Attention Fellow Conservatives

[gatoveintisiet]

Are there any principles he argues for that are wrong?

[Spracne]

Are there any principles he argues for that are wrong?

I'm a parent. I haven't got the luxury of principles...

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

[Spracne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?

Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.

[gatoveintisiet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt.  Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt.  Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.

It wouldn't be any harder to justify politically than leaving the money on the table is now. The state can always stop funding Medicaid when their share gets unaffordable.

[Spracne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?

Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.

Sorry to break it to you, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand what Medicaid is, then.

[gatoveintisiet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

If Kansas takes the money to pay for it for a few years, and then can't politically reverse it later when the state is paying and costs rise the state goes bankrupt.  Think of it like GM and all the benefits to workers and bond holders that they couldn't pay.

It wouldn't be any harder to justify politically than leaving the money on the table is now. The state can always stop funding Medicaid when their share gets unaffordable.

The federal money is for a very short period, the states liability (that it can't afford) is forever. These things traditionally don't get reversed politically, politicians don't like running on benefits they are going to end.  This liability is being dumped on the states for a reason.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/01/14/rubios-claim-that-medicaid-expansion-funds-will-go-away/

So you think paying 10% of the expansion costs in a few years is a net loss to Kansas taxpayers?

Yes, I do. That "10%" is going to get more and more expensive as more and more people drop their private insurance to glom onto the public dime. This isn't hard to figure out. Meanwhile, the number of people vying to see one of the ever diminishing doctors who take Medicaid will swell, further reducing the shitty quality of public healthcare for those that truly need it.

You realize that by not expanding Medicare in Kansas, our federal tax dollars go to people in other states while our local hospitals suffer, right? It seems somewhat likely that hospital closures could end up costing the state more revenue than the expansion would cost.

Not sure if typo, but you do understand the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, yes?

Yeah, meant Medicaid. Not so much a typo as a brain fart.

Sorry to break it to you, but it's pretty obvious you don't understand what Medicaid is, then.

It's medical care for poor people.

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/fault-lines/articles/2014/7/12/hospitals-continuetoshutdowninruralamerica.html

[slucat]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?

Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?

Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?

We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).

FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush

QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system.  All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods.  Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?

Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?

Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?

We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).

FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush

QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system.  All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods.  Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.

Those extra taxes on stuff they buy helps pay for their healthcare. Pretty un-Canadian of them to buy across the border.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Good, all healthcare should be taxpayer funded

Yes, cause the money fairy can always print more money to pay for it, right?

Question: Many Canadians prefer to come to America to see a specialist rather than wait six months or more to see one provided by their taxpayer funded healthcare system. Once the libtards transform our own system into a single payer paradise, where do we go (and the Canadians, too, I guess) to see a specialist?

Another question: Are you on Medicaid? Are you actually excited for everyone to receive Medicaid-quality healthcare (unless you're rich enough to afford a private doctor)?

We could stop buying tanks and jets that sit unused (a republican "free stuff" jobs plan).

FYI, I actually have Canadians in my family and they love their system and openly mock the neocon american media's portrayal of it. stop getting your opinions from rush

QFT.
Grew up on Canadian border and not sure I ever heard of any wanting to get our medical system.  All they want is our tax structure on buying goods. Border cities in NNY are booming due to the favorable exchange rate and lower taxes on goods.  Canadians flood in on the weekends to shop.

The VAT driving up the prices of all their goods is how they pay for that "free" healthcare. And long waits for specialists is a well-documented fact in the Canadian system. There just aren't enough specialists willing to work for the low rates single-payer affords. Essentially, everyone's on Medicaid up there. Google it. Medicaid coverage blows - this is not a model we want to emulate.

Canada also has the advantage of not making poverty its chief import from its southern border. The idea of adopting single-payer for the US population is financial suicide (well, even more so I guess. 18 trillion and counting...) But hey, we can easily pay for it if we just slash our military! What good has a strong military ever done for us?

[Rage Against the McKee]

What good has a strong military ever done for us?

This would make a pretty good Pit topic, really. We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

What good has a strong military ever done for us?

We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.

This isn't even remotely true. Our military was relatively small/weak when WW2 began, prompting one of the largest single purpose industrial efforts (maybe the largest?) the world has ever known to build it up. We most assuredly did not win WW2 with a weak military.

[michigancat]

It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What good has a strong military ever done for us?

We won WW2 when our military was pretty weak.

This isn't even remotely true. Our military was relatively small/weak when WW2 began, prompting one of the largest single purpose industrial efforts (maybe the largest?) the world has ever known to build it up. We most assuredly did not win WW2 with a weak military.

Right now we spend more on defense than all other industrialized nations combined. People freak out over any defense spending cut. We would probably have to cut defense spending by more than 60% to get back to where we were at the end of WW2, relatively speaking.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.

Dear gawd

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

It's helped our economy. Of course, shifting much of that spending to health care would have a similar effect.

Dear gawd

Yes, shifting money from one pocket to the other (or printing it? yeah, sounds like we'd be printing a lot more of it) is sure to help the economy in the long run.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words.

Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.

K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....

I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....

[CNS]

Kansas is so liberal.   rough ridin' Kansas!

[Rage Against the McKee]

As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words.

Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.

K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....

I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....

The intent of the law matters. Did the legislature write the law intending to use it to force a party to choose a replacement, or did they write the law assuming the party would want a candidate? I don't think the court has time to hear Kobach on that matter, anyway. The ballots have to be finalized tomorrow.

[Rage Against the McKee]

And yeah, this court ruling has changed all of our lives. Now, whenever I talk about my rights to free speech, I'm just going to refer to the first amendment instead.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

As expected, the KSSC ruled that Taylor's use of the words "pursuant to K.S.A. ____" amounted to a declaration that he is incapable of serving. So again, from now on, I suppose any time anyone takes an oath or makes some other declaration required by statute, they can just save time by referring to the statute instead of saying the words.

Oddly though, the Democrats don't seem interested in replacing Taylor on the ballott, which is also required by Kansas law.

K.S.A. 25-3905(a): When a vacancy occurs after a primary election in a party candidacy, such vacancy shall be filled by the party committee of the congressional district, county or state, as the case may be....

I wonder how the KSSC will distort this law to give the Dems yet another pass? Stay tuned....

The intent of the law matters. Did the legislature write the law intending to use it to force a party to choose a replacement, or did they write the law assuming the party would want a candidate? I don't think the court has time to hear Kobach on that matter, anyway. The ballots have to be finalized tomorrow.

Funny you should mention intent. These laws were "intended" to stop the very dirty politics the Democrats are currently engaging in. That's why you can't just pull a candidate for any old reason after a primary - they have to be incable of fulfilling the duties of office - which is why the statute required that declaration as a deterent. No matter, says the KSSC. Moreover, even if you yank a candidate, you have to replace him.

[Rage Against the McKee]

What is the penalty for not replacing him? I would assume it is that you just don't get your party on the ballot. Seems fair.