...No one disputes that Obamacare would stay on the books and that defunding would not change the existing law. But all federal funds already appropriated for the implementation and enforcement of Obamacare could not be used by any federal agency to take any action—whether it is issuing new regulations or filing an enforcement action against an individual or an employer for not complying with the new health insurance mandates. The termination of all “entitlement to benefits” would stop the automatic appropriation of new entitlement spending for things like the law’s Medicaid expansion. The rescission of “unobligated benefits” would return to the Treasury appropriated funds that have not yet been spent on items such as the payment of outside contractors—navigators—for enrolling participants in Obamacare, although it would probably not relieve the government of the contractual obligation to pay for services already rendered.
No question, except in the minds of the demi-Statist (R) folk (read: McConnell, Boehner, Cantor) and their easily-swayed (R) followers.
Love your Spanish, but....hasn't this been tried already? Like, 40 times?
And you've undoubtedly been lectured about your diet, diabetes, and heart disease risk. Yet you still stuff your face with donuts and other fatty shit.
So, spare us the sanctimony, you fat fuck.
Good news dad29 and other senior citizens - pre-existing mental patients can't be denied coverage under Obozocare.
Curiously enough, Tim, it's NEVER been tried when it counted--like for a must-pass budget.
Far be it from me to be cynical, but I find that to be an astounding co-incidence.
Post a Comment