Democrats Challenging Administration on Medicaid

[alp227]

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — In an unusual break with the White House, the Democratic leaders of Congress told the Supreme Court on Monday that President Obama was pursuing a misguided interpretation of federal Medicaid law that made it more difficult for low-income people to obtain health care.

The Democratic leaders said Medicaid beneficiaries must be allowed to file suit to enforce their right to care — and to challenge Medicaid cuts being made by states around the country.

The Obama administration maintains that beneficiaries and health care providers cannot sue state officials to challenge cuts in Medicaid payment rates, even if such cuts compromise access to care for the poor.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the lawmakers said the administration’s position “would undermine the effectiveness of Medicaid.” In addition, they said, it conflicts with more than a century of court precedents that allow people to sue to block state actions that are inconsistent with federal law.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/us/politics/09medicaid.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Ah geez. This gets more fucked up by the day.

Incredible.

[Divernan]

7. Its getting more fucked up by the hour. Impossible to keep up with White House shit!

And "google Obamacare waivers 2011". Hundreds and hundreds of waivers every month - many going to politically connected businesses. And they can keep applying for annual waivers through 2014. When is Obama's much touted health care NOT health care? When your employer gets a damned waiver.

[roxiejules]

15. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) wants to cut 1.4 billion from the program

and Pres. Obama (D) wants to protect the states from being sued for slashing too much?



http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/175525-california-stakeholders-urge-feds-to-reject-governors-medicaid-cuts

Gov. Jerry Brown has asked federal regulators for permission to cut the program by $1.4 billion to help the cash-strapped state plug its $26.6 billion budget gap. Stakeholders say the cuts would devastate a program that's critical to the success of Democrats' healthcare reform law — in California alone, the law would add 3 million people to state Medicaid rolls starting in 2014.

"It seems hard to figure out how you make federal health reform a success when you're tearing down the infrastructure on which it's dependent," Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive officer of the California Medical Association, told The Hill.

The proposed cuts are so deep that Brown has managed to unite groups that are usually at odds, such as providers and insurers.

[No Elephants]

27. So? Obama should not protect states from being sued for cutting Medicaid.

The whole point of having federal requirements was to prevent states from cutting Medicaid. This is very literally a life and death issue.

Face it. Obama believes in cutting "entitlements."

Candidate Obama did not, of course. Candidate Obama said raise the cap and don't talk about appointing commissions.

However, President-Elect Obama and President Obama have been consistent in a desire to cut entitlements.

[INdemo]

65. Obama has set himself up to be a one term President

surely his advisor's can see this..We need to begin the process of drafting a challenger.
Surely even less informed Democrats can see this guy is a Republican.

[Hasso]

79. Just maybe his advisors know more than you do?

That the game now is reelection in 2012? Lose the WH in 2012, and everything we've accomplished in the last 2.5 years goes Poof!!!

But I'm sure we can count on you, Chicken Little.

[INdemo]

85. Well ..just what have we accomplished in the last 2.5 years?..

How about tearing down everything Democrats have fought for,for the last 79 years...Its happening right now and you expect Democrats to keep supporting this guy?
Every major bill that Obama has signed into law was a watered down version of Republican drafts and Obama sell outs...heathcare,banking reform, and the list goes on.His advisors?..well check them out.Are/were they really Democrats?.Would you have ever expected a Democrat to lay SS And Medicare on the table in exchange for continuing the Bush tax cuts.A "chicken little"? No I am just a pissed off Democrat that was fooled into voting for a Republican and will certainly not make the same mistake twice.

[bertman]

88. INdemo, you nailed it. Thank you. REC this thread. It's about fucking time.

[Hasso]

93. fooled into voting for a Republican

Oh, really? So what, you're going to vote for Ralph next year? Or, better yet, Palin/Bachman? Yeah, that will really advance the cause.

Did we get everything we wanted in the last 2.5 years? Of course not. So you are frustrated. It is understandable. Barack himself understands your frustration! His message to us last week was that fundamental change is a long, arduous process. And that he has not yet taken us even half-way to where his vision for us will lead! The best is yet to come!!!

