Government mandating health care
Traffic-based costs, fines, and fees impact low-income drivers disproportionately.
Low-income drivers who do not find a way to either pay in full or establish and maintain a payment plan can have their driving privileges suspended.
Any state that receives federal Medicaid program funding must have a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and that Unit must be able to meet its mission in order to ensure federal Medicaid program funding.
Despite being federally mandated, the Washington Legislature has never passed an enabling statute for the Unit granting basic law enforcement powers like issuing search warrants and making arrests.
If the mandate is struck down, then perhaps insurance companies will again deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Unfortunately, we’ve been forced into this choice by the bill that Congress and the White House designed.BACKGROUND Established in 1978, the Washington State Medicaid Fraud Control Unit has independent jurisdiction and must investigate and prosecute criminal and civil investigation and prosecution of health care provider fraud committed against the State’s Medicaid program as well as abuse and neglect of persons in skilled nursing facilities.The Medicaid Fraud Control Unit is the only entity investigating and prosecuting these matters in Washington State.Others see government overreach—an unprecedented intrusion on individual liberties that can’t be justified no matter how many more people gain health insurance as a result. But if the court does strike down the mandate, we also may lose the most popular provisions in the law such as the ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions and allowing dependents to remain on their parents’ plans up to age 26.No matter what you think of it, the mandate does set a dangerous precedent. The insurance industry accepted these provisions in exchange for the mandate.Our top research institution tells us it will work.One of the most prestigious scientific authorities in the United States concluded that increasing the age of sale for tobacco products in the United States to 21 will significantly reduce the number of adolescents and young who start smoking, reduce deaths from smoking, and immediately improve the health of adolescents, young adults, young mothers, and their children. In the 1980s, an RJ Reynolds researcher declared that if a person has not smoked by the time they turn 21, the odds are “20-to-1” they never will.And many Democrats wanted a government-run insurance plan. The justices heard arguments over the mandate for two hours this morning—the second of the High Court’s three days of oral arguments on the law. Kennedy asked the lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. asked about forcing people to buy burial insurance,” according to the Times.But, generally speaking, your opinion of the health care law generally hinges on whether you can accept the health insurance mandate. Some look at the prospect of providing health care to 30 million currently uninsured Americans, including millions in Texas, and at the success the system has had in Massachusetts, and conclude the mandate is worth it. As the New York Times reports, the conservative justices posed probing questions about the health care mandate. Verrilli Jr., only minutes into the argument.” “Chief Justice John G. asked if the government could compel the purchase of cellphones. I won’t venture a guess on whether the mandate is constitutional or how the court will rule.Based on a sampling of these records, approximately 46% of the individuals have multiple suspension orders from more than one court, and are in circumstances where the various courts involved contract with different collection agencies.For these individuals, there is currently no mechanism for establishing a single payment plan addressing all obligations.