There was a story on NPR this morning about how Texas has 2.6 million citizens eligible for the Federally-run health care exchange. But Gov. Rick Perry, and the state GOP generally, aren’t lifting a finger to let them know this opportunity to purchase insurance even exists.
They would rather see these people go uninsured, than to see them buy affordable health insurance. These millions of people, that they are supposedly supposed to be serving.
Sure, they’re against Obamacare. I understand that. But it’s there. Millions of their citizens have the opportunity to buy relatively inexpensive insurance that meets clear standards, and if the well-being of your citizens is more important to you than a principle (which basically amounts to ‘we hate Obama and librulz’ anyway), then you tell them about it. You make sure they have the chance to benefit from this.
Needless to say, this scenario is repeating itself in GOP-controlled states across the country. A few GOPers have gone against the flow, and gotten a lot of abuse as RINOs as a result.
Shorter GOP: Fuck the American people. Fuck 'em sideways. Fuck 'em in the ass. We’ve got a political war to win, and that’s more important than the well-being of, you know, tens of millions of actual people.
. . . .
What’s the debate, you ask? It’s this: does the GOP hate tens of millions of Americans, or not? Is it putting (bullshit) principles ahead of the well-being of those tens of millions of people, or not? When is it OK to put principles ahead of people? (Essentially never, I’d argue. I’m old enough to remember when elements of the left did this, back in the 1960s and early 1970s. Fuck that shit. You develop your principles out of what works for people, and if the two contradict each other in a big way, it’s time to revise your principles.) And is today’s GOP something that deserves to be wiped from the face of the earth, or is it in any way morally redeemable?
Thought you said it was 2.6 million? Is the debate about the other tens of millions who have been negatively affected in other as-of-yet undetermined ways (in this particular debate) by the GOP’s obstinance? Or just about those particular 2.6 million, who are definitely being screwed with little regard for anything more than “I don’t like your rules, so I won’t play the game at all!”
Yep, politicians are petty, and they’ll allow the masses to suffer just so they can say “See, I told you I was right.”
This is just question begging not an actual argument. If Obamacare is great and wonderful than opposing it is wrong. If Obamacare is awful and ruinous than opposing it is great. You are assuming that it is great with no evidence and no actual argument.
I understand that it is frustrating that people who actually have the temerity to disagree with you and Obama the great and powerful are allowed to participate in government but that is democracy for you.
I don’t know that this is evidence of hate, exactly. But certainly indifference.
The GOP crossed the line from taking a principled stand to purely ideological opposition on this issue. They’re more interested in that than the people they are potentially fucking over. Hence, indifference rather than hate.
There is a difference between opposing the program, and hindering your residents participation in the program.
The program is there. It exists. All of the awful and ruinous things that will happen as a result of the program will happen.
Opposing it in your own state just means that your state’s residents are going to be saddled with all the awful and ruinous aspects of the program, while not being afforded the opportunity to garner the positive aspects of the program, low cost health insurance.
This is why sensible politicians can say “I oppose the program, but being unable to stop the program, I will work within the confines of the program to ensure my constituents get their fair share of benefits.”
Many Republicans have entered a mode of ultra-contrariness where they are unable to even go that far.
By analogy, I might object if you started giving away food to people every day, because I believe that such an action will lead people to develop a dependence on you and your food giveaway as opposed to the wherewithal to earn money and buy food themselves.
You might then say the same things: Sure, he’s against FireflyFreeFood. I understand that. But it’s there. Millions of our hungry citizens have the opportunity to obtain free food that fills their stomachs! Only a monster would object!
But my objection would be grounded in the “Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime,” concept. I believe it’s better in the long run to NOT give free food away, and spend the money on ways in which the erstwhile recipients of this free food can instead learn skills that let them get jobs and buy their own food.
And I believe the same thing about medical care, as a general rule.
I don’t agree that makes me a monster, or a target to be wiped from the face of the earth.
What if you’re actively spending some of that money actively making sure people don’t find out about the free food while not actually doing anything effective to “spend the money on ways in which the erstwhile recipients of this free food can instead learn skills that let them get jobs and buy their own food.”
See, with healthcare, i’m more in the camp of if a man gets sick, he can’t fish. Or if a man gets suddenly critically ill, it shouldn’t be a death sentence if it’s preventable, or bankrupt them, severely diminishing their prospects for perhaps the rest of their life (or lives if immediate family is considered). That doesn’t even get into the indirect costs of not having healthcare, like taxpayers picking up the e-room tab or spreading of viruses and diseases due to lack of proper vaccinations and the like.
It doesn’t make you a monster, Bricker, it just makes you wrong. The parable isn’t empirically true for food, much less for health insurance.
Moreover, the thing being opposed by Conservatives is not primarily the subsidizing of people to buy health insurance. It’s mostly all the other stuff, from the individual mandate to IPAB to the insurance regulations, that is entirely unaffected by whether Texans participate in the program or not.
But the government in this case isn’t giving medical care away for free. You still have to pay for your insurance and presumably any copays and deductibles.
What the government is doing here is making an attempt to offer a semi-affordable option for those might not otherwise be able to buy insurance.
How does this apply to the OP? It seems like just the opposite. If all Texans were educated about their new health care options in the ACA, there’s an excellent chance that many of them would become less dependent on the rest of society. Many that don’t have insurance would get insurance, and with insurance, they wouldn’t be a burden on everyone else if they have to get medical care. Uninsured people who can’t pay for medical care “mooch” off everyone whenever they go to the hospital, because their unpaid bills just raise costs for everyone else. So if this program gives them the opportunity to stop mooching, it seems much more like teaching them to fish then giving them a fish.
I also have objections to some of how the program is applied – the Hobby Lobby objection, let’s call it.
But my main point in response to the OP is: I don’t contend that I am objectively correct, or that those who disagree should be wiped off the face of the planet.
When the foreseeable consequence of your misguided belief is the painful death of sick people who would otherwise live (or at least have their suffering minimized), how are you *not *a monster?
I don’t think so. You can make an argument that Obamacare is bad because it will harm the American economy, or because you think it will ultimately cause healthcare costs to rise overall, or cause standards of care to drop, or something like that. I think, and other supporters of Obamacare think, that you would be dead wrong to believe these things, and have no good arguments to support them, but it is not ipso facto crazy or immoral to try to argue, on those sorts of grounds, that the law should never never have been passed or should never be implemented.
That is quite a different matter, however, from discouraging people from taking advantage of the system once it has (against your advice) been set up. That is flat out immoral. It is (on the most charitable interpretation I can think of) cynically playing party politics with people’s life and health. There really is no question that the individual people will be better off with health insurance than without it, even if it is true (which has not been demonstrated) that the system as a whole that has been set up to provide that insurance will ultimately prove to be bad for America.
Is the objection to encouraging people to participate in the exchanges that you’re voicing–that it causes dependency–being voiced by Rick Perry? If not, then your point doesn’t help him against the charges leveled by the OP.
If you were in Rick Perry’s shoes and doing this, we might conclude you’re acting sincerely if harmfully and incorrectly. It is not at all clear to me that we can conclude the same of Perry.
I believe it’s part of his duty to the people of Texas. It’s like informing them of some potential natural disaster, even if a Federal-level service identifies it.
I certainly wouldn’t contend that he is under any legal obligation to do so. But if his primary job is to ensure the welfare of his constituents, is he not morally bound to do the best he can in that regard even if he doesn’t agree with the means. I don’t see him offering something objectively better for those people.