We've taken on this country's most powerful, wealthy, entrenched special interests since Hope and Change won the day in November 2008! We've fought hard battles and been bloodied. And now, remarkably, after all of Barack's selfless efforts on our behalf, we find resistance growing against him not only from the usual corrupt sources, but now even among Barack's own party, with crazed rumblings of a primary opponent and the like. There is a deeply disturbing element of racism amongst our ranks that we must honestly confront -- and ultimately purge -- once we have successfully secured Barack's second term. We are better than that and we owe it to Barack!

Or would you rather have President Palin distributing assault rifles to every child in every school district throughout the country? The choice is yours....

[Divernan]

98. Congrats, Hasso. You're the most extreme Obama supporter in town!

And you're on first name terms with the big O. Isn't that special!

"Barack's selfless efforts on our behalf"!?!?! What are you, a banker? a Big Oil or Big Pharma or Big Health Insurance executive?

[Hasso]

100. And aren't you special!?

Screw over Barack's reelection chances just because his isn't perfect in your eyes, hand over the WH to a tea-bagger. What is the sense in that? Are we going to be better off that way?

[Divernan]

99. Fooled into voting for a Republican? - Been there, done that, voted for O

[Hasso]

102. voted republican?

Barack isn't completely perfect in your eyes, therefore he is a republican? You sound ridiculous.

[Divernan]

106. Candidate Obama was not transparent, but you sure are!

[dbonds]

118. Made it to ignore list in 14 post, that is a record.

[dgibby]

123. Hasn't been here an entire day,

and already calling other DUer's names. Class act, that one....NOT. This should be interesting. Got any :popcorn: I love a good show!

[Divernan]

130. Oh, he's SO mean! I'm SO scared! not. What an epic fail

His posting style aspires to intimidate and makes me want to sing:

Well the South side of Chicago
Is the baddest part of town
And if you go down there
You better just beware
Of a man named Leroy Brown

And he's bad, bad Leroy Brown
The baddest man in the whole damn town
Badder than old King Kong
Meaner than a junkyard dog.

Tres amusant!

[dgibby]

132. Too funny! Thanks, I needed a good laugh! n/t

[INdemo]

108. No..I wll sit out the next one or just vote for a Democratic Congressman

[aggiesal]

122. I'd like to see a ...

Feingold/Kucinich ticket.

I'll bet that ticket could beat Obama/Biden and any
other Republican ticket thrown its way.

[Telly Savalas]

126. Feingold lost his last Senate race

and Kucinich has never polled in the double digits in the Democratic Presidential primary.

I'm not questioning the desirability of having that pair in the White House, but I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone would think they'd be a dominant electoral force given their recent histories.

[aggiesal]

134. Because they are both progressive, and I think ...

that this country is screaming for a real progressive slate.

I think the progressive base that voted for Obama got taken
by his charisma, and have now figured out that he's a moderate
democrat at the right of center.
If we had a truly progressive slate I believe you'd see those
that are dissatisfied with Obama vote against him.

Obama, knowing that we have no other option then to vote for him,
makes him extremely dangerous, and arrogant.

Just my opinion.

[eilen]

125. "fter all of Barack's selfless efforts on our behalf,"

Bwahhhhh haaaaaw haaaaaw! Near miss to the keyboard with coffee spurting out my nose.

Really, you should issue a warning.

You must have been one of those $15,000 families and are trying to feel good about it.

[Cherchez la Femme]

131. Your screen name isn't a homonym, is it?

Just wondering...


But anyhow, on a first name basis with the President himself; how special! Well, your entire post is special, but even specialer:

"There is a deeply disturbing element of racism amongst our ranks that we must honestly confront -- and ultimately purge -- once we have successfully secured Barack's second term. We are better than that and we owe it to Barack!"

Yes, let's get ready for a purge

of racists

in the Democratic Party's ranks!

Who, exactly, are these racists we must ultimately purge?
Why do you believe the Democratic Party is fraught with racists? Do tell!

And why does your post bring about a, oh, I don't know, a Mein Kampf tingle?
(and believe me, that's not a good tingle!)


And you treat us with:

"Did we get everything we wanted in the last 2.5 years? Of course not. So you are frustrated. It is understandable. Barack himself understands your frustration! His message to us last week was that fundamental change is a long, arduous process. And that he has not yet taken us even half-way to where his vision for us will lead! The best is yet to come!!!"

