Hmmm. The Senate voted to extend the border wall in 2006. When Democrats took over they did not vote to fund the expanded wall. Should the courts have stepped in and removed those Senators?

4 Likes

Previous Congresses do not have the power to bind future Congresses.

In this case, the question is whether a referendum has the power to bind the state legislative branch.

The law was still in existence when funding was not provided. Of course laws do not expire at the end of each term.

Ok, then how about this. Obama with DACA and now the Biden administration said/say they do not have the resources to enforce all of our immigration laws and deport everyone who is here illegally so they must concentrate on those who have broken felony laws. Should the courts remove all Senators and Congresspersons who do not vote to fully fund immigration enforcement?

1 Like

Laws do not. Funding, on the other hand, does expire at the end of each year.

You are still trying to compare the federal government with a state government - both of which are governed by entirely different sets of laws.

Are you saying this ironically?

Desperate.

This was on Wednesday, that was on Thursday. Apples and oranges.

Have you expressed this to Nancy regarding the votes of Iowan’s or is that different?

2 Likes

Has nancy removed the congressperson from Iowa.

I missed that one.

Allan

Here it is in a nutshell. The state legislators have not shown to the voters how this money will be raised every year, to pay for this every year and that’s a requirement of the state Constitution.

Opponents argued Amendment 2 was illegal because the Missouri Constitution mandates that initiatives that require appropriations provide a dedicated source of money – not the state’s general fund – to pay for it.

The Western District Court of Appeals rejected legal challenges on the grounds that the funding source would be determined when the amendment was implemented.

2 Likes

Not all referendums require funding. In those cases it’s pretty much cut and dry. But for the one’s that do, you can’t force a vote one way or the other. That then ceases to be a vote and becomes a mandate. No vote necessary. So my question is, if it’s a mandate then why are they voting in the first place?

Medicaid.

Not sure why those insurances are so often confused.

Medicare is primarily for 65 & over and disabled who cannot work.

Medicaid covers indigent and uninsured who cannot afford private health insurance.

The latter is a secondary insurance for those whose income is within the limits. A Medicaid expansion would have been a more reasonable solution to the problems of the uninsured than the monstrosity known as the Affordable Care Act.

1 Like

The public option in the ACA got killed by Joe Lieberman.

Voted into law. State Court approves, the SCOTUS over rode it per the US Constitution.

Got a problem with our democratic republic?

If so, there is a process to amend.

I just love how this Representative Meredith misrepresents the situation towards the end of the linked article.

“…not wanting to give health care to people.”

Total BS. Many practitioners offer cash discounts to uninsured and patients whose insurance doesn’t cover their services.

The uninsured can be seen in public health clinics; at volunteer initiatives like the St. Anne free clinic near me and at Planned Parenthood.

Here are some volunteer initiatives for the indigent/uninsured in my former state of residence as examples:

Red Crescent Health Clinic of Tampa Bay (for some reason link isn’t working) and this one

1 Like

I’ve believed for a long time that if “Medicaid for All” was pushed we’d have had the type of reforms truly needed. This “government must control and pay for everything” push is exactly why nothing changes.

I’m not sure I want either one for all. Here’s the difference between private insurance vs Medicare payment:

Here are some problems with Medicaid:

If either were for all, more physicians would give up their practices and less with scientific aptitude would be willing to go into medicine as a career, leaving less physicians to see more patients.

Medicaid for those uninsured would have been a more reasonable solution to their problems than the ACA, though.

1 Like

Your posts are a wealth of insight on this topic. It’s also a common issue in countries that have universal health care - a lack of physicians. Americans wouldn’t tolerate doctors on strike like Britain’s NHS.

1 Like

Missouri could do the same.

Choose not to.

Allan

Perhaps the root of the issue is that the funding is open ended at best and a complete unknown.

I do prefer states tackle this issue rather than the federal government so I give MO props for trying to work it out.

My solution would be to find a funding level the legislature can approve.

The flood of illegal immigrants isn’t helping set any medical cost analysis right now.

2 Likes

We can’t have any legitimate discussion over healthcare costs until this situation is contained. As long as Biden and Democrats keep inviting all of Central America in, it’s impossible. Reforms must be self-sustaining.

2 Likes