Finally Republicans have admitted that their hatred of President Obama is the real reason they cannot support any initiatives he favors, regardless whether they are in the best interests of the nation. According to a recent article from the Associated Press, Southern states have "dug in" against expanding Medicaid under "Obamacare" not because they dislike every element of the program, but solely because it was initiated by Obama.
Regardless of the public claims by GOP Governors that expanding Medicaid will "bust our budgets" (see Governors Nikki Haley and Rick Perry), GOP South Carolina legislator Kris Crawford publicly admitted that although the expansion would be good for the nation, voting against it is necessary because "it is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican party." The "black guy?" I know many on the Far Right defend themselves with great determination that Obama is wrong for America because of his policies and that his race has nothing to do with that attitude, but perhaps Crawford's comments disclose why they really oppose the president?
What makes this opposition to the expansion under Obamacare even more questionable from a policy perspective is a report from the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. According to their spokesman Drew Altman, "many of the citizens who would benefit the most from this live in the reddest of states with the most intense opposition." Also mentioned in the AP article is the fact that lobbyists for the health care industry actually have endorsed the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, claiming the result "would be a good arrangement." So why the opposition then?
GOP Governor Bill Haslam recently came out opposing the expansion claiming he "would prefer to rather use any new money to subsidize private insurance" even though that is exactly what Obamacare requires for the expansion. So what are these opponents to Obamacare really talking about then? Also noted in the article, GOP Governor Bobby Jindel's very own health care agency "quietly reported that the expansion could actually save money over time" for Louisiana. Regardless, Republicans in Louisiana oppose the expansion. If it can save money and will not "bust the budget", perhaps the only real explanation is that Republicans will sacrifice what is best for their states solely on the basis that it cannot be allowed because President Obama proposed it? Which reminds me of something straight our of American history.
For many, anything that happened more than yesterday is ancient history and is, therefore, to be routinely ignored. Yet in late 1947, then President Harry S. Truman proposed the Marshall Plan, named after the great World War II General and then Secretary of State George C. Marshall, to rebuild Western Europe in an effort to keep it from falling to the temptations offered by Stalin and the Communist Soviets. The idea was to provide $13 Billion in economic relief to the areas still reeling from the Second World War. Republicans and Democrats alike endorsed the plan with the money spent on American manufacturers and farmers and the resulting products sent to Europe in the form of indirect aid. So why do I bring this up?
I bring this up because at the time of the proposal, everyone recognized that it would be both a boon to our economy and a "shot in the arm" for Western Europe's recovery efforts. Those surrounding President Truman, knowing how successful the program would be, begged him to put his name on the plan instead of George Marshall's. Truman's response? No! When asked why, Truman replied that the Republicans hated him so much that no matter how great the program was, it would never pass the Republican Congress if it had his name attached to it, and that because Marshall was revered by all, having his name instead attached to the plan would ensure its general acceptance and success. You see, President Truman knew that his program was in the best interests of the Western World and America. And he also knew that regardless of the brilliance of the plan, if it was called "The Truman Plan," Republicans would reject it. And what have we learned about Obamacare? That the program would be a no brainer if it did not have the name "Obama" attached to it. After all, he is (now) admittedly perceived by some southern Republicans as "the black guy in the White House."
As President Truman once wrote; "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." Perhaps President Obama should have checked out the history of the Marshall Plan before he put his name on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? I wonder if the Republicans would oppose it so greatly had he called it "Reagancare" instead?
I will be off until Wednesday due to the observance of the last two days of Passover. See you again Wednesday night.
Regardless of the public claims by GOP Governors that expanding Medicaid will "bust our budgets" (see Governors Nikki Haley and Rick Perry), GOP South Carolina legislator Kris Crawford publicly admitted that although the expansion would be good for the nation, voting against it is necessary because "it is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican party." The "black guy?" I know many on the Far Right defend themselves with great determination that Obama is wrong for America because of his policies and that his race has nothing to do with that attitude, but perhaps Crawford's comments disclose why they really oppose the president?
What makes this opposition to the expansion under Obamacare even more questionable from a policy perspective is a report from the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. According to their spokesman Drew Altman, "many of the citizens who would benefit the most from this live in the reddest of states with the most intense opposition." Also mentioned in the AP article is the fact that lobbyists for the health care industry actually have endorsed the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, claiming the result "would be a good arrangement." So why the opposition then?
GOP Governor Bill Haslam recently came out opposing the expansion claiming he "would prefer to rather use any new money to subsidize private insurance" even though that is exactly what Obamacare requires for the expansion. So what are these opponents to Obamacare really talking about then? Also noted in the article, GOP Governor Bobby Jindel's very own health care agency "quietly reported that the expansion could actually save money over time" for Louisiana. Regardless, Republicans in Louisiana oppose the expansion. If it can save money and will not "bust the budget", perhaps the only real explanation is that Republicans will sacrifice what is best for their states solely on the basis that it cannot be allowed because President Obama proposed it? Which reminds me of something straight our of American history.
For many, anything that happened more than yesterday is ancient history and is, therefore, to be routinely ignored. Yet in late 1947, then President Harry S. Truman proposed the Marshall Plan, named after the great World War II General and then Secretary of State George C. Marshall, to rebuild Western Europe in an effort to keep it from falling to the temptations offered by Stalin and the Communist Soviets. The idea was to provide $13 Billion in economic relief to the areas still reeling from the Second World War. Republicans and Democrats alike endorsed the plan with the money spent on American manufacturers and farmers and the resulting products sent to Europe in the form of indirect aid. So why do I bring this up?
I bring this up because at the time of the proposal, everyone recognized that it would be both a boon to our economy and a "shot in the arm" for Western Europe's recovery efforts. Those surrounding President Truman, knowing how successful the program would be, begged him to put his name on the plan instead of George Marshall's. Truman's response? No! When asked why, Truman replied that the Republicans hated him so much that no matter how great the program was, it would never pass the Republican Congress if it had his name attached to it, and that because Marshall was revered by all, having his name instead attached to the plan would ensure its general acceptance and success. You see, President Truman knew that his program was in the best interests of the Western World and America. And he also knew that regardless of the brilliance of the plan, if it was called "The Truman Plan," Republicans would reject it. And what have we learned about