And you've set your personal comment/talking point of "Progressivism is a marathon, not a sprint." How special.

Do you understand you are talking to members of the party who were part of the SCLC Birmingham campaign (1963), Marched On Washington (1963), who were Freedom Riders (1961), who made The Great Society (legislation 1965-1968)?

THOSE, sonny, are DEMOCRATS -- Accept no substitutes.
And note the years: Do not presume to lecture us about a marathon,
nor about racism, nor about Democrats, nor about being Progressive.

Were you even alive to join in the marches and protests, to read the daily news of Dr. Martin Luther King, to hear his speeches?
Where were you and what were you doing the day he died?
And after he died we still progressed because these movements weren't tied to one person -- they were Principles which, until recently, our Party was loyal to.

There are DUer's who are reading your words who were THERE, out in the streets, on buses, in marches all over the country.
I got news for you: We don't owe Barack a damned thing. We elected him to do a job FOR us -- We, The People, remember us?
Tell me, what do you think we owe him?
And I'll tell you another thing: Barack should be thanking US, for without the efforts of the Democratic Party, his Presidency wouldn't be possible.

And up you pop and you're gonna purge racists from the Democratic Party and tell us what we owe... :wow:

Your post is so overboard with bizarre wording, erratic logic and unabashed propaganda that one wonders if you are truly Obam, er, Barack's dyed-in-the-wool, Number One Fan;

or if you are within the legion of Republican Rat-Fuckers?

Really, it's hard to tell. Your posts aren't doing him any favors.

It says you're in DC, and even giving you leeway for perhaps being bubble-encased, this
...this thing you typed out...

--and I'm making a deliberate effort to be nice, or I'd be cussing you up one side and down another
and believe you me, I can--


but your whole thing is, at it's mildest

downright, outright creepy.

[emsimon33]

116. You said it!

[Divernan]

97. You refer to what "we've" accomplished. Are you part of the administration?

[FiveGoodMen]

111. "everything we've accomplished in the last 2.5 years"

You must be a puke, because that's the only group that's made any headway in 2.5 years.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

113. I don't understand him at all. nt

[toppertwot]

41. YOU ARE RIGHT!

And, what Obama needs is a primary!!

[newfie11]

45. Damn right n/t

[MissDeeds]

46. I could not agree more

Obama has been one disaster after another. He's a weak, indecisive president who has disappointed his party time and time again. Why would we support his candidacy - for more of the same? It's insane.

[RKP5637]

50. I had friends that said he got elected as a media sensation. I argued with

them and said NO. But now I'm serious wondering, was he a media sensation with outstanding speeches as a candidate.

[russspeakeasy]

78. I think we were all just so fucking sick of george that anyone

who even hinted at being on our side, got our vote...we probably should have listened better...
the ballhugghers will be along with their excuses soon, so keep your head down...:argh:

[RKP5637]

81. Yep!

:hide:

[elocs]

68. Really? What the hell do you actually believe a primary would do?

Obama has the nomination, nobody is going to beat him. If you believe a primary would move him to the left and you are obviously disappointed with him, consider this: if you believed he has not kept his promises and has told supporters what they want to hear, they why on earth would you not believe that he would do exactly the same thing again if he was primaried?

[daa]

71. Well, according to Gallop Obama doesn't stand much of a

chance if he is has to depend on Georgia to win.

[KamaAina]

114. Why the hell would he have to depend on Georgia to win?

He didn't carry it last time.

[daa]

133. He is doing so poorly in states he carried last time that

his 47% in Georgia looks like his best opportunity. That is the point.

[indepat]

74. Houston, we have a problem for the wretched pattern of shitting on the old, frail, and

poor is increasing with alarming alacrity, all so those with most of the nation's wealth can retain almost of that wealth free of meaningful Federal taxation. :patriot:

[NAZLib]

34. Now that's a lot of money.

2.5 Trillion sounds like a lot but it's only about 4 years worth of expenditures and to make matters worse it's 100% in the form of IOUs, not cash or saleable assets.

[Bluesbreaker]

37. The Fed and Treasury have given that much away

Except they gave to banks (including the Bank of Scotland and other foreign banks), insurance companies,and other corporations that behaved badly, not to mention the billions in corporate welfare going to oil companies and the nuclear industry. We can't afford to pay for Medicaid; there wouldn't be enough left for the corporatocracy to continue living in the manner to which it's become accustomed.

