General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScrew the states that did not expand Medicaid and the SCOTUS for enabling them to screw the poor.
The ACA would have required that all states expand Medicaid. The SCOTUS intervened, giving Red states permission to deny health care to the poor, and then a whole lot of Red state politicians (the ones who salivate over federal road money and military money and funds for bridges to nowhere) decided that they would forgo billions of dollars in funds in order to screw the poor. I don't recall reading any portion of the ACA that says "And poor folks don't get anything, because they are poor."
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They vote for the politicians screwing them over.
eShirl
(18,503 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)as BAD, I mean TRULY BAD
I mean AWFUL
choices as we were offered in states like Florida and Kentucky.
Bad, as in
Debbie Wasserman Schulz needs to either leave her office, or get thrown out!
Still, for all the people who sat home and did a protest vote,
it made a difference
as milliuons of poor people in those states will be screwed
Yes, I meant that at those who are sipping Cappucino at the Starbucks
thinking that "if we don't vote, that will show em!"
moondust
(20,006 posts)to get off my big fat ass and go vote, in some cases just mail in a ballot.
"But I didn't get my pony."
Okay, to be fair, it may not make much difference who votes in some of these red states if their elections are rigged anyway. Any state engaged in voter suppression of any kind should not be trusted to produce honest election results.
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)people of du very excited.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)Things are not done in a vacuum. The people of Nome, including the "poor" are well aware of the situation in and around Nome and they interact with the people they have elected to govern their community every single day. The Governor of Alaska got a bill passed to give the Oil Industry a two billion dollar tax break. Since that happened EVERY single community has been scrambling to find a way to raise revenues, and most of those ways are last resorts, like raising taxes on Seniors or Hospitals or yes even Churches.. The Wealthiest Industry on the Face of the Earth.. EVER.. has to have a Government subsidy so they can do what made them the wealthiest Industry on the Face of the Earth. Because of that people are suffering especially the poor. If you need an injustice to rail against maybe you could consider that.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)KT2000
(20,587 posts)DEFINITION of 'Subsidy'
A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction. The subsidy is usually given to remove some type of burden and is often considered to be in the interest of the public.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)is not the same as giving them money.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)noun: subsidy · plural noun: subsidies
1.a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive:
"a farm subsidy"
KT2000
(20,587 posts)subsidy noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Financial assistance, either through direct payments or through indirect means such as price cuts and favourable contracts, to a person or group in order to promote a public objective. Subsidies to transportation, housing, agriculture, mining, and other industries have been instituted on the grounds that their preservation or expansion is in the public interest. Subsidies to the arts, sciences, humanities, and religion also exist in many nations where the private economy is unable to support them. Examples of direct subsidies include payments in cash or in kind, while more-indirect subsidies include governmental provision of goods or services at prices below the normal market price, governmental purchase of goods or services at prices above the market price, and tax concessions. Although subsidies exist to promote the public welfare, they result in either higher taxes or higher prices for consumer goods. Some subsidies, such as protective tariffs, may also encourage the preservation of inefficient producers. A subsidy is desirable only if its effects increase total benefits more than total costs (see cost-benefit analysis).
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The lower tax brackets, newspapers, political speech, charity work, donations, voting, etc.
To claim not taxing a thing is the same as subsidizing it is to claim all money first belongs to the government. It does not. It belongs to the people who engage in economic activity and the government -- through the consent of the people (hopefully) -- volunteer a portion of their economic gain for the sake of facility the safeguards of their communities.
KT2000
(20,587 posts)Washington if they did not get concessions from the state and the union. The state relieved them of paying the amount of tax they would owe the state, according to the law. The taxpayers are now going to pay for all of their tax supported needs - roads, infrastructure, agencies in place to take care of employee needs, schools etc. I call that a subsidy. Their federal taxes are also zero as a result of loopholes.
And - English is a living language.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)KT2000
(20,587 posts)was made to offer an incentive. that is not the same as a sale at a store since they are not guided by law whereas tax rates are.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)made a choice. I'm sure the stores I shop at would prefer to charge me as much as possible but they have to compete.
I actually avoid the main metropolitan area because the sales taxes are significantly higher than the surrounding cities. No, really; it's stupid. The taxes are +40% in the big city. Add in the traffic cameras with the ridiculously short yellow lights and the hassle of navigating a large city and it just isn't worth it. I'm sure I'm not alone and can only wonder how much revenue is being lost.
Yet, those outlying cities where I shop are not subsidizing me.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I would have to asssume Washington did the math and decided that they were better off keeping boeing.
KT2000
(20,587 posts)are sick of being blackmailed by Boeing and would like to see the state stand up to them. The state determined that this tax cut would be made up in cuts to state spending across the board. Hiring freezes and reduced hours for state workers and reduced services for the taxpayers - that includes safety and health agencies.
just and fyi: We don't have income tax in this state.
