May I remind folks that Obamacare relies on Republican Govenors to enact it

[Tom Rinaldo]

In regards to Medicaid expansion in particular, which is one of the major advances that the Affordable Care Act contains pointing America toward theoretically universal health insurance coverage someday, a Governor like Scott Walker can stop it cold. And did. That doesn't stop President Obama or Secretary Clinton either for that matter, from rightfully praising Medicaid expansion as an important achievement - even though our federal system could not force Scott Walker to implement it - even with significant incentives.

The argument has always been made that over time more and more states under the control of resistant Republicans will cave and move to accept the expansion of Medicaid in their states. This after the citizens of those states demand it forcefully enough, and the advantages to those states of having more of their citizens covered become self evident to even the most ideologically resistant Republican Governors.

This not the first time that progressive legislation was enacted at a federal level knowing that the advantages of such legislation would not benefit all citizens simultaneously, that some states would resist implementation for a time. This was true of Medicare for instance. Now however all states accept the program.

It it odd to hear the opposition of someone like Scott Walker cited as a reason why expanding fee public education to the College level in non feasible, when Scott Walker is currently preventing the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, AND Obamacare is being held up for praise as an example of pragmatic incremental progress.

[myrna minx]

1. I have loved ones who are really hurting because of Walker's refusal to accept federal money for

Obamacare - so I'm nodding in agreement here.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. It is horrible. I'm sorry your loved ones are currently suffering due to him

Progress under our federal system often moves unevenly, with some states dragging their feet more than others. But to use the threat of the most reactionary state leaders resisting progress as an argument for not setting the bar higher for what we strive to achieve nationally, is to give reactionaries veto power over our most important aspirations.

[MuseRider]

3. Our in Kansas is so limited

that it is just a joke. I had great insurance last year, it was only a little over $300.00/month. That company left leaving me with only 2 companies to choose from. The cheapest that gave me the same coverage is close to $800.00/month.

2 companies to choose from. It was better before but it is not the ACA's fault, it is my governor and the legislature who would get rid of it in an instant if they thought they could get away with it and they still might.

Medicaid is privatized here and it sucks, no one is getting paid anymore. All I hear about that is that it is so horribly run that the care is now being denied until payment is received and that is taking a very long time.

The state control has to be removed. It really upsets me to pay that much. I am lucky that my husband is already on Medicare so we can afford it but damn that is steep.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Federalism opens up the potential for severe injustice on a reigonal basis

Sometimes it is possible to over turn it on constitutional grounds, other times not. I have watched from afar what has been happening in Kansas with dismay and sadness for those being hurt there.

The theory seems to be that states that make wise decisions will be rewarded and those that do not will do less well over time until they see the handwriting on the wall and change. With a rigged political system with unlimited campaign contributions etc. that can take far too long.

But if a neighbor state to Kansas accepts a future President Sanders initiative supporting free public colleges, and that results in a better educated work force there that attracts new better paying jobs - with even Kansas firms relocating to find a higher quality work force, that could change in time. Of course ending the rigged system would help a lot too.

[MuseRider]

6. It is a mess

and once an ideology gets swept into the brains of an isolated people it is hard to win against that.

It is amazing that Brownback is sticking to this along with the legislature. Amazing to me anyway, there would never be enough Koch money to move me in that direction but then I am not trying to be a lifetime legislator.

It is very sad. We need a Democrat to run that is an actual good candidate but then we need money to help run them. Last election we had neither. This will continue until the Dems wake up. The activists in the party have been working overtime and they are making headway. Time will tell I suppose. I do foresee the next governor will be Kobach. I do not see how he loses with things the way they are now.

[white_wolf]

4. I hate talking about this because I don't have insurance because TN didn't expand it.

I tried to sign up for the ACC and was told that I don't make enough money to qualify for the penalty, but I also couldn't afford any decent insurance because my state refused to expand Medicaid..Fuck you TN Legislate and Gov. Haslam..Fuck you. Granted, I'm young enough that I don't get sick very often, but if I get in a car wreck or something I'm probably screwed..So again, fuck you Haslam.

[HereSince1628]

7. Walker is actually working on making Wisconsin undergraduate ed. cheaper, in every sense

He and his gang in the legislature want to eliminate general studies from public university curriculum. This will cut out many of those nasty pro-liberal things by which students get indoctrinated into parent opposing left-wing ideology and eliminate 1/4 of the costs of a degree.

The belief on Walker's part is that all these things can be handled adequately in secondary school...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It unfortunately may be a long time before we won't have to contend with Governors like Walker

The Koch brothers and their like can afford to buy quite a few of them, and until we do away with unlimited campaign donations they will. Walker's priority is not educating the working class

But President Obama did not let the fact that men like Scott Walker exist as an excuse to not pursue his Affordable Care Act which allowed millions of previously uninsured Americans to become insured - in large point through Medicaid expansion - due to the fact that Walker could and later did quash that at the State level.

So why did Hilary use Scott Walker to point out that a regressive Governor can stand in the way of making public college free? She is the one who proudly uses "Obamacare" as a model for how to get things done while blasting Bernie for proposing a plan for free education because someone like Scott Walker could oppose its full implementation. She is contradicting herself.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. This is of course true

It is useful to know that there is another obstacle to implementation than simply Congressional approval, though.

The actual legislation Sanders filed in 2015 (which is the only sense we have of the details of his plan) does require quite a lot of state buy-in (voluntary partnership, he calls it). It is important to understand the implementation mechanisms, and the roadblocks to implementation.

That said, you're quite right that it wouldn't be the first time federal legislation required state buy-in, and the ACA is indeed a good precedent example (which is why it came up many times in the threads on this, I expect). To implement, there will need to be significant buy-in from

1) Congress
2) Governors
3) State legislatures

Clearly, these difficulties have precedent in federal legislation. For my part, I brought it up because I hadn't heard people discuss the actual mechanisms of implementation, and how uneven they will actually be. That unevenness may be more pronounced when it comes to college choice than health care given potential mobility, though it should also be noted that Sanders plan seems to require in-state tuition status, so perhaps unevenness and mobility will be roughly the same (sorry Kansans - you won't get to go to Berkeley for free!).

[dsc]

10. It wasn't written that way

only by an unprecedented decision that said states could refuse without any additional penalty did it become optional for the states. It was originally set up that a state would lose its medicaid funding if it refused to expand medicaid.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Sanders bill asked states to apply for the federal allotment and provide matching funds

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1373/text

It also requires that the state governments "ensure" that state institutions "not adopt policies to reduce enrollment."

[dsc]

13. he clearly can't make them spend the money

Obama couldn't make them take free money under the ACA. I don't pretend to know the solution to this problem but the problem clearly exists.

[Ferd Berfel]

11. Of course it dose. It's the FUCKING REPUBLICAN PLAN

brought to you by the Heritage foundation

HIllary wants to continue the Obama plan: with Chain CPI to end social security. TPP to end US sovereignty, democracy, and the middle class

you gotta a problem with that?