[Fearless]

2. And who exactly is the group the Admin wants to vote for them? Diebold?

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. HA!

:evilgrin:


PTB to Obama -- You take care of SS/Medicare/Medicaid and we'll take care of your re-election. :evilgrin:

[julian09]

87. Don't forget permanent unemployment checks

While you work under the table and pay no fed income tax. Take your mothers assets before you put her in home and have medicaid pay for her.:sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

3. Thanks for nothing again. n/t

[No Elephants]

32. Four words that sum it up. I'm in awe.

[Autumn]

4. Wow.That really tells the story

K/R

[Divernan]

5. Similar arguments made by dozen former federalhealth officials.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the lawmakers said the administration’s position “would undermine the effectiveness of Medicaid.” In addition, they said, it conflicts with more than a century of court precedents that allow people to sue to block state actions that are inconsistent with federal law.

The brief was filed by seven influential Democrats, including Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, an architect of Medicaid; Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader; Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader; and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee.

Similar arguments were made in a separate brief filed by a dozen former federal health officials, including Donna E. Shalala, the secretary of health and human services under President Bill Clinton; Joseph A. Califano Jr., who was health secretary under President Jimmy Carter; and Bruce C. Vladeck, who was in charge of Medicaid and Medicare in the Clinton administration.

[No Elephants]

33. Geez, even Clintonites are moved enough to file briefs.

That shows you that this country has kept going further right with each President since Carter.

Why Democrats defend that is beyond me. We are supporting and excusing creation of a country for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren in another 20 years that would make even St. Ronnie recoil. Where does it stop, if we don't take a stand?

[William769]

6. Does anyone see a common denominator here?

REC.

[fascisthunter]

8. I Think We've seen this movie before

[cstanleytech]

9. For any real lawyers here

would you do us a favor in translating this and telling us in your opinion (and without any political opinion injected) which way you think the court will rule if they follow the law itself, thanks.

[No Elephants]

28. You know what they say about opinions, even lawyers' opinions.

We know that by the number of 5-4 decisions in the Supreme Court, reached after the issues have been thoroughly briefed and argued by both sides and the clerks of the Justices have researched the issues independently.

If Justice Kennedy is posting here, his opinion would have weight with me, since he is the only Justice who seems to switch sides now and again.

Other than that, we are talking about a poster answering off the top of his or her head, no briefs, no opportunity to ask questions, no research.

If you do get an answer, I wouldn't take it to the bank. Or to a court.

If you are really interested, you might try to see if you can find some of the legal briefs in this case online, bearing in mind that each brief will give you only one side, as briefs are advocacy documents, not legal articles.

[blueclown]

10. Why can't Medicaid beneficaries and providers sue state officials

to challenge cuts in Medicaid payment rates?

I can't think of one good reason why the administration would take a legal tool out of the hands of those who represent the poor.

[w4rma]

11. It's like he's sticking his middle finger up at us and asking us what we're going to do about it? nt

[RKP5637]

51. Yet again and again. n/t

[Vidar]

12. Obama should just join the Republican party, but that would take political

courage--something he sorely lacks.

[Plucketeer]

14. Well said! nt

:grr:

[emilyg]

17. Amen.

[TransitJohn]

20. +1

Agree.

[MissDeeds]

48. I wish he would

and just be done with it - then we could have a real Democrat run in 2012.

[INdemo]

55. Why dont we just draft a challenger and take our party back

[corpseratemedia]

13. awful, not Democratic Party at all...

just trying to suppress Democratic votes...wtf=ftp fck the poor

sounds like we had a coup, in our own party

[No Elephants]

30. We have. And the DLC brand of "pragmatic progressive" won.

The Coalition for Democratic Values put up a bit of a fight, but the leadership and the money was behind the neoliberals (which I have yet to be able to differentiate from neoconservatives).

Trouble is most of us were asleep while the battle was being lost. I know I was.

My sister religiously reads at least two newspapers a day, cover to cover, sometimes more. Like me, she's been a Democrat all her life, though, unlike me, she will occasionally split a local ticket. She never heard of the DLC until I mentioned it to her a few months ago.

