« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Watercooler ~ Democrats Clash With Governor Jerry Brown Over Obamacare

Even Governor Jerry Brown sees the danger of trusting the federal government to uphold their end of the bargain in the Affordable Care Act:

“The ultimate costs of expanding our healthcare system under the Affordable Care Act are unknown,” he told the Legislature in his January State of the State address. “Ignoring such known unknowns would be folly.”

Democrats — who control both houses of the Legislature — in usual fashion, want to spend now and worry later:

As Democratic lawmakers speed to implement President Obama’s healthcare overhaul in California, they are finding themselves at odds with the leader of their own party: Gov. Jerry Brown.

The governor and legislators disagree over how the state should expand Medicaid to more than 1 million low-income Californians, a critical component of the federal Affordable Care Act.

It seems the Democrats do not see the danger in expanding services under Medical — the states version of Medicaid — while the Governor wants to be more cautious:

Under proposals passed by both houses of the Legislature last week on mostly party-line votes, individuals earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level — or $15,415 a year — would be newly eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s version of Medicaid.

Concerned about new costs, Brown wants to scale back some of the benefits the Legislature has proposed. Long-term care for the disabled would not be part of the package under the governor’s plan.

Also under Brown’s plan, groups that are now covered by Medi-Cal, including certain AIDS and cancer patients and recent legal immigrants, would be shifted into a state-run insurance exchange where they would receive partial coverage but pay premiums for the first time. Democratic lawmakers want those groups to remain in Medi-Cal.

Brown also wants to reduce the roughly $2 billion the state gives to counties each year to care for the uninsured — whose numbers will fall — to offset new administrative costs.

It will be interesting to see how they resolve their differences in the coming months. The Democrats — always thinking behind, see this as an opportunity to repair holes in the budget from recent years:

Having heeded the governor’s calls to slash billions of dollars in services in recent years to help balance the state budget, the Democrats who dominate the Legislature are pushing back, seeing an opportunity to patch holes in public aid programs. They note that Washington picks up the whole cost of Medi-Cal expansion for the first three years and then phases down to 90%.

But Brown sees danger ahead:

Brown has sounded a note of caution even as he has said he embraces the federal law. Echoing the concerns of Republican lawmakers, he has said the long-term costs of the healthcare expansion could undermine California’s tenuous fiscal stability.

Listen to your inner wisdom, Governor Brown.

The Watercooler is always an open thread.

COMMENTS

  • westcoastpatriette

    Napolitano to “sequester” release thousands more illegal aliens. http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-march-11-2013?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Legislative%20Update%20&utm_content=FAIR+Legislative+Update+3-11-2013#1

  • lineholder

    Interesting story about Nelson, GA. The population of the town is 1300. It has only one police officer who works only 8 hours a day. So, the town is considering passing legislation into law that requires ownership of a gun. This would be similar to the law in Kennesaw, GA. Kennesaw’s law has been intact since 1982.

    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/08/Georgia-town-mulls-requiring-gun-ownership/UPI-21081362762386/

    http://kennesaw.patch.com/articles/city-to-consider-kennesaw-inspired-gun-law

    • jimmyg

      How would you feel if Nelson Ga. required its residents to buy brocoli or health insurance?

      • lineholder

        What do you mean “if”? The government does require them to buy health insurance.

        I don’t have any problems with laws that allow citizens to protect themselves and their communities, jimmyg. Especially in a situation of this sort where the ability to hire personnel to provide that protection is very limited. And if the legislation follows the precedent set in Kennesaw, there won’t be any penalties for failing to comply with the law. There will also be plenty of leeway allowed for citizens who do not want to purchase guns.

        Do you have a problem with it?

        • jimmyg

          “So, the town is considering passing legislation into law that requires ownership of a gun for each resident of the town.”

          I am quoting from your post You never said their would be plenty of leeway. If a town requires ownership of a gun, isn’t the same theory as requiring you to purchase brocoli or health insurance. . I do not think a government body can require me to buy anything. I should have the freedom to either purchase or not purchase a gun, or anything else. I do not need a government body to pass a law to tell me what I should purchase.

          • lineholder

            You didn’t actually follow through on the links, did you, jimmy g?
            If the law in Nelson is formatted along the same lines as the law in Kennesaw, then yes, there will be plenty of leeway.

          • jimmyg

            I am trying to figure out how you can justify a govt. body requiring you to purchase a gun, but at the same time, I assume you would argue, that the govt. cannot require you to purchase health insurance. I believe that the govt. cannot require me to purchase any product. It appears that you believe that that the govt. can force you to purchase a product, as long as there are exceptions, and it is for the good of the community. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

          • lineholder

            Very true, but you’re completely ignoring the specifics pertaining to this situation. First, the people in the community have very little protection to rely on. Secondly, our federal government is pursuing legislation and means that would prevent people from having access to 2A rights that could allow them protect themselves. Thirdly, the proposed legislation provides for ample means for citizens who do NOT wish to purchase a firearm to abide by their own principles or conscience. The law has no “teeth” in mandating purchase of a firearm, jimmyg. The people very much so have a choice of whether or not they will comply with the law.

            Should government provide a means whereby citizens can protect themselves and their communities when the federal government might strip them of that right?

            I’ll take this one a step further, in fact. It wouldn’t bother me one bit if more communities put these types of laws in place, with clearly defined exceptions, following the principles of having a well-regulated militia, and included provision of gun safety, along with community registries of where the individually identifiable data of gun owners would be protected from misuse and abuse of being exploited by the federal government under expansion of the Privacy Act of 1974.

          • midwestconservative

            I can justify it by pointing out that such laws existed at the time of our nation’s founding and continued to exist for nearly a hundred years, you got to consider this town only has ONE police officer, this is about the defence of the town, I’m sure they will allow exemptions for people who do not wish to own a gun, and probably most people already own a gun, this is a warning shot for any criminals who go to that town looking for trouble, I know several instances of undermanned police departments, when my parents first moved to central Indiana thier town only had a marshal and two deputies, the fact that they were the county north of Indianapolis was concerning

          • midwestconservative

            you are probably against a Military Draft in times of great need too then, because this town has only ONE police officer, this isn’t just an issue of personal defense but also the defense of your town and fellow man, furthermore there is legislative precedent for this kind of law, there isn’t any precedent for “brocoli”

  • midwestconservative

    I find it hilarious that Jerry “Big Blue State” Brown is the voice of reason and fiscal responsibility in California, how bad is it that the guy who made the mess in the first place, is also the one telling people how to clean it up

    • westcoastpatriette

      It is hilarious. In a sad sort of way…for those of us stuck here having to deal with this madness.

  • cheesycon

    hey everyone – just wanted to throw in a link to my own diary about some ideas I have about what makes a conservative and I really would appreciate critique and suggestions.

    http://www.redstate.com/cheesycon/2013/03/12/what-is-a-conservative-4-things/