he's saying resisting Obamacare is the South's new 'lost cause' . The lost cause was the fight to keep slavery. The author clearly made the link .
|
he's saying resisting Obamacare is the South's new 'lost cause' . The lost cause was the fight to keep slavery. The author clearly made the link .
I'll go further... the author suggests that expanding Medicaid is a job creator ;and the southern states should get on board lest they be left behind. I will remind him that for decades there has been a flight of jobs from these big blue nanny states to the south ,specifically because the government interferences that are unfavorable to job creation . It is typical lib logic to think that a government program is the job creator .
What the author isn't saying is that the federal assistance to the states is temporary ,and once that source of funding ends ,the states will be left with the burden of fundng this expanded Medicaid program. I would also remind him that unlike the Federal Government ,the states don't have the luxury of running up unsustainable dept ;paid for by the Treasury's printing presses.
But, he is not saying anything about causes, lost or new.
I think what you are trying to say is the author is trying out a synecodoche on his readers
the implication is clear . When studying the American Civil War ,the concept of the South's Lost Cause has specific meaning . Let me explain. When historians began penning the history of the war ,there was a systematic attempt to recast the cause of the war as not an attempt to preserve slavery ,but other 'noble 'causes worth defending ie. the chivalrous antebellum Southern aristocracy ,and the one you still hear today ;defenders of "states rights" . They heroically defended it even though they were fighting a 'Lost Cause'. The idea that they in reality was defending the right to own slaves was dismissed ,even though that is the real underlying cause of the conflict .
So for the author to compare the Lost Cause to southern states resistance to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion is to link them in the readers mind . He goes further in his comparison of a divided nation .In the past it was slavery .... now it's Obamacare .....and clearly those who oppose Obamacare are the ones who in the past would've supported slavery .
You have got it right in this post. The author is not making a clear link as you suggested earlier. It is up to the reader to make the link. This is evident when you suggest that a understanding of your history is needed to make the link.
it is a clear ink to his intended audience. glad you agree with me that it's his intent to link them.
I agree that it is his intent. But it isn't a clear link otherwise no historical background would be necessary.
Meanwhile the real point is that Medicaid is a safety net program intended to aid the poorest in the country to get medical care . The expansion increases eligibility to families earning up to $30,000 a year. That takes it out of the safety net category and into a nanny state program . The net effect will be that the poor who really require the assistance will be competing for their care with others who had other means to get their health care. These are limited resources we are talking about ;with funding already breaking state budgets ,and fewer health care providers /doctors willing to take Medicaid patients.
Rep. Joe Pitts, R-PA, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, said during a hearing on March 18, 2013.
“Medicaid was designed as a safety net for our nation's poorest and sickest people,” “States are already struggling to serve this core population.
'“Increasingly, doctors simply can't afford to treat Medicaid patients. Is it fair that the president's health care law will force millions of disabled and sick Americans to compete with able-bodied 25-year-olds for appointments with those doctors who will still see them?”
He said that expanding Medicaid compromises states' “ability to care for our country's poorest and sickest citizens.”
http://energycommerce.house.gov/site...3-20130318.pdf
And that will be doubly so when the temporary funding inducement by the Federal Government ends.
Yep, glad you concur with the point I was making about my daughter. She already has to get in line to see her PCP and in this city with 2 or 3 cancer centers there is one specialist she can see and he is reluctant.Quote:
Meanwhile the real point is that Medicaid is a safety net program intended to aid the poorest in the country to get medical care . The expansion increases eligibility to families earning up to $30,000 a year. That takes it out of the safety net category and into a nanny state program . The net effect will be that the poor who really require the assistance will be competing for their care with others who had other means to get their health care. These are limited resources we are talking about ;with funding already breaking state budgets ,and fewer health care providers /doctors willing to take Medicaid patients.
I've seen the cars at the clinic where her PCP is, no way people needing assistance should be able to afford them, along with their iphones and $100 sneakers. And these guys want my daughter and others who truly need that safety net to have to compete further for healthcare instead of demanding able bodied adults get off their a$$es and make an effort at contributing instead of taking. But that would require them to actually want people off of the government teat and I don't see that happening. Their preferred method of lifting others up is by bringing someone else down. Unless of course it's one of their wealthy elite in whom they can find no fault.
I would like to know how a family making $30,000 has other means to meet their health care needs than those that have NONE. Prices for other needs makes their options very few. I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people on Medicaid getting free stuff.
Hello tal:
Just like my driving an 1986 yellow Volvo station wagon doesn't make me poor either.Quote:
I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people
I LOVE my old, VERY old car. I'm going for record of 450,000 miles on ONE engine.
excon
To the first ask me after employers throw employees into the exchanges thanks to obamacare. But I do believe at that income they get some nice subsidies which we never had, and we took care of ourselves without sucking off of the taxpayers.Quote:
I would like to know how a family making $30,000 has other means to meet their health care needs than those that have NONE. Prices for other needs makes their options very few. I would also point out Speech the cars in the lot or $100 dollars sneakers doesn't make them poor people on Medicaid getting free stuff.
To the second, being in line with my daughter does make them "poor" people on government assistance.
If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
B--- O--- R--- I---N----G
"Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama’s closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero’s amazingness:
“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He’s been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”
"Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser. About what can such a paragon as Obama need advice?"
George Will: Obama’s presidency unravels through chaos and crisis - The Washington Post
Hello again, Steve:Why am I getting flashes of Reagan's welfare queen??Quote:
If they were driving 86 Volvos I wouldn't have mentioned it.
Here's what you DON'T understand... ALL of those brand new pick ups and caddies you saw in the parking lot, BELONG to OTHER right wingers who find themselves in NEED of help too.
While YOU'RE being amazed at their cars, THEY'RE being amazed at yours.
excon
yes I believe a Volvo is capable of turning the clock a number of times.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Don't know what input she had on Obamacare. I've been watching her act closely with the Iran negotiations because she was born in Iran ,and her childhood buddy is Ali Akbar Velayati,a key foreign policy advisor to Khamenei. I've seen reports of her being involved in secret meetings before the latest diplomatic effort.Quote:
Valerie Jarrett, perhaps Obama's closest and longest-serving adviser, on her hero's amazingness:
“He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . I think that he has never really been challenged intellectually. . . . He's been bored to death his whole life. He's just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what ordinary people do.”
"Leave aside the question of whether someone so smitten can be in any meaningful sense an adviser. About what can such a paragon as Obama need advice?"
But this is probably the topic for another OP.
Lol, yes I'm sure they're impressed by my beat up 86 4Runner. Point being, for some all this government "assistance" is a decent career. For others it's life and death and you want to make them compete even more for the available resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So this is about you deciding who gets dwindling resources? Now I get it.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hpho...97486775_n.jpg
WH officials announced that they would consider the Obamacare web site successful if 80 % of visitors are able to buy insurance plans online. I'm gonna tell my boss I'm doing a good job if I screw up 1 in 5 times.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 AM. |