GOP-controlled states seek to obstruct Obamacare navigators.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everydy the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

[pbrower2a]

Identity theft? Medical fraud is more of a problem, and paradoxically Obamacare addresses much of that.

Heck, even IRS audits of suspect 'providers' could detect medical fraud. Just check to see if the expenses are in line with revenues and then look for inventory. If some company allegedly supplies prosthetic devices as mail-order items billed to Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA and has practically no inventory -- even tax fraud could put some crooks in prison.

One can't cheat on other things without cheating on taxes.   

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

Who said that?  That's not even the point.  How can you justify this?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

Who said that?  That's not even the point.  How can you justify this?

Who said that?  You did. You were clearly implying that the poor had no reason to worry about identity theft, presumably because they didn't have anything you considered worth stealing. In reality, the poor, as with most crimes against property or finances, have even more to worry about since they can't address the harm it causes them as easily as those with better finances can.

Regardless of whether or not the GOP concern for the identity security of the poor is a sham or not (and I do agree it is largely a sham) it most certainly is a problem and much more of a one than the voter fraud that the GOP raises in its efforts to suppress the votes of those who are unlikely to vote for them.

[memphis]

The GOP's profound contempt for the American people never ceases to amaze me.

[memphis]

Yes and I remember the Democrats planting people in cities to obstruct us from going to work. I believe it was called... Oh yes Occupy Wall Street. Ring a bell?

The idea that the Democratic Party and the Occupy folks have anything in common in hysterical. They pretty much hated each other...

[7,052,770]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

[ElectionsGuy]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

[publicunofficial]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

Because if states can choose to ignore or obstruct whatever laws the federal government passes that they don't like, then the only purpose of Congress is to declare war and approve appointments.

[7,052,770]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

I never said the feds should "dictate what the states want to do."  However, states should not be allowed to directly interfere with federal law.

How is this any different that a state obstructing military recruiters, IRS agents, or National Park rangers from doing their jobs?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Identity theft? Medical fraud is more of a problem, and paradoxically Obamacare addresses much of that.

Well if the GOP cared about medical fraud, Rick Scott wouldn't be governor of Florida.;

[All Along The Watchtower]

Republicans seek to obstruct a Republican policy, because Kenyan socialism!!!!

[ElectionsGuy]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

I never said the feds should "dictate what the states want to do."  However, states should not be allowed to directly interfere with federal law.

How is this any different that a state obstructing military recruiters, IRS agents, or National Park rangers from doing their jobs?

I understand your opinion, states shouldn't override federal law, but you insisted that Obama propose a executive order banning nullification/obstruction. In my opinion, states should be their own countries in a way, we should all be united, but our states should be different areas with different political policies and different cultures. I realize they already are, but so much power has been taken away from the states since the progressive movement, and if the majority of the state legislature and citizens do not want a law, then they shouldn't have it. So at the same time, this does go against your point of states shouldn't override federal law, but they should be able to create a law/nullification process to command and legislate the way they want to, even if it means going as far as obstructionism of a law. However, the process to do these things should be very hard and complex and should only happen once in a while.

You can comment about how ridiculous my opinion is if you want, but I don't believe a federal government should have more power than states and state governments (they should be about equal), nor should be able to command what the states can and cannot do. States in my opinion should be independent bodies. My argument mostly stemmed from disagreement, so I wouldn't take it too hard here.

[Ban my account ffs!]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

I never said the feds should "dictate what the states want to do."  However, states should not be allowed to directly interfere with federal law.

How is this any different that a state obstructing military recruiters, IRS agents, or National Park rangers from doing their jobs?

I understand your opinion, states shouldn't override federal law, but you insisted that Obama propose a executive order banning nullification/obstruction. In my opinion, states should be their own countries in a way, we should all be united, but our states should be different areas with different political policies and different cultures. I realize they already are, but so much power has been taken away from the states since the progressive movement, and if the majority of the state legislature and citizens do not want a law, then they shouldn't have it. So at the same time, this does go against your point of states shouldn't override federal law, but they should be able to create a law/nullification process to command and legislate the way they want to, even if it means going as far as obstructionism of a law. However, the process to do these things should be very hard and complex and should only happen once in a while.

You can comment about how ridiculous my opinion is if you want, but I don't believe a federal government should have more power than states and state governments (they should be about equal), nor should be able to command what the states can and cannot do. States in my opinion should be independent bodies. My argument mostly stemmed from disagreement, so I wouldn't take it too hard here.

That's not how our system works.  If your state didn't want Obamacare, then your senators should have worked to defeat it when the bill was being debated in Congress. 

[ElectionsGuy]

That's not how our system works.  If your state didn't want Obamacare, then your senators should have worked to defeat it when the bill was being debated in Congress. 

