Texas rejects key provisions of Obama's health law

reuters ^ | 7/9/2012 | By Corrie MacLaggan

[tobyhill]

Governor Rick Perry said on Monday Texas will not implement an expansion of the Medicaid program or create a health insurance exchange, placing the state with the highest percentage of people without insurance outside key parts of President Barack Obama's signature law.

The announcement makes Texas the most populous state that has rejected the provisions. Some 6.2 million people are without health insurance in Texas, or 24.6 percent of the state population, the highest percentage in the nation. California has more people without insurance but a lower percentage.

Perry joined fellow Republican governors of Florida, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Louisiana in rejecting the two provisions of the law, according to americanhealthline.com. They hope that November elections will result in Republicans winning the White House and enough seats in Congress to repeal the law.

[SoConPubbie]

Well, it may be bad policy and still be law. That is why Scalia mentioned slavery in connection with the Arizona case. It may have been bad policy, but even Lincoln acknowledged that a state had a right to institute it.

So what's your point?

Your on a conservative website devoted to defeating socialist crap, no matter if it is implemented at the Federal Level or State Level or County Level or City level and it doesn't matter if a consitution states it is OK to do it or not.

It's not just bad policy, it's socialism.

Quit making excuses for the Progressive Liberalism of Mitt Romney on a conservative website.

It does not pass the smell test.

[SoConPubbie]

Aaaahhh,never mind.Arguing with you is like arguing with my pet goldfish.Same result.

P.S.,Osama Obama sends hugs and kisses.

As usual, Romney supporters lacking the necessary facts, logic, or conservative point of view, resort to the only thing they have left, falst accusations or name-calling.

Your boy is a lying Progressive Liberal. Your approach is POP (Party over Principle).

Arguing with you is like arguing with any other GOP-E flack, no principles, more like mere suggestions that are fungible and are thrown away whenever they conflict with your chosen Pretend Conservatives record.

[RobbyS]

States are feel to make bad choices. Don’t confuse what they ought to do with what they are allowed to do. The freedom is circumscribed by the the Constitution and nowadays by a domineering central government. Much of this is the fault of the states themselves, because of the bad choices they make. Too often they failure to do their main duty, which is to guard the rights of their citizens.

[RobbyS]

During the first ten years after I left collage, I had health insurance for less than 3 three, two of which I was in grad school. Never felt the need, because medical care was not that expensive. Plus I was healthy.

[SoConPubbie]

States are feel to make bad choices. Don’t confuse what they ought to do with what they are allowed to do. The freedom is circumscribed by the the Constitution and nowadays by a domineering central government. Much of this is the fault of the states themselves, because of the bad choices they make. Too often they failure to do their main duty, which is to guard the rights of their citizens.

I'm not confusing anything here.

Once again, you are on a conservative website devoted to defeating Socialism.

Do you agree that implementing Socialized Medicine, whether it is ObamaCare or RomneyCare is not what the founders had in mind when they setup this grand experiment called a Democratic Republic?

Do you also agree that it is a BAD thing whether implemented at the State Level (and hiding behind the 10th Amendment) or the Federal Level?

[supercat]

The “general welfare” clause is just that- a clause but not an Article.

Further, providing for the "general welfare" means doing things which don't benefit any identifiable person in particular, but rather the public at large. If the government builds a road connecting two large cities, such a road will--if it is well conceived--offer benefits not only to the inhabitants of those cities, but also anyone who wishes to purchase goods which can be most efficiently delivered via that route, or whose constituent components are most efficiently delivered via that route, etc. By contrast, if the government gives James Q. Smith a check for $100 in exchange for not working, it's hard to see how that could offer any substantial benefit to anyone other than James Q. Smith and perhaps his family (and of course, dependency may mean that the money does more harm than good, even to him and his).

[Gay State Conservative]

Your approach is POP (Party over Principle).

My approach is that on 11/6 I'll be voting for a guy who,although noticeably "imperfect",will receive at least some,and very possibly the majority,of the Electoral votes cast in December.Furthermore this man will harm me and my family at least somewhat less,and very possibly much less,than America's first unashamedly Communist President will.

You,OTOH,will be voting for some guy who won't even merit an asterisk in the final report issued by the Electoral College later this year.

And trust me when I assure you that if you call your posts to the attention of David Axelrod he'll *personally* make sure that you get the opportunity to spend a night of passionate lovemaking with Moochelle out of gratitude for your "principled" stand.I can just imagine those sloppy kisses now.But do make sure you get yourself tested after your night of bliss.

[SoConPubbie]

You,OTOH,will be voting for some guy who won't even merit an asterisk in the final report issued by the Electoral College later this year.

And you will have sacrificed your principles and morals (If you really have any) on the alter of Fear and Political expediency, while will have not.

Congratulations!