Many still have never heard of the DLC. They just assume a Democrat is a Democrat is a Democrat. And that accounts for a lot of disillusionment and despair about why things never seem to change anymore, no matter which candidate wins the election.

I heard on tv, though I have not googled, that a recent poll showed over 50% of Americans don't like either Republicans or Democrats. Over 50%.

"The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties." Senator Paul Simon (D)

[RKP5637]

52. Same here, my neighbors are very strong democrats. They had no idea what

the DLC was until I explained it to them, and I had no idea until I learned about the DLC on DU when I started wondering WTF after 2008. I'm a strong democrat, but I don't believe in my president right or wrong just because they're a democrat.

[hulka38]

109. Total party capture.

[grahamhgreen]

16. Now, he fights the party. Single-payer would have prevented all this.

[No Elephants]

31. Ilinois Senate Candidate Obama was for single payer. Presidential nomination candidate Obama

was for a strong public option. Said it was the "only way" to control costs.

President Obama met with health insurers, big PHRMA and big health care provides and decided any kind of public option was "only a sliver" and berated Democrats who insisted on one.

[Marcel]

67. +1 n/t

That pretty much sums it up.

[No Elephants]

42. In fairness, he did fight the House on the public option. And he won.

Looks as though some Congressional Democrats have finally had enough of following the leader into Republicanism. About time, too.

[AllyCat]

18. And after the "challenge" they will all back down (except a select few) and vote to screw us over

because they are weak and spineless.

[Vincardog]

92. They are NOT weak and spineless they are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR.

[FiveGoodMen]

117. Worth repeating many, many times!

We'll never win this game until we figure out who's playing for which team.

[AllyCat]

119. touche

[Jefferson23]

19. Jerry Brown and Obama are making history for the Democratic party.

Obama:
In previous administrations, they said, the department “supported and embraced” lawsuits by beneficiaries as a way to help achieve Medicaid’s goals.

* So is it fair to say he is on an unprecedented level all to himself now?



I guess Jerry Brown is not going to approach Prop 13 in any way, but it's ok to do this instead.


Jerry Brown's contribution: "Corcoran said the proposed cuts are so deep that Brown has managed to unite groups that are usually at odds, such as providers and insurers."

"We can't agree on the color of the sky," Corcoran said, "but the state has bonded us together in unity."

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/state-issues/175525-california-stakeholders-urge-feds-to-reject-governors-medicaid-cuts


Someone going to tell me they saw this coming from Obama in the fall of 2008? I never imagined anything could possibly
get to this point...never.

[roxiejules]

26. "Make no mistake."

"The President as well as both houses of Congress are solidly aligned to gut these programs. That is what the Super Committee is all about."

- Randy Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Senior Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.


http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/08/randy-wray-the-budget-compromise-%e2%80%93-congress-creates-a-rube-goldberg-doomsday-machine.html

[No Elephants]

35. Yes, and? Does that make it right? Also, please see Reply 25.

The mythology has been that the Democratic President just washed his Democratic Congress and can't do a thing with it. The idea that it is Obama is the one who is helpless against Congressional Democrats is a joke, not to mention a break from reality.

A Congress will bend over backwards to support the head of the majority party (not to mention the person who ultimately controls National Committee money and pretty much also controls who in the Party does or does not campaign for a candidate).

However, it's Democratic members of Congress who are suing this Democratic administration--and not for the first time. There is also a bipartisan suit for violating the war clause of the Constitution (I wonder how often in all of U.S. history members of the majority Congress have sued a President of their own Party, especially over a violation of the Constitution.)

And members of the Progressive Caucus did vote against his "Grand" Bargain. So, there are at least some who are trying to buck the Obama, at no small danger to their own re-elections. The rest are being obedient to their Party head--and I hope to God they pay a price for it in primaries.

[RKP5637]

54. Obama is leading to a complete defeat of dems in 2012. WH, senate and house. People

are hurting and they will remember and many of them propelled him into the WH in 2008. Wall street and the banksters are going to turn against him as well as those on the fence. He needs new advisers. He needs a paradigm change. He needs to rally ALL of his supporters, that's not happening. And it's not just DU that's upset. My democratic neighbors/friends, for example, don't know who the fuck DU is, and they feel the same. I'm concerned about 2012. I think it's going to be a republican landslide on the current path.

