The U.S. Supreme Court doing what it does best……

While most of the public debate on the constitutionality of the health reform law has centered on the “individual mandate” – the requirement to obtain government-approved health insurance or pay a penalty – the Supreme Court has also agreed to consider another, far less discussed issue: whether the law’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility might be an unconstitutional federal infringement on state legislative authority.

Not wanting to muddy the waters too much, we’ve decided to try and make some sense out of what is being used as “Medicaid”. Medicaid is a joint federal/state program to provide health care for the poor that is established and operated through a complex mix of federal and state laws.

Established in 1965, a very critical time in American history, the idea was that the federal government would provide matching funds to state-run health programs for the poor. Federal law sets certain eligibility and coverage requirements, and if a state program meets those requirements, federal funds are provided for a percentage of the state’s costs.

There is some state flexibility; for example, certain categories of individuals – for example, children from families with income below certain thresholds –must be covered, and additional categories of individuals may be covered at a state’s discretion, but would still entitle the state to federal subsidies.

Actually the set-up of this operation is pretty good; however, we believe that the flood gates are wide open for mismanagement of funding, accounting nightmares, and more simply, these protocol are just waiting for human nature.

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the health reform law next week , it will be taking on one of the most closely watched case in decades. It will also be one of the longest oral arguments in the history of the modern Supreme Court – six full hours addressing at least four separate issues, compared to one hour or so allowed for a typical case.

In addition to the rulings of lower courts and briefs from both sides – the Obama administration on one side, 26 states plus the National Federation of Independent Business on the other – there are 136 amicus briefs (compared to nine for an average case). These are overwhelming provisos, especially in the area of amicus briefs as well as time.

From the states’ point of view, the problem is, how will they come up with the money to cover their share of the cost of health care for these additional people? This question is as easy as pie: the federal government will pay for the entire cost of coverage for those who are newly eligible – but only for the first three years. Furthermore, based on 2009 spending figures, the average state would have to raise tax collections by 34.4% to make up for the loss of federal funds. This sort of tax increase would be economically disastrous, not to mention politically infeasible.

As for us here at The Thinker this is plain lunacy! What our country needs and so desperately desires is for this HUGE government to stop spending. And certainly as evidenced by the current administration, this plea is falling on deaf ears. More assuredly in matters of “clean energy” telling us what light bulbs to use, and if you will please have a look-see at the losses versus gains in the monetary provisions debited and credited.

We are appalled at the ways the legislative branch – Congress – conducted itself when they were still at debating and deal making procedures; moreover, seeing to what lengths the executive branch would go or better still stop at nothing attitude as provided by the Obama administration. We are convinced that if a person seeks to make a legacy on corruption and other similar reckless disregard of the people, then his time is up. “Gone in 60 Seconds.”


When it comes to Immigration Reform…Hispanics should not believe Obama

Currently, the United States and Canada are the only developed nations that grant automatic citizenship to almost all children born within their borders, regardless of whether the parents are citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the country. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that eight percent of all U.S. births (350,000/year) come from at least one illegal-alien parent.

Legislation to end birthright citizenship was introduced earlier this year by Representative Steve King of Iowa. The Birthright Citizenship Act (H.R. 140), would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act – not the Constitution – to consider a person born in the United States “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

H.R. 140 was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on January 24, 2011

As Deportations Hit Record Highs, Latinos Oppose Obama’s Policy

By a ratio of more than two-to-one, Latinos disapprove of the way the Obama administration is handling deportations of unauthorized immigrants, according to a new national survey of Latino adults. The survey also reveals that heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama and the Democratic Party continue to enjoy strong support from Latino registered voters, despite a decline in Obama’s job approval rating.

As of March 2010, 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States, virtually unchanged from a year earlier, according to new estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. This stability in 2010 follows a two-year decline from the peak of 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in 2009 that was the first significant reversal in a two-decade pattern of growth.

The number of unauthorized immigrants in the nation’s workforce, 8 million in March 2010, also did not differ from the Pew Hispanic Center estimate for 2009. As with the population total, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the labor force had decreased in 2009 from its peak of 8.4 million in 2007. They made up 5.2% of the labor force in 2010. And if you are not confused by now, then re-read what who’s alleging. One cannot have record high deportation levels whilst the numbers are not changing.

The number of children born to at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent in 2009 was 350,000 and they made up 8% of all U.S. births, essentially the same as a year earlier. An analysis of the year of entry of unauthorized immigrants who became parents in 2009 indicates that 61% arrived in the U.S. before 2004, 30% arrived from 2004 to 2007, and 9% arrived from 2008 to 2010.

In contrast to the national trend, the number of unauthorized immigrants has grown in some West South Central states. From 2007 to 2010, there was a statistically significant increase in the combined unauthorized immigrant population of Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. The change was not statistically significant for these states individually, but it was for the combined three states. Texas has the second largest number of unauthorized immigrants, trailing only California.

Despite the recent decline and leveling off, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States has tripled since 1990, when it was 3.5 million. The size of this population grew by a third since 2000, when was 8.4 million. It is reports such as these, showing that the illegal immigration problem in the U.S. is so far off the mark, Pew Research is Top Drawer, while the Obama Administration has done nothing and will continue to do nothing to resolve this issue.

President Obama’s Very Simple Plan to Win Latino Voters

Huge support and turnout from Latino voters will be a key part of President Obama’s reelection campaign. What must he do to try to win somebody’s favor by pleasing him or her, especially in order to gain an advantage again? Nothing, really. In his mind, he can just show some clips of Republicans talking about immigration and pretty much seal things up. Or at least according to the latest from Gawker.

Obama was meeting with Hispanic journalists the other day when they asked him about his strategy. And, in a somewhat candid moment, he told them:

“I don’t think it requires us to go negative in the sense of us running a bunch of ads that are false, or character assassinations,” Obama said, as reported by Univision.”It will be based on facts.”

“We may just run clips of the Republican debates verbatim,” he added. “We won’t even comment on them, we’ll just run those in a loop on Univision and Telemundo, and people can make up their own minds.”

The quote that still sticks out to me so far is that of Mitt Romney, addressing Rick Perry: “You put in place a magnet to draw illegals into the state.” That stuff is hilarious. This is a line of attack from the likely nominee, supposedly a moderate technocrat: “You put in place a magnet to draw illegals into the state.” Yeah, just play it over and over.

The following are comments from those who have read the article:

Roberto offered:

Ok, I’m a Latino. Can someone please tell me why I should vote
for Obama again? Seriously. The dream act he was a no show.

Mr. C  offered:

On deporting undocumented people, his administration has served
over some of the biggest deportations. This hurts the Latino community and
often replaces Latinos who want to stay under the radar with citizens who are
desperate for money who in some situations are addicted to drugs.

Editor’s note: The Obama administration has deported more illegal aliens that any administration to date.

[Image via AP]