to “protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.” But the Act remained, as noted by Supreme Court Justice Harlan, “a piece of useless legislation.”

But in the mid 1940’s a criminal indictment was handed down charging 27 individuals with violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Some of the specific allegations were conspiracy, price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Please, keep these charges in mind because they are very pertinent to our current situation and reflect what folks in government have been engaged in. The defendants in the case claimed they were not required to conform to the standards of business conduct established by the Sherman Act because “the business of fire insurance is not commerce. But the Supreme Court decided the insurance business was in fact commerce and subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Congress’s regulations. See SOUTH-EASTERN-UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION, Decided June 5, 1944

Less than a year after the Supreme Court decision was handed down, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 providing that the “business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.” In other words Congress decides to overrule the Court’s decision and relinquish its constitutionally assigned duty to regulate commerce among the States in order to insure free trade among the states, but only with regard to the insurance industry! And by handing this power over to the various State Legislatures it allowed them to engage in practices which would otherwise be indictable under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and so, the various State Legislatures decide to engage in such practices e.g., adopting discriminatory laws which work to stifle competition from out-of-state companies (restraint of interstate trade and commerce).

The power of a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within their state was immediately tested in PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946). The South Carolina law is upheld by the Supreme Court. The law imposed an annual tax of 3 percent of the premiums of out of state business entities conducted in South Carolina which is not imposed on instate business entities. In fact, the Court in handing down its decision ignored the very intentions for which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the states, which was to prohibit the various states imposing discriminatory law upon out of state commerce and thereby embrace free trade among the States.

But what is most amazing, when one realizes it, the defendants in the SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION case were charged with conspiracy in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing trade and commerce. Well, with Congress’s behind-the-scene deal making in 1945, the McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed and paved the way for the various Sate Legislatures to “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within their borders, which are indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION

And now come Obamacare which in fact is designed to engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry on a federal level! Are these not indictable offenses under SOUTH-EASTERN UNDERWRITERSASSOCIATION? You be the judge!


If the America People do not rise up and defend their Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people who it was designed to control and regulate?


[quote=“MDMikeB, post:10, topic:38513”]
practicing “defensive medicine” as a means of self-protection on the part of doctors.
[/quote]I suffered an example of THAT recently.


I had bruised my tail bone (coccyx) by missing to plant my butt on the seat of a chair and came down full force on the wooden arm of the chair (in a doctor’s office . . . a Urologist . . . no less.) OUCHHHHH!

The pain was severe every time later when I went to sit down on my LazyBoy, or sit on anything for that matter. So I went to my PCP to see if there was any treatment.

He palpated the area (which made me jump with an "Ouch), and then he said that I would have to let the bruise heal by sitting on a donut (an inflated ring, which would relieve any pressure on the tail bone area) for a while. He also suggested applying heat now and then.

He also ordered an xray. At that point, I said, “Wait a minute . . . wait a minute. If the xray reveals that there is a fracture in the tail bone, would the treatment you recommend be any different than what you’ve already suggested?” I just couldn’t imagine how something like a cast could be wrapped around my tail bone without major surgery, or even if THAT was a feasible treatment anyway. Hence the question.

He answered, “No”.

So at that point, I said, “Then why even get an xray if your treatment recommendation isn’t going to change anyway, even if the worst case scenario prevails on the xray?”

His response, “You’re right, so forget the xray. I was just trying to protect myself.”

Now I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I firmly believe I am responsible for my own health treatment, and a doctor’s word is only a recommendation and NOT gospel (sorry Mike, no offense intended.)

Now a doctor’s recommendation IS backed by years of clinical experience and training, so it usually is sound. But that doesn’t preclude REASONABLE questions by the patient (though I’m sure doctors are sick of hearing, “I heard on the Internet that blah, blah, blah . . .”)

So my conclusion was this: How many patients would have just went ahead and gotten the xray without asking a question, and hence elevated health care costs?

I place the blame not necessarily on the doctors, who are only logically reacting to reality, but on the trial lawyers who can benefit from this nonsense when a malpractice suit goes to court.

Yes, there are valid malpractice cases, but when it gets so skewed that your PCP of years has to “protect himself”, something is upside down.

I also blame patients who think that only their doctor is responsible for their health. It’s a 50/50 partnership. YOU are responsible for your healthcare too.

Now, let’s relate all this to Obamacare (so we don’t go too far off topic.) It’s valid that patients should be in the mix, with reasonable questions about your healthcare, and then the patient is ultimately responsible for the decision. But now you’re going to have a third entity in the mix . . . those bean counters and politicians. Do you think they’re going to ask reasonable questions that are intended to enhance YOUR healthcare? Do you think you’re still going to be the one that determines what YOUR health care is going to be?


Perhaps the central reason why patients don’t inquire about the necessity of tests is that their insurance company most often picks up the tab. This sets the service transaction between doctor (commodity provider) and patient (consumer) apart from just about any other transaction I know. Set against the backdrop of a system that encourages/demands the practice of defensive medicine and, well, . . .

For example, if you are purchasing a car you, 1) know what it is you are buying, 2) know why you are buying it, 3) have a good idea how much the dealer paid for the car, 4) the list price of the car and, 5) how much you are willing to pay for it. The purchase/transaction is commodity and price driven - as such, it demands competition - and not just for price, but between auto manufacturers and their products, as well. This model serves to contain costs/price as well as provide the consumer with better products and a broader selection. This model does not supply us with a precise template for the delivery of medical services and insurance, but there are elements of this model that do provide us guidance - the central element being choice/competition.