[DeSwiss]

21. K&R

''...you can stand back and look at this planet and see that we have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise.

But we are led by the least among us - the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.''

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYB0VW5x8fI">~Terrence McKenna

http://vimeo.com/25943947">WE MISS YOU

[deutsey]

61. Great quote

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[CelticThunder]

22. Obamadmin on the wrong side again.

[Bluebear]

23. Chill the fuck out, he's got this motherfucker!

:silly:

[katnapped]

43. Win The Change!

Or is it Eat The Future?

I forget...

[txlibdem]

47. Win the Change -- the millionaires will win $$$ MILLIONS. Obama 2012!!!!

:thumbsdown:

[Doctor_J]

94. Billionaires will win the big bills - we'll win the pennies & nickels

the "change" - get it?

:puke:

[eilen]

127. Campaign slogans

2008 -- Hope & Change!

2012-- Fear & Loathing!

[Marcel]

69. Lol!

[awoke_in_2003]

121. god, I hate that fucking sig pic...

it is juvenile and condescending at the same time.

[avaistheone1]

24. k&r

:kick:

[No Elephants]

25. "In an UNUSUAL break with the White House,,,," NYT Did everyone get that?

[readmoreoften]

83. Nice try.

[Mosaic]

29. We need to stop the drones

Barack "Drone" Obama is a drone for the rich, there is no denying it now. We must do something now!

[chill_wind]

36. Holy Sh-- !

Reid and Pelosi both.

[Cool Logic]

38. "and to challenge Medicaid cuts being made by states around the country."

It makes it appear that these states have another choice.

Unlike the fedgov, states can't print their own money.

[No Elephants]

40. False dichotomy. The only alternatives are not states printing their own currency or

cutting Medicaid.

The other possible courses of action are different for each state, but raising revenues and cutting other costs are the general group; and the real issue is government priorities. In those broad respects, nothing much has changed since Rome governed Herod's Israel.

[Cool Logic]

120. That's the point, states have cut costs and enhanced revenues...

However, many of them are still finding it difficult to balance their budgets.

Money, or the lack thereof will be continue to be a problem for many states in the coming years.

[woo me with science]

39. See? He is not weak or outmaneuvered.

He is a Third Way Democrat, fighting for what he believes in.

[katnapped]

44. Eat yer peas and SHADDUP!

Let the adults in the room do the hard work! Maybe if you're nice (and clap louder) you'll get a pony someday!

[RKP5637]

49. We need leadership in the WH for "we the people," not a spokesman/enforcer for wall street and

the banksters. If Obama stood up for "we the people" and failed, I would have a lot more respect for him than what we are doing now. Right now, he's being walked over by wall street and the banksters in USA, Inc., and often complacent/compliant. These people are his worst enemy and for some reason the WH doesn't get it ... He also needs new advisers.

[NorthCarolina]

56. Advocates for the people are instantly maligned in the MSM. Look what they did to Kucinich. nt

[RKP5637]

57. I know, but we need to fight it. IMO he's in the best spot to fight it, otherwise

"we the people" are going to be run over for decades and decades to come. This is a major turning point in this country and he's in the best position to make a turn, like FDR did IMO.

[NorthCarolina]

59. The only way to fight that is for people to wake up and realize we've been duped.

Unfortunately, I don't see that as a realistic possibility for far too many Americans.

[RKP5637]

62. Yes, I agree. Sadly, IMO, many Americans just don't seem to realize that what

is occurring is going to affect them drastically down the road. MSM used to wake people up, sometimes, but today MSM is just another tool to dupe Americans. And, we now have generational acceptance, many youth I fear accepting this is just the way it is. It will change, but probably through failure.

My observation is change for the better often occurs not because it's been planed, but often after a major failure, but given today's climate that change could be for the better or far worse IMO.

[TBF]

53. This is bad, but it is WORSE that they have to sue in the first place.

Medicare may be open to some wealthy individuals, but isn't Medicaid the program for the poor? How in the world are they supposed to come up with lawyer fees after they've been rejected?

This is so stupid. We need HEALTH CARE FOR ALL - remove the age restriction on medicare and charge a sliding fee based upon income. Is that so difficult? It is certainly the only humane choice.