I wasn't talking specifically about ObamaCare, but I do think if a law is unconstitutional, the states should have a right to challenge or even nullify a law if the courts say its unconstitutional. But obviously, we can't do that with the way things currently are, federal law is superior to state law, and the courts ruled ObamaCare constitutional . It was more opinion and general talk than legal talk, don't take it too seriously.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

It's not as if the poor are immune to identity theft, but let's not kid ourselves -- a lot of poor don't have credit, and if you don't have credit (or really aspire to ever have credit), then you're not much of a lucrative target. And being able to steal physical goods or cash is one of the main drivers of identity theft.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

I never said the feds should "dictate what the states want to do."  However, states should not be allowed to directly interfere with federal law.

How is this any different that a state obstructing military recruiters, IRS agents, or National Park rangers from doing their jobs?

I understand your opinion, states shouldn't override federal law, but you insisted that Obama propose a executive order banning nullification/obstruction. In my opinion, states should be their own countries in a way, we should all be united, but our states should be different areas with different political policies and different cultures. I realize they already are, but so much power has been taken away from the states since the progressive movement, and if the majority of the state legislature and citizens do not want a law, then they shouldn't have it. So at the same time, this does go against your point of states shouldn't override federal law, but they should be able to create a law/nullification process to command and legislate the way they want to, even if it means going as far as obstructionism of a law. However, the process to do these things should be very hard and complex and should only happen once in a while.

You can comment about how ridiculous my opinion is if you want, but I don't believe a federal government should have more power than states and state governments (they should be about equal), nor should be able to command what the states can and cannot do. States in my opinion should be independent bodies. My argument mostly stemmed from disagreement, so I wouldn't take it too hard here.

That would literally mean that the federal government would be powerless to enforce any of its own laws. There wouldn't even be a point to having one.

[Indy Texas]

This borders on nullification.  Obama should pass an executive order forbidding this and let the states take him to court if they want to.

Why should the federal government dictate what the states want to do? (Regardless if its bad or not).

So you were totally cool with it when certain states were doing things like this...



Because stopping people from being attacked by dogs or water cannons or being denied the right to attend a public university that they pay taxes for is somehow interfering with your precious liberty?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

It's not as if the poor are immune to identity theft, but let's not kid ourselves -- a lot of poor don't have credit, and if you don't have credit (or really aspire to ever have credit), then you're not much of a lucrative target. And being able to steal physical goods or cash is one of the main drivers of identity theft.

You don't need great credit to be worth scamming. Most identity thieves don't try to pick one juicy target to scam $100,000 from in one fell swoop.  They generally prefer to go for 100 targets at $1,000 each or even 1000 at $100 each so as to not arouse suspicions with their fraud until after it has been committed.  A person with a $100,000 line of credit who is scammed for $1000 is annoyed.  Someone with a $2000 line who is scammed for $1,000 has just been handed a major problem.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/09/19/obamacare-navigators-republican-states-restrict/2820327/

These "navigators" are primarily there to help poor, uninsured people through confusion and paperwork so they can get coverage.  So even when the ACA is implemented, the GOP pushes through spiteful crap under the guise of "worry about qualifications and IDENTITY THEFT".  Yes, identity theft of poor, uninsured people. 

It's like everyday the GOP finds a new way to be revolting.

As if identity theft is only a problem for the rich.

It's not as if the poor are immune to identity theft, but let's not kid ourselves -- a lot of poor don't have credit, and if you don't have credit (or really aspire to ever have credit), then you're not much of a lucrative target. And being able to steal physical goods or cash is one of the main drivers of identity theft.

You don't need great credit to be worth scamming. Most identity thieves don't try to pick one juicy target to scam $100,000 from in one fell swoop.  They generally prefer to go for 100 targets at $1,000 each or even 1000 at $100 each so as to not arouse suspicions with their fraud until after it has been committed.  A person with a $100,000 line of credit who is scammed for $1000 is annoyed.  Someone with a $2000 line who is scammed for $1,000 has just been handed a major problem.

A $2,000 credit line is not a "poor person's" credit line. A poor person's credit line is far more likely to be $250 on a secured card, if that.

[opebo]

Identity theft doesn't really qualify as a 'real problem'.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A $2,000 credit line is not a "poor person's" credit line. A poor person's credit line is far more likely to be $250 on a secured card, if that.

Substitute $250 and  $200 for $2000 and $1000 in the above then.   It doesn't really change my point, indeed it makes it more profound.  While being poor does limit in dollar terms the impact of identity theft, the relative impact is greater and they have fewer resources with which to deal with it. Identity thieves aren't going to try and steal a fixed percentage of a person's credit/net worth, but a fixed amount.

[politicallefty]

This may not be good at all, but I doubt it even touches the surface compared to what Republican states have done with the proposed Medicaid expansion. That's where millions of Americans are going to lose out on healthcare. It really is disturbing how many Republicans are so intent on denying healthcare to so many in order to prove an unproven political point.

[memphis]

This just really goes to show the political dishonesty of the Republican Party. Does anybody really think their primary concern is the ID theft of poor people? Or are they, just maybe, being supremely disingenuous? Same as it always was...