On the other hand, most patients have only a vague idea, if even that, of the what/why regarding medical tests and no idea whatsoever regarding the costs/price. The patient most often is not interested what the tests cost or the price to be charged - because there most often is little if any cost billed to them. Such a transaction is about as devoid of competition as it is possible to get. There is NOTHING within the transaction that serves to drive costs anywhere but upward; certainly not downward.

Unless people are given a reason to SHOP for price within a competitive marketplace- both for insurence and medical services - costs will not be contained. The other side of this coin is that doctors must be allowed to practice in an environment that doesn’t require them to view every patient as a potential lawsuit.


Rick Scott may not get his Medicaid expansion cheese after all. See: Florida Medicaid expansion rejected by state Senate panel

***Monday, March 11, 2013

By Bill Cotterell

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Florida Governor Rick Scott’s plan to expand Medicaid coverage to cover about 1 million more poor people suffered a potential death blow on Monday when the proposal failed to make it out of a key state legislative committee.***


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create


SEE: Missouri Senate, House Panels Defeat Medicaid Expansion

***March 13, 2013 ***

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature dealt a triple defeat Wednesday to a Medicaid expansion plan as Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon continued to travel the state trying to rally support for an enlarged health-care program for lower-income adults.

Thumbs up to Missouri`s Legislature for rejecting Obama’s Medicaid expansion cheese!


“He has erected a multitude of new offices (Washington‘s existing political plum job Empire), ***and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ***___Declaration of Independence


Let"s keep in mind that a state’s rejection of “Medicaid cheese” doesn’t save a dime for taxpayers. The cheese just gets allocated to those states that do choose to expand their programs. Note also that, in a state that rejects “Medicaid cheese”, there will be no relief for hospitals who will have to continue to pay the costs of uncompensated care.

When hospitals provide care to the uninsured, the federal government currently provides DSH (Disproportionate Share Hospital) payments to help compensate them for costs they can’t get back from patients. ObamaCare eliminates the DSH, based on the premise that those costs would now be shifted to and covered by the Medicaid expansion. So if a state rejects the Medicaid expansion, this will effectively cripple that state’s hospitals by forcing them to bear additional liability for uncompensated costs, and they will probably react, if they don’t go out of business, by raising costs for everyone else (to be paid for by private insurance that will only get more and more expensive.)

In PA, it has been estimated that the loss of DSH monies will amount to about $500 million per year in additional liability hospitals will have to either absorb, or pass on to you and me.


Wait a second. There is no money to purchase Medicaid cheese. The money to purchase that cheese will have to be borrowed from China and then our nation’s children and grand children will be stuck with paying the interest and principal thereon. So, in fact, the rejection of Medicaid cheese by the States does save the America Taxpayers billions of dollars by not asking Obama to borrow money to purchase and distribute Medicaid cheese.

Let me once again say Thumbs up to Missouri`s Legislature for rejecting Obama’s Medicaid expansion cheese!


We are here today and gone tomorrow, but what is most important is what we do in between, and is what our children will inherit and remember us by.


SEE: State House Speaker Weatherford: Florida should reject Medicaid expansion, become ‘pocket of freedom’

March 16, 2013

***“States have an amazing opportunity, but it’s a choice. We can choose to join the collectivism groupthink mentality that’s going on right here in Washington, or we can blaze our own path. … We can put a flag down and establish pockets of freedom all over America,” Weatherford said.

“States are being lured, and I would argue being coerced, into expanding programs like Medicaid and passing regulations not through federal mandate but with the promise of free money,” Weatherford said. “They’re trying to buy us off one by one. But I am not buying it. Florida will not buy it, and America should not buy it.”***


The liberty to fail or succeed at one’s own hand is a PROGRESSIVE`S nightmare and not the American Dream


Interesting thing I discovered when reading ACA regs this morning. It sure as heck appears that employers in Pennsylvania will pay the price for Gov. Corbett’s rejection of the Medicaid cheese. Since Christie is taking the cheese right across the river, it will be an interesting test case to see whether and how badly that PA employers will be disadvantaged.

The detail is this - the secondary ACA employer penalty/shared responsibility payment/mandate/tax, which is $3,000 per head, is assessed on each of your employees that rejects your plan, takes an exchange plan instead, and receives a government premium subsidy. But your employee can’t get a premium subsidy if he can instead qualify for Medicaid. So, in a state like New Jersey that will be expanding Medicare, there will be fewer premium subsidies claimed. And each of those premium subsidies not claimed will save a New Jersey employer $3,000, as compared to his Pennsylvania counterpart.


Spent some time reading ACA regulations this weekend . . .

It appears that employers in those states that have rejected the Medicaid cheese will be paying the price. That’s because the secondary “shared responsibility” tax - the one at $3,000 per head for each employee that rejects the employer’s health care plan, gets a policy instead from a state exchange, and then claims a premium tax credit - will generate far more revenue from employers in those states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion. You can’t claim a premium tax credit if you qualify for Medicaid. So in those states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, there will be thousands of employees who will have no option other than to claim the premium tax credit. Those thousands of employees will in turn cost their employees the $3,000 per head penalty.

Pennsylvania and New Jersey are separated by only a river but their GOP governors took very different approaches to whether to take the Medicaid cheese. They will prove to be interesting test cases for the proposition that medium-sized employers in PA will incur significant, unexpected costs that their counterparts in NJ will not.