More handpicked essays just for you.
struggle of power between state and federal
the relationship between Federal Government and State Government
the relationship between Federal Government and State Government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: struggle of power between state and federal
Nicely done and great job, the federal spending clause is very unconstitutional and very much threating to the states. The role of federal government is in questionable to ensure the dual sovereignty of federal and state relationship, and responsibility of ensure the wealth, and wellness of the people. Basically with Congress renouncing being the law enforce of the insurance spending act gives states to regulate private and Medicaid as they please. If federal was to enforce the spending clause it would cause for states to raise taxes, and the lack of federal help can cause hardship on the people. Thus, causing federal no control to fixing health care if states refused to operate under four imposed policies set by federal. Congress should always
Smaller states like Delaware and New Jersey objected to the Virginia Plan saying that the large states would easily outvote them in Congress if the number of votes were based on population. After weeks of debate, William Patterson of New Jersey put forth a plan that called for three branches including a legislature with only one house where each state would have one vote. The New Jersey Plan with a single house legislature and equal representation was more like Congress under the Articles.
When it validated the constitutionality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2012, the United States Supreme Court also ruled that states could decide for themselves whether or not to expand their Medicaid programs (Sonfield, 2012). Predictably, South Carolina said no. The Palmetto State’s decision not to expand Medicaid in concert with the Affordable Care Act was wrong, and it is time to correct that mistake.
Federal spending is necessary for the economy and is essential to the accomplishment of national goals and advancement. This is why a budget is needed, however, there is no actual process mentioned in the Constitution that explains how Congress should do this. The Constitution states:
Under Obamacare, Texas would be an ordinary constitute of the federal government, carrying out the schedule of the United States Department of Health. The major pieces of the Afforadable Care Act do not become active for a few years but Texas must do everything it can to redesign, abolish or dismantle it. Texas officials must also realize that we are not a messenger for the federal government. We are a powerful, self-sufficient state with the power to control our own healthcare system. There is entirely nothing that forces Texas to help force us to use this foolish legislation. Quite frankly, Texas needs to make the most of opportunities to use its authority to create better solutions than a one size fits all federal mandated healthcare. Texas must do what is right for the people of Texas.
Senator Scott Brown a Republican from Massachusetts stated that: “States shouldn 't be forced by the federal government to adopt a one-size-fits-all health care plan; each state 's health care needs are different”. Senator Brown has a very good point, the ACA healthcare program does not fit the differentiating needs of the different states, and each state has different factors that go into the roles of their healthcare programs. Thomas Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute also has opposing viewpoints toward the relationship between the Affordable Care Act and state healthcare programs. “Miller says the ACA will undermine the development of free-market dynamics in the health insurance field and force states to accede to federal dictates. At first, he says, states may be able to shape their own insurance exchanges through which people purchase health coverage. But that is simply because Washington made certain “concessions” to the states to induce them to back the law, he says. Once the new health regime is deeply rooted, he predicts, “the long-term dynamics will very much have Washington in control rather than having open markets.”” (Clemmitt, Assessing the New Health Care
The preamble of the United State’s constitution sets many goals for the country. These goals are to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense , promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves, and our posterity (US Const). With all of these goals it begs the question are, parts of the United State’s government meeting these goals? One specific case with this relationship is the relationship between the federal budget, and the goals in the preamble. The federal budget is meeting the goals set out in the preamble of the constitution because the federal budget defends the country, promotes the welfare of America’s citizen, and establishes justice
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by President Barack Obama is a significant change of the American healthcare system since insurance plans programs like Medicare and Medicaid (“Introduction to”). As a result, “It is also one of the most hotly contested, publicly maligned, and politically divisive pieces of legislation the country has ever seen” (“Introduction to”). The Affordable Care Act should be changed because it grants the government too much control over the citizen’s healthcare or the lack of individual freedom to choose affordable health insurance.
The U.S budget deficit over the years has been a problem but lately the deficit has shrunk. However, what made the U.S budget deficit get to where it is today and what will it be like in the years to come. Throughout the past the U.S has operated under a deficit. This means that the U.S Spent more money than it was taking in. The cause of the excess in spending was different depending on which year. Some of the causes were war, increase in spending , and economic downturns. There were different acts passed to try and control the deficit problem. The deficit at the present time is declining. This decline is due to the improving economy, sequester, and a tax increase on high-income households. The big factor that went into the decline in the deficit for 2013 was the payment that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made. The deficit decline in the present time may make some think the U.S could get out of debt but it has been projected that the U.S deficit will start to increase once again.
The author identifies some of the federal and state legislators that are also opposed to the Medicaid expansion in the writer’s district. US Senator John Cornyn says that the Obamacare Medicaid expansion program is formed to be wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive to the nation (Cornyn, 2010). According to US Senator Cornyn, “The $3.4 trillion federal taxpayers spend on the Medicaid program is a target for waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead of fixing these problems, the President’s new health care overhaul includes the largest expansion of the broken Medicaid program since its creation in 1965: it’s only going to get worse from here” (John Cornyn, 2010).
is intended to limit the power of the federal government, and not that of the States.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
There is an ongoing debate on the topic of how to fix the health care system in America. Some believe that there should be a Single Payer system that ensures all health care costs are covered by the government, and the people that want a Public Option system believe that there should be no government interference with paying for individual’s health care costs. In 1993, President Bill Clinton introduced the Health Security Act. Its goal was to provide universal health care for America. There was a lot of controversy throughout the nation whether this Act was going in the right direction, and in 1994, the Act died. Since then there have been multiple other attempts to fix the health care situation, but those attempts have not succeeded. The Affordable Care Act was passed in the senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. President Obama signed it into law on March 23 (Obamacare Facts). This indeed was a step forward to end the debate about health care, and began to establish the middle ground for people in America. In order for America to stay on track to rebuild the health care system, we need to keep going in the same direction and expand our horizons by keeping and adding on to the Affordable Care Act so every citizen is content.
.... While the Governor’s veto of the bill prevented it from becoming law, its adoption by a majority of both houses of state government reflect a growing trend towards the legitimacy of the federal government.
There are 6 largest budgets items in the U.S government, they are Medicare/Medicaid ($96 billions), Social Security ($88 billions), Defense/War ($58 billions), Income Security ($31 billions), Net Interest on debt ($24 billions), Federal Pensions ($25 billions). Each one has its own importance though the U.S government should cut back spending on few of the budget items. They conducted survey and got federal pension and defense/war should be cut back. In my point of view they should cut back in federal pension because the defense is mandatory for U.S citizens the government should protect citizens that is there responsibility, without defense we can’t protect from enemies foreign and domestic.
In the United States, spending on Medicaid's forty million beneficiaries is projected to an overall of two hundred twenty billion during the fiscal year of 2001. In the year 1998, the federal government's share of medicaid expenditures averaged about fifty-seven percent in every state. Eleven percent is the average rate the Medicaid spending grew during the years between 1980 to 2000. Moderate spending caused a concern to both the federal legal and regulatory efforts aimed at states use of financing mechanisms. For example most states used a huge amount of disproportionate share hospital payments, intergovernmental transfers, and provider taxes and donations. However, this did not impact the enrollment of people to Medicaid due to a strong economy along with state welfare reform and fewer expansions in eligibility. Services provided to Medicaid recipients were provided at costs that remained constant due to moderate health care price inflation along with expanded use of managed care and increased use of home and community-based alternative to costly institutional long term care.