MARY WIER wrote:
". . . .I am hoping that Tennessee accepts Medicaid expansion because it is designed to help children, the elderly, the disabled, veterans and also hospitals. If we turn a blind eye to the less fortunate, we are failing as human beings and as religious beings."
Right decision, wrong argument. We definitely need Medicaid expansion but the groups you site are for the most part covered by other forms of health care coverage. The group that will benefit from Medicaid Expansion are working folks whose employers do not provide a medical plan, and who cannot afford it on their own, yet make just enough over the poverty line not be to covered by TennCare as it is now.
It's only the governor's obstinance that is keeping our state from benefiting from money that it's citizens have already sent to Washington.
"Plato...dream on...I don't particularly like Haslam, he is not conservative enough, but there is no chance anyone can beat him."
timbo - You're probably right about that. There are enough sheepel to keep checking off the "R" boxes without bothering to read or think.
The governor's decision not to take money from Washington for Medicaid, that was sent there by Tennessee tax payers has to one of the most bone-headed and irresponsible decisions every made by a politician, and purely on political grounds to pander to the Tea Party.
The people that are getting screwed here are working class folks that have no employer-based health care plans, but earn too much to qualify for TenCare. So what you have here is not only a moral issue - allowing people to become gravely sick and even die due to lack of preventive care, but also a financial issue by driving people to eventually seek treatment at an emergency room, at astronomical costs, which eventually get passed on to the those that pay for insurance and the taxpayers.
I hope people use this issue as a reason to throw the governor out on his ear, and thereby ending his own free, government paid-for health care.
Birth control isn't the bigger issue here, rather it's the blurring of the line between constitutional rights of citizens and constitutional rights of corporations. First the Supremes said corporations can have freedom of speech, and money is speech, now they are saying corporations can have their own religious beliefs and can exempt themselves from laws that violate their religious beliefs. What they didn't explain is what process a corporation must follow to determine it's religious beliefs.
Case in point, what happens if one of Hobby Lobby's owners becomes a 7th Day Adventist and it now becomes against his religious beliefs to open the store on Saturday? Can he force the store to shut down against the will of the other owners? Can he sue the other owners if they don't comply? whose rights prevail?
This opens up a legal Pandora's box that should make every trial lawyer in the country smile.
"Nothing has to be done on immigration. Enforce the laws, and makes some effort to secure our borders more."
Additional border security isn't free, it takes MONEY lots of it. Only Congress has the power to appropriate funds. You'll have to come up with a better excuse than that.
And regarding Reagan, he did infact invoke something that can be described as amnesty since the process was quick with no strings attached. The Senate/Rubio Bill that has bipartisan support as many requirements and would require a time frame of us much as 20 years or more to gain true citizenship. I would hardly call that "instant"
"The fact immigration reform supporter Sen. Mario Rubio, R-Fla., was elected with heavy tea party support and that Democrats have declared the tea party dead after recent elections was apparently lost on him."
And apparently lost on you was the fact that after Rubio sponsored the Senate bill he ran from it like a scalded ape when his poll numbers plummeted. Moreover Congressional Republicans are now blaming Erik Cantor's loss on his support of an immigration bill.
The truth is nothing is going to get done on immigration becasue the Republcian cowards in the House don't want to bring the issue up even though the votes are there to pass it tomorrow. Getting reelected in November is a higher priority.
The blatant hypocrisy of simultaneously blaming the President for inaction and executive overreach is becoming more and more obvious.
^Regardless of how much merit your grievances have or don't have the only branch of government that has the power to fix any of this is Congress and the Republicans control that.
The Senate/Rubio bill would pass tomorrow if Boehner would only bring it to the floor.
You can't sit on your hands and then complain about what is not happening.
" None of this sh!t would happen if the borders were properly sealed. What is so hard to understand about that?"
Nothing at all, so why doesn't the branch of government that has the authority to appropriate funds by legislation to significantly increase boarder enforcement and other protective measures act to do so?
Just more Republcian hypocrisy. Just like the ACA. They whined and bitched that the mandate would be an undo burden on small businesses and they also bitched that families could not keep their current plan. But when the president acted to lessen the restrictions, and allow an extra year for small business to comply, and further had the insurers go back and reinstate those old plans, Republicans gave the President hell for "executive overreach".
You can't have it both ways.
Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. We never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money? What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. Think about it.....Who will you vote for to correct the discrimination against hard work and being responsible?
Maybe you don't watch the news, here's a bulletin for you the Congressional Republicans DID cut $8.7 Billion out of the food stamp budget this session.
Social security is not a welfare program. It's payments are mandated under the law. Social Security is suppose to be self funded, in order to keep it that way Congress will have to act to increase revenue, reduce benefits, extend eligibility age or a combination of these three to keep it self funded. Otherwise the federal government will be required to pick up the differential.
This is magnificent!
An excerpt from Wesley Pruden:
"Either we're going to enforce our laws and remain strong, economically or otherwise, or we ignore the rule of law and go to being a Third World country," Rep. Louis Gohmert told Fox News. "You've got to follow the law. You cannot bring hundreds of thousands of people into this country without destroying the country. Then there's no place that people can dream about coming to."
"No one knows this better than Barack Obama."
Louis Gohmert is a moron and political hack. The President is not bringing people into the country illegally, he has departed more illegals during his term than any other previous President and has publicly stated virtually all of these kids coming in are going to be sent right back home. But if Gohmert truly is concerned about boarder security why doesn't he talk to Mr. Boehner about bringing the comprehensive immigration bill to the floor? You know, the one that was sponsored by Marco Rubio and has already passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis. That bill has very robust boarder security elements in it. Or a similar House bill?
The Republcian Party can't point accusatory fingers towards the President alleging executive overreach one minute, and then in the next minute criticizing the President for not doing what the f'ckin CONGRESS IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING.
When will you knuckleheads not see the hypocrisy?