This Bevin guy…
Is his name, “Dick”???
Sorry…I’m an Episcopalian…we don’t ‘get’ this new fangled ‘Prosperity Gospel’ stuff…/sarc
1 Like
The Republican party is a cult and it has been for a long time. This opposition to expanded Medicare is just off the scale stupid/bad policy. I know they hate helping poor people but the funds from this program go to hospitals and health care providers who are obligated to provide care to the poor as mandated under Ronald Reagan’s EMTALA statute.
3 Likes
Probably a better name, one that has the potential to resonate is “The Cult”
All these new rules - isn’t that just adding to “big government’s” bigness? It’s almost like conservatives don’t actually hate big government. It’s almost like they just hate government that helps people.
The state additionally says the lawsuit should be thrown out because Bevin’s promise to scrap the Medicaid expansion entirely if he loses in court means that the challengers’ claims are not “redressable” — essentially, they’re screwed and will lose their Medicaid coverage no matter which way the court comes down.
What a great legal argument! At first glance, it may seem ridiculous, but it’s coming from conservatives, so it can’t be, given how smart they always are.
Indeed, once they win this case, perhaps this brilliant defense will be copied by others. For example, a big corporation being sued for polluting a town can argue that they need to win the case because if they don’t, they’ll poison everyone’s drinking water?
1 Like
And who’s fault is that? Kentucky gets what they voted for, or in this case, were too lazy to get out and vote. That state and this country deserves trump!
When and if we ever get back into a position to effect meaningful change, we have got to craft a health care plan that will cover EVERYBODY at a reasonable cost. My conservative friends and acquaintances have spoken bitterly of being limited to expensive plans in this particular market while their neighbors–either not working or disabled–can go to any doctor, present their Medicaid card and get treated right away. We couldn’t manage this the last time around, during Obamacare, but I bet there would be way more support for it now, especially in view of the GOP’s efforts to sabotage what health care provisions there are for people outside employer plans.
I don’t favor the Kentucky approach, but even it has an exemption for people too ill to work. You can disparage me personally all you want, but it would be nice if you decided to help pay for the privilege of doing so by becoming a Prime Member. It’s really easy to do so. Thanks.
1 Like
No federal court is going to hold that the Governor gets to keep his program because he will throw a tantrum and close the program if he doesn’t get his way. The court will examine the law and make a decision based on how it reads the law. It may be right, or it may be wrong, but unless we know the statutory language, we are left to throwing rose petals or spit balls— which is a Trumpette specialty. My modest proposal was for TPM to provide us with the statutory and regulatory language, so we could get a better sense of what that would be.
1 Like
It will get him re-elected. This POS ran on this promise and the goobers voted for him.
I don’t deserve this nor do any of the other TPM regulars who live here.
4 Likes
Bullshit.
And the correct word you should have used is “whose.”
1 Like
Go ahead governor, make my day…
1 Like
“Kentucky’s waiver will allow the state to deny coverage to any non-disabled adult who cannot prove they are working at least 20 hours per week. The state also will be able to charge low-income Medicaid recipients health care premiums, eliminate full coverage of dental care, vision services, and over-the-counter medications for many adults, end retroactive Medicaid coverage, and implement a six-month lockout period for people who fail to re-enroll in time or report a change in income.”
Base on Bevin’s above-listed desires, Kentucky should not stop at cutting $500K from the Medicaid but budget but move to abolish the program altogether. Why? Because a program that is so skimpy that it is essentially worthless doesn’t provide value to either the beneficiary nor tax-paying citizens.
Conservatives demonstrate courage of their convictions and call for outright abolishment or dissolution of programs they hate instead of allowing said programs to limp along hemorrhaging significant administrative costs.
Permitting pseudo-social service programs to exist that emphasize parsimony and obstacles to access are a waste of money and inefficient. Which, I thought is inimical to conservative dogma.
I’m no so sure, the reality is the biggest chunk of Medicaid goes to old people that have dual coverage (Medicare and Medicaid), what’s not covered by Medicare gets picked by Medicaid. So when the "self-reliant " GOP voter learns that he has to take grandma in because she can no longer be in the nursing home and that he has to pawn his guns to pay for her medicines, he might be in a bit of a shock.
Medicaid’s biggest costs are for elderly nursing home patients who have no other resources.Medicare doesn’t pay for much nursing home care.
1 Like
The question isn’t why the “self-reliant” GOP voter doesn’t know (many do) but why the allowed to engage in cognitive dissonance. I think when Dems are in power they should write legislation that exempts any house district or state (when both senators vote against) from benefits and largesse of federal programs.
Obama’s economic stimulus package is a great example. GOP senators and house members and their constituents (e.g., local chambers of commerce, and various business groups) railed against federal goodies but then lined up with their greedy hands out.
Call his bluff.
Copyright infringement case coming up!
Bevin to poor: drop dead.