1,2,3 wait for it because you know that good ole Nathan Deal will not be able to keep his mouth shut. Never mind the fact that Food Stamps are a federal subsidy. I've said it before and I will say it again the South lost the Civil war 150 years ago but they are still fighting it today.

Just like Medicare. Fuck the people!

Rather than integrate schools, they shut down the public school systems.

SOME are.

How does that explain Alaska.... or WI, ND, SD, PA, NJ, OK, .....and so on?

Test all Georgia State Reps for IQ if they wish to stay in office. They would fail.

Why does medicaid expansion have to be a state program in the first place? Why not a federal exchange for medicaid, money out of the hands of the states completely?

this right with food stamps and all other federal programs.

program. I am not sure how.

Somehow, Justice Roberts switch positions during the internal discussion of the case. It is now believed that Roberts not only wrote the Majority Decision (Clearly marked as written by Roberts) but also the dissent, whose author is NOT named in the the dissent.

Basically what Roberts did was to rule that since the ACA is a tax and Congress has the power to tax the ACA is constitutional. The payments are mandatory by the Federal Government and the mere fact that the money is going to private companies does NOT change that fact it is mandated by Federal law and thus a tax.

The Dissent took the position that requiring health insurance is NOT a tax and thus unconstitutional for any tax money must go to the US Treasury not independent private companies.

Now Roberts did side with the dissent when it came to medical assistance. Medicaid is a Federal-State joint program. The Federal Government will pay 50% of the medical bills of medicaid recipients, up to the limit set by the State unless that limit is more then the Standard of Need (Since Medicaid was started in the 1960s NO STATE has ever matched the Standard of Need, so the true limit is the income guidelines of each state).

Under the ACA, the Federal Government was going to increase that percentage to 100% of anyone over the State Guidelines for the first two years, and then 90% afterward. Roberts ruled since the Federal Government did not take over ALL of the Cost of Medicaid, including the cost of those people presently on Medicaid in addition to the 10% NOT assumed by the Federal Government for those people above those state guidelines, that was taking a power from that is reserved to the States, i.e. who is eligible for Medicaid.

Thus Roberts said each state could opt out of Medicaid in excess of what they were paying, even through the Federal Government was to pay 100% of those additional costs.

As to your Statement, a 100% Federal Takeover of Medicaid would resolved this issue but that includes setting up local offices to administer the program. Furthermore Congress would have to vote for such a take over and the GOP now controls the House of Representatives and have held such control since before the US Supreme Court ruling. Thus a Federal Takeover of Medicaid is not possible at the present time.

from the federal government. People everywhere, including the Churches that tried to feed the recipients told Perry to get it all going again as fast as possible because they could not carry the load! Children went hungry.

remains that they are breaking the law if they think they can stop these programs without the SCOTUS telling them they can as they did with ACA. If they all try it the fines will get bigger and the violence in their states will also get bigger IMO. People would have to be really crazy to let an elected government let them go hungry.

it will go to the SCOTUS, and the idiot 5 will side with the state.

Wait for it.

such as Medicaid and SNAP are a bad idea - it opens the door for regressive states to screw with applicants and gives the SCOTUS an opening to rule in favor of it.

Such programs should be the exclusive territory of the Feds.

Instead of applicants going to the county Family Services office, they would go to the nearest Social Security office to apply for SNAP or Medicaid.

Imagine how many more people would have access to health care if Medicaid was administered by the Feds solely. States wouldn't have the ability to turn down expanded Medicaid and since the states have no role in it, the SCOTUS couldn't do a damn thing.

BLAM! BLAM!!

YeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaaaw

Unless Georgia is willing to define "reasonable suspicion" -- or drug test EVERYONE that is receiving taxpayer funding!


rocktivity

that I was born in Georgia. Fortunately, I haven't lived in the state in 46 years.

Thanks for the thread, alp.

But 20 years ago when I worked at a gas station in a poor area it was common for people to barter with food stamps. Common exchange rates were 2 to 1, food stamps to dollars. It was mostly to secure lottery, cigarettes and alcohol though.

I think they would be harder to trade these days since the assistance is on a debit type card.

Another armpit of the country.

[center]

Governor Deal. [/center]

Or his own shitty self.

PLEASE?

before an invasion of privacy not "reasonable suspicion"

this is more of the same bs illegal stripping of civil rights as the fisa laws that weaken the criteria of what is necessary before the govt can invade your privacy

so for those that think the 4th amendment doesn't matter, here is perfect example of why it does