[NorthCarolina]

58. Wisconsin is obviously a wake-up call for DLC brand Dems who will likely

accelerate their efforts with regard to gutting the social safety net.

[deutsey]

60. Sigh

:banghead:

[Jefferson23]

63. The states united against the lawsuits, this is disturbing too:

"The National Governors Association endorsed California’s position that Medicaid recipients had no right to sue."

http://www.nga.org/cms/home.html

[KamaAina]

115. The NGA is dominated by repukes

simply because they control most of the state houses.

[ProSense]

64. There is more to this story

From the OP:

<...>

The federal Medicaid law does not explicitly allow such suits. But the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said beneficiaries and providers could sue under the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which makes federal law “the supreme law of the land.”

<...>

The brief filed by Democratic lawmakers could be a good thing (that is, it could shed like on the government's role and individual protections), but the administration is trying to strengthen federal control over Medicaid and protect it from RW Governors and groups.

June: How Obama is shoring up federal authority over Medicaid.

At the heart of Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicaid is a tectonic shift in the federal government’s authority over the entitlement. In the Wisconsin Republican’s proposal to “block grant” the program, states would receive a fixed amount of federal money for Medicaid — and much greater leeway to change the program’s structure — rather than an uncapped, formula-based contribution with many strings attached. The Ryan plan, along with other more incremental GOP proposals, would fundamentally alter the federal government’s role in structuring, overseeing, and administering Medicaid, abdicating much of this authority to the states.

In the face of such challenges, the Obama administration is quietly taking steps to reassert and strengthen the federal government’s authority over Medicaid. A few weeks ago, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rolled out a proposal that could make it more difficult for states to cut rates for doctors, hospitals, and other providers in Medicaid—one of the many ways that cash-strapped statehouses are trying to save money.

<...>

Some state officials are already bristling at the proposal, saying the new requirements are onerous and needlessly intrude on state authority. “It’s just an enormous amount of work,” Washington state’s Medicaid director told American Medical News, arguing that the rules would spur more lawsuits over provider rates. But the Obama administration isn’t just standing up to states in asserting its role in overseeing Medicaid — it’s also trying to prevent private individuals from challenging the program.

<...>

Some progressive thinkers are worried that the White House’s position could strip away protections from Medicaid providers and beneficiaries — removing their ability “to ensure that states and the federal government are complying with the requirements of Medicaid,” Edwin Park, vice president of health policy at the left-leaning Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, told me. But in the larger debate over Medicaid’s future, many of the same critics have strongly defended the federal government’s role in overseeing the program, fending off challenges from states’ rights advocates. Such positions could undercut their case for being able to intervene as private individuals in Medicaid oversight.

<...>

[ZombieHorde]

84. Why do you think Henry A. Waxmam, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Max Baucus

are opposing President Obama on this?

[frylock]

110. puma pony poutrage posse..

i'm kidding. they just don't know politics work.

[Major Hogwash]

128. They haven't referred to any articles over at FireDuckLake yet though.

It's been interesting to watch all the haters go after Obama on a daily basis here at DU. It makes you wonder what they thought this forum was about in the first place.

[Major Hogwash]

129. The individual states are the ones that manage those funds, so they get to set the methods they want

To apply it to their citizens.
They've already raised the bar to eliminate 1000s of people here in Idaho that would have been eligible just 5 years ago for that program.

[valerief]

66. 23-dimensional chess, maybe? Or a single middle finger to Americans? nt

[DollyM]

72. perhaps this is a way of "getting" rid of those with costly medical conditions!

Hmmmm . .. if i hear one more person talk about how we have the best medical care in the world, I will scream! My 83 year old mother has stage 4 colon cancer. After she drained her savings to pay for her medical bills and still had a 15 thousand dollar bill from the cancer treatment center (and growing) I took her to apply for Medicaid. It has made all the difference in the world for her to not have to worry about how to pay the medical bills. Without it, she was being hassled all the time by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America and the hospital. I would come in many days and find her in tears over a threatening letter from one of them or a phone call she had received from them about paying off her bill. She was paying 200 dollars a month to them out of her 800.00 a month ss check but that wasn't good enough. With Medicaid she can concentrate on getting well, without it she was so stressed and broke that her health was continuing down hill. Is that the kind of society that we have came too? I guess so! If I could pick her up and move to Canada, I would. (PS. She worked FULL TIME unti the age of 82 so she spent many years supporting others who were on this system. I think she deserves some love too!)