There is more than math to these decisions. But such blackmail is occurring across this country.
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)damn poor they should have stopped that governor. did the governor tell the people of alaska that he was going to do this before they voted for him. my guess is no but it doesnt matter cause we're taxing churches finally.
Should five percent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
(If you drive a car, car)
I'll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit)
I'll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold)
I'll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk)
I'll tax your feet
(Taxman)
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me
Mass
(27,315 posts)had them not written explicitly the % in the law, we may have been in a better place (as with these subsidies for state exchanges that is going to the Supreme Court).
Autumn
(45,120 posts)there should have been a workaround written into the law.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thanks for admitting it!
Autumn
(45,120 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and again!
Your latest appears to be agreeing with a zenophobe....
Autumn
(45,120 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)Court precedence has established that laws which withhold funds from a state do so unambiguously, and it must be clearly explained what will happen to those states if they don't accept such funds. Obviously this wasn't done.
But I'm with you, there shouldn't have been a requirement that stops people earning below the FPL to get a subsidy, like it does to resident aliens who aren't eligible for medicaid. It would have been a partial safeguard against states that didn't expand medicaid.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The SCOTUS took out the mandatory part.....and gave Red States their out...
And you have YET to prove that little xenophobic sounding part...
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)I gave you the text directly from the ACA is this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5829964
And I certainly had no intent of meaning for it to be xenophobic, I was merely pointing out that it's a shame non-citizens can get tax credits even if they don't make 100% of the FPL while U.S. citizens are required to earn 100% to get a subsidy. I have no problem with non-citizens getting the credit, capiche?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)it says nothing of the sort....its just your weird xenophobic interpretation of it...
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)These were my original comments:
(One thing that frustrates me about the law) is that it lets legal aliens who make less than 100% of the FPL (Federal Poverty Line) use the Exchange as if they made 100% of the FPL but if you're a U.S. citizen who makes one penny less than the FPL you're screwed if don't live in a state that expanded Medicaid. I can see the reasoning, I'm assuming resident aliens may not have qualified for Medicaid, but still it grates me.
When I researched it more I see that the reason for letting them use the exchange was exactly that: if you're a legal resident here in the U.S. but haven't been here for a required period of time you are not eligible for Medicaid and therefore would be left out in the cold as far as getting affordable health insurance, that's why they included this passage.
Now what I was trying to say is that I wish U.S. citizens should have had the same opportunity of being able to participate in the exchanges if they earned less than 100% of the poverty level the same way the non-citizens who aren't eligible for medicaid can do. It would have been a sort of "Plan B" for residents in the states that didn't expand medicaid to be able to purchase affordable insurance, sort of the way the federal exchange was to be Plan B for states that didn't establish their own exchange.
I never suggested non-citizens shouldn't get subsidies, I was just bemoaning the fact U.S. citizens can't if they're too poor for the exchanges.
Does it make more sense now?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)elections have consequences....
Does that make sense to YOU now?
Rstrstx
(1,399 posts)It just has very little to do with the point I was trying to make.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they would have expanded Medicaid...but apparently and unfortunately Red states don't want it...
Melurkyoulongtime
(136 posts)I'm in one of those states (TX) and desperately NEED life-saving medical right now - and can't get it. I'm awaiting an indigent care application but the level of bullshit we poor have to put up with here is just staggering. They run you through the ringer in this state if you're poor and yes, they hope you die before they waste any precious "resources" on your poor ass. The messed up thing is even if you worked all the time prior to just ONE medical issue you can end up poor, homeless and indigent like I did even though you did everything "right" and were a productive member of society before having medical problems. FUCK THIS STATE AND EVERY ONE OF THE REST THAT DENIED US SIMPLY DUE TO POVERTY. FUCK THEM ALL.
Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)Fuck the poor!
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)Bandit (21,099 posts)
9. You obviously know very little about Alaska
Things are not done in a vacuum. The people of Nome, including the "poor" are well aware of the situation in and around Nome and they interact with the people they have elected to govern their community every single day. The Governor of Alaska got a bill passed to give the Oil Industry a two billion dollar tax break. Since that happened EVERY single community has been scrambling to find a way to raise revenues, and most of those ways are last resorts, like raising taxes on Seniors or Hospitals or yes even Churches.. The Wealthiest Industry on the Face of the Earth.. EVER.. has to have a Government subsidy so they can do what made them the wealthiest Industry on the Face of the Earth. Because of that people are suffering especially the poor. If you need an injustice to rail against maybe you could consider that.
so see it's all ok
spanone
(135,873 posts)hfojvt
(37,573 posts)voters did not make them pay for it.
At least not in Kansas