My whole point about the Medicaid expansion and the inevitability of Republican governors opting out at the outset is that those who support the expansion cannot take such a lackadaisical attitude about it. This is not a situation that will just change over time without a major challenge, pressuring these right-wing officials with the consequences of their inaction. You need to make the moral argument that we’re not a country that allows people to die in the streets because they cannot afford medical care.
It’s going to take that kind of effort in Florida to force Rick Scott against his will to expand Medicaid, or to kick him out of office and have his successor do it. And that includes all levels. This statement from the likely challenger to Scott is telling:
A battle is brewing here in Florida, where Gov. Rick Scott took to national television soon after the ruling to announce that he would reject the expansion. Advocates for the poor and some players in the health care industry — especially hospitals, a powerful political lobby — intend to push back [...]
But there is noticeable frustration with the White House from some. State Senator Nan Rich, a Democrat running for governor in 2014, said the administration needed to do a better job of countering state-level opposition.
“The Obama administration needs to be more forceful in going out there and explaining what is true and what’s not,” she said.
I think the media narrative from liberal wonks resting on their laurels and assuming that Republican governors will take the “great deal” has seeped into the White House’s thinking. That’s not going to get it done. I understand that the political dynamic will shift depending on who wins the election, so it perhaps makes sense to wait until then. But it would help for someone, say Alan Grayson of Florida for example, to make these kinds of arguments as well, just to reiterate what’s at stake.
Republican Governors are engaging in a sadistic form of public policy making by denying these people their care.
This is what you need to address to both Republican and also Democratic governors. There are the cold, wonkish arguments – denying care increases public health emergencies and the cost of uncompensated care, states will make out better than advertised because of the stimulative properties of federal Medicaid support, etc – and then there are the arguments that point the finger at human cruelty. You need them both.




46 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
David, don’t you need to address the moral argument that is being made by the other side? Which is:
“People are lazy by nature, and if you don’t force them to work, they will happily continue existing as parasites on the economy and on the country. It’s our duty to force these freeloaders to contribute. Taking away their medical care is good for them, and good for America, because it will force them to get jobs.”
I don’t believe that, and you don’t believe that, but that’s the argument you have to trump in the minds of the people who do believe it. Grayson is preaching to the choir, and so are you. Grayson is making what is called a bleeding-hearts-liberal argument because it’s based in the belief that people deserve health care if they are freeloaders — and freeloaders is how they are viewed by the people who need to be convinced.
O is taking the lead as he did the the passage of ACA.
ACA is a turd. A turd is a turd, is a turd.
The Supremes have ruled. That is the law now. (One could agreed the the Medicaid expansion was coercive of the states).
Do the state legislatures have to agree with the Medicaid expansion? Is it solely the decision of states’ governors, especially in Texas, where the Governor is literally, figuratively and intellectually a figurehead?
This just demonstrates that Republican policies are both immoral and their proposed solution cannot work. Medicaid is a joke, it is complex and hard to qualify and keep qualified. People may be switching between Medicaid and some form of subsidy, possibly several times a year.
Where is Vermont’s single player system in all of this? That appears to have the most promise.
Based on their rhetoric, GOP has nothing to fear from Medicaid expansion.
The tax cuts we’ve been giving the 1% since the Eisenhower administrations are finally going to start making all kinds of high paying jobs. Everyone will be able to afford cadillac insurance policies/s
It is straight forward argument. Public Heath protects us all.
Medically, physically, and financially.
If me avoiding TB or Leprousy or antibiotic resistant bacteria requires some of my money, take the money.
Like your snark. The obvious flaw is the majority cannot be in the 1%, by definition.
That is like NCLB, where every child must perform above average. (Which requires a new definition of average).
Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 – 2011
“…without a major challenge…”
I think the major challenge should be led by the president of the United States, using whatever clout he’s got left.
I think that was in his contract when we hired him.
Of course, if he’d made the “major challenge” by insisting on a Canadian-style single-payer system, when he had the legislative hammer, then all of this parsing about the sellout wouldn’t be flying around.
“Where is Vermont’s single player system in all of this? That appears to have the most promise.”
Yeah, where the hell are the blue state governors and why aren’t they doing single payer? Guess they’re cowardly whores just like the AMA/Pharma lapdogs in DC.
Yes, the moral argument needs to be made, but it won’t work on people who are essentially either amoral or too filled with hatred for the lower orders to bother with making moral distinctions in the first place. I would suggest Grayson’s rhetoric would make good bookends for actual facts that demonstrate the impact of destroying the public health system in this country.
Take Floriduh’s abysmal and completely incompetent handling of their TB outbreak. They have patients staying in hotels and taking city busses! That has a direct impact on people who think their own health is not at risk. So while the scandal is bad, the actual impact on public health is vastly worse.
People have to be made aware of how these decisions will affect them personally.
