| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Can the federal government seize state revenues to pay for Medicaid? |
| 2012-02-14 |
| Posted by:DarthVader |
| #4 Yah, affordability never forms part of the equation. |
| Posted by: Hupeagum Wheamp5986 2012-02-14 18:19 |
| #3 The 'third rail' of American politics is the question everyone studiously avoids: "What government (and government-mandated) expenditures are we willing to tax ourselves to pay for?" Until this question becomes one of the most important ones in US political discourse, things will continue to go from bad to worse, perhaps ending in collapse. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 14:54 |
| #2 ..that's why so many 'Emergency Rooms' have disappeared across America while 'Urgent Care' store fronts have opened. Different regulations. It's also why today most Emergency Rooms are located in state or state university facilities. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-02-14 14:48 |
| #1 The thinking behind the original article is so limited & partial, it's pitiful. Just what allows the feds to order individual firms to supply goods for free simply because government officials believe that these services are essential? Beats me, but EMTALA has been the law of this land since about 1986. It basically requires hospitals supplying emergency care to supply FREE emergency services to whosowhatever needs it. The level of controversy about this 'taking' by the government is ZERO. The only ways around this are for hospitals to supply no emergency care to anyone and/or not to accept Medicare payments. Whatever anyone wants to say against Medicaid and Obamacare must first be reconciled to current law on Medicare, but this is almost never done. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-02-14 14:05 |