[chill_wind]

75. Oh my word, Dolly!

Incredibly sad and unfair! In the meantime, our Congress members, lobbyists, and fat cat insurance execs can consume that in one night's fancy dinner and drinks for two and never miss it.

>I think she deserves some love too!<

My god yes.

:hug:

[Divernan]

95. Fortunate she had you to help her apply -

Many elderly are not capable physically and/or mentally to take the initiative to get themselves into the system, and have no family members willing and able to handle this for them. And don't forget we still have many people in this generation who are functionally illiterate.

Hell, I'm a retired lawyer and I found managing my elderly mother's Medicare/private health insurance paperwork to be extremely frustrating and confusing. They drown you with massive amounts of confusingly presented information.

[jimlup]

73. This is sad...

Really - why can't a democratic administration get its act together.

[McCamy Taylor]

76. Obama keeps hacking away at his own coat tails. Pretty soon Dems will have to run against him

rather than with him in the next election.

[Hasso]

80. Yeah, that's the spirit!

What would we do without morale boosters like you?

[Divernan]

96. You're brand new, so you don't understand-DU is not here to boost third way Dems' morale.

[Hasso]

104. So what's DU for then?

creating divisions amongst ourselves?

[Divernan]

105. Obama created the division. We've chosen to support traditional Dem values/policies.

[avebury]

77. We need to focus on taking back the House and gaining even

more seats in the Senate. If we can control both then Obama is irrelevant. If we can control the Congress then I have no interest in keeping Obama in office because a Democrat controlled Congress can keep a Republican President from getting too far out of control. Obama is not a friend of the poor and middle class.

[alp227]

89. naw, I'd rather have Obama with a progressive Congress

What do you think about the last times America had Republican presidents and Democrat-controlled Congresses:
- 1987-1992 (Reagan until '89, then Bush 41)
- 2007-2008 (Bush 43)

Looking at the possibility of Bachmann or Perry coming to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Reagan and the Bushes might as well be DLC Democrats.

[readmoreoften]

82. Clearly these Democrats are just Obama bashers who want Repubs to win Congress

and the presidency.

[a2liberal]

86. K&R (n/t)

[and-justice-for-all]

90. There is NO excuse for tossing us under the bus

just so the Pentagon can carry on as usual. Cutting Medicare are any other Social Services are unacceptable!

[polichick]

91. Looks like the merging is complete - we have one party.

[JohnWxy]

101. RECOMMENDED.

[avaistheone1]

103. K&R

[katty]

107. ONLY misguided?! where's the humanity?! when you cut the

the providers of Medicaid...you cut out the people that are MOST in NEED.

[julian09]

124. Providers= physicians, pharmacy, insurance co, hospitals etc.

are really suffering.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

112. ABOUT TIME! nt

[eridani]

135. Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP

President Obama's Affordable Care Act relies heavily on the expansion of Medicaid to cover low-income individuals who are uninsured. Yet at the same time, his administration is appealing to the Supreme Court,
under the supremacy clause, the federal government's right to critically underfund the Medicaid program to the extent that patients will have significant impairment of their access to health care.

As we have stated many times in these messages, a severely underfunded welfare program for low-income individuals that clearly impairs access violates our sense of equity and health care justice. Apparently President Obama does not share this view. Otherwise, as a constitutional lawyer, whywould he allow the Justice Department to take to the Supreme Court a case that would permit his administration to violate the law that says that Medicaid rates must be sufficient to enlist enough providers so that Medicaid beneficiaries have access to care to the same extent as the general population?

Where does this lead? Yesterday, in the context of reducing the deficit, he said that the country needs "modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare." More cuts.

Try doing that in nations with universal social insurance programs. It will never happen. But in our fragmented system, there is an opening for battles based on demographic divides. The tax-cutting, government-shrinking young rebels are taking up the cause of putting greedy geezers in their place.

Having been raised in the 40s and 50s - a time when there was great hope of an egalitarian America - I have to ask myself that trite but timely question, what kind of a country have we become?