If people can’t gain some sense of impact on their own lives, then all the moralizing in the world won’t do much good… especially with people who can’t make moral distinctions in the first place.
I have been attempting to write a column about this “moral argument” but I’ve been stymied, given that when President Obama went before the conventions of both the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the NAACP, no one “challenged” him on this Medicaid expansion. And from therein, commences this “challenge” especially from the standpoint of the Democratic Coalition. As to the current driving force of Democratic politics, it’s the conservative Democrats that have their foot placed firmly on the brake of this vehicle.
Jaango
How does one unwind this rationalization? Calling the GOP out as sadistic meanies seems like a good start. Maybe we just need to remind them, over and over and over again, that they are the beneficiaries of numerous public services and are therefore the same as the parasites against whom they would discriminate.
Everyone is a parasite of the public goods, especially those with massive wealth. “Parasite” is not necessarily a pejorative.
Do you seriously think politics could now talk morality into for-profit ACA? The model is sick, and politicians are the ones who
wroteenable it. Reading this in conjunction with Douglas K. Smith’s Profiting From Market Failure: How Today’s Capitalists Bring Bad Things to Life posted Tuesday on Naked Capitalism:you know this part already, money-driven/counterproductive medicine, insurance, so I won’t quote it
(The Joe Wilson Smith is referring to is Joe Wilson of Xerox, who worked venture capitalism for 14 years to develop Xerox. “Fourteen years. This was not the ‘fast buck, no risk’ capitalism of today’s swashbuckling pirates.”)
It just seems insane to me to expect health to come out of this market where everything the vampire capitalists and their political enablers touch turns sick and toxic. But I admire any call-out for moral arguments.
“…where the hell are the blue-state governors…”
They’re taking their cue from the preznint; hiding under their desks instead of going after the “I”ve got mine fuck YOU, Jack!” worldview.
And, OT-but-very-relative, is this from the Yahoo news page, about the Fed’s propping up of the Great Wall Street Crapshoot, so as not to destroy what’s left of american’s confidence in vulture capitalism:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/market-savior-stocks-might-50-125751851.html
“How does one unwind this rationalization?”
until we get someone in the White House who believes, to his or her toenails, that making obscene amounts of money off sickness and aging in amurka is despicable, and who will ACT on that belief…there aint gonna BE no unwinding.
The seeping is going in the other direction, DDay. And that’s the right word — seepage.
Of course back in the ’50 when the highest marginal rates were 90%, the lowest marginal rates were 20%, twice what they are today.
I think we have that person in the White House. We just need to give his administration a Congress that is not overrun with financial/philosophical/religious extremism backed by corporate wealth. The bigger problem than whoever is in the White House seems to me to be the TP-controlled Red State governors who are True Believers blocking rational progress on health care.
That person in the WH, when he and his party had control of the WH, the House and Senate, the ability to change filibuster rules, the ability to use reconciliation, sufficient numbers of Dems on the record to pass a public option, no Tea Partiers in Congress, and no need to make health care a hostage to state governments, chose instead to put corporate deals ahead of the health of the people of this country, and Dems in Congress either actively wanted the same corporate deals or were willing to stand back and not stop them. Can’t pin this one on the TP.
Typical argument that I had this morning on my local paper was with someone who thought no social programs are needed because the market always does them better and cheaper. I think privatization is more expensive. We need to pay the profit factor. For example medicare has an overhead of 6%. Health care industry companies are 30% or more. It is true that Ryan’s Budget supported by Romney would eliminate my medicare and give me a $6000 coupon leading to what Alan Grayson said was the GOP motto: die and die quickly or as I say “free to die”.
Great answer. I would have responded, “you have to be shitting me.”
What’s your point? That John McCain would have done better? We go to war with the army we have. There was a lot more going on in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The filibuster, whether a good thing or not (it’s not) was present and had to be contended with. The influence of the Tea Party was already felt strongly at that point. In fact, the (big money) Tea Party arose out of Obama’s candidacy, so the money and lobbyists were already doing their work to make Obama a one-term President.
I’m not saying Obama is perfect, but there was a lot going on in 2009/2010 and failure to get a public option, while unfortunate, is not some evidence that Obama doesn’t believe to his toenails that the corrupting power of money in politics is a problem.
Appreciate your reply
That’s an excellent point Boo. I can afford to insure my Cadillac. But my wife, who was laid off, can’t get affordfable insurance because she had uterine cancer three years ago. I guess I should put her in the car???
/s
Hee hee. We may disagree, but your comedy is solid!
Hah, thanks.
Indeed, somebody let that one get away. Now we’re stuck with the piece of crap.
Right. TP had nothing to do with it. But there was a handful of dem senators who were not going to vote for anything else and one of them controlled the all powerful finance committee. You can’t do anything without him. Besides, I am sick to here about arguing over this. Maybe in another life things will be different. Time we found a way to fix it.
Yep. Thunk we had our “knight in shining armor riding in on his white horse” there for a minute or two. But nope. Just another lying politician beholden to the 1% on a mule.
I think ww learnt a lesson. Don’t vote for nobody who cain’t bowl.
I was reading an aritcle on one of them fancy “Physics” websites. THey said they (the theoretical physicist) think that there MAY be thousands of “parallel universes”. Now, if we could jus find a way to get to one of them that has universal healthcare, we’d be good.
MIght be easier than fixing the mess we have.
My point was that he and the Dems made choices. Some screaming Tea Partiers aren’t a good enough reason to choose corporate welfare over health care.
It’s astonishing to me that while Obama’s critics on the left see him as an educated, successful politician, who managed to get himself elected to the most powerful position in history, and fully responsible, like any other adult, for the choices he makes, his defenders see him as a helpless victim.
I blame all the Dems. They all had a hand in this. But I agree, we need to figure out how to fix it. I don’t think it can be fixed except in ways that pave an actual path to Medicare for All, not just an excuse for one, but I don’t know how to do that.
Gonna make a helluva “mini-series”. Hope I live long enough to see it.
Seriously, it’s gonna take a different mindset on the part of the people and the legislature. I do think we will get there, but not for another 20-30 years.
I think “uiversal healthcare” is similar to “civil rights” and this is 1940. People finally woke up to how bad things were and “fixed it”.
That’s solid. I guess what is going on for me on this is that I have this gut feeling (agreed, that can easily be irrational) that the Dems (Obama included) got both outplayed and misplayed their hands, but that they have learned the lesson. I definitely don’t see Dems/Obama as victims at any hand other than their own. So, when you say in #30 “I blame all Dems,” I think I have to agree.
I remain hopeful and will vote Dem this year, but I think both my hope and patience will wear out if we don’t see massive improvements. Appreciate the civility in your commentary.
Re Fed — Wish I could post a screenshot of HuffPo a couple of days ago: Headline “THE ROT SPREADS” / New York Fed, Geithner May Have Known About Outrageous LIBOR Problems in 2007,” with big pic of Geithner.
I appreciate your civility as well.
Don’t blame me, I voted for the guy with the soundtrack:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RpVplSMO8E
Like, where’d he go? I feel so punked.
LOL
“I think we have that person in the White House.”
I think you and I should not talk about this anymore, or I’ll be in trouble with the mods. :o)
Mary, you put up the best post on this thread. Thanks. :o)
Obama as victim, is black-humor hilarious.
“…but I think both my hope and patience will wear out if we don’t see massive improvements.”
That’s a when question not an if question. RE: your patience that is.
That’s the pro-Obamacare argument – hence the mandate. It’s contradictory to argue pro-Obamacare by saying that it is immoral to let people go without medical care when Obama and the Democrats made such a big deal about how people can get free medical care without insurance and are basically a bunch of leeches. If people without insurance cannot get medical care, then there was no need for the mandate per the logic that was used in justifying it.
“What’s your point? That John McCain would have done better? We go to war with the army we have.”
But if we go to war wit the army we have, you’re saying you’d be defending McCain in the WH because he’d have been the army that you had. John McCain wouldn’t have been perfect either, so in reading your comments in this thread it seems more to do with Obama being a Democrat versus McCain being a Republican because I don’t think you’d be making these same comments if McCain had passed nationalized Romneycare instead of how things are now with Obama passing nationalized Romneycare.
“mods”……I didn’t know we had mods. ‘Cept, of course the CIA and NSA and DHS.
One way to produce a better argument (and blunt the [P]Rick Scotts of the world) is to have the expansion be 100% paid for by the feds. Currently, it’s only a fully paid expansion for the first three years. Scott et. al. are using this to say they’re forced to pick up costs. Frankly, they’re correct although if they really gave a crap about their states’ citizens, then they’d expand for the first 3 years in the fully paid period then cut back in the 4th year.
Nonetheless, they can spout that the feds are making them pick up the costs. Why give them that argument? After the SC decision, it was too easy for them to not use this argument. Another bad decision by the crafters of the law to let this happen. They thought they could use the sledgehammer of money to force the states to adopt and later pick up some of the costs, but that gamble proved false.
“…if we don’t see massive improvements…”
Well, let’s see…in 2008 Obama came in with that 79 seat majority in the House, and that 18 seat majority in the Senate, plus a ton of expectations (not unrealistic expectations…) that he would use them, and what we got was the wondrous rehab program on the republicans, and the protection of much of the bushCo status quo.
If someone would like to post how we’re going to see massive improvements (even if he wins in November…not a given…) then, I’m all ears.
2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price.accept paypal. Thank everyone .
Welcome to *** http://www.3shopping.us ***
iphone 4/4s X-Doria Cases $9
iphone 4/4s ARK Speakers $18
iphone 4/4s Leopard Cases $16
iphone 4/4s Apart Metal Cases $26
*** http://www.3shopping.us ***
*** http://www.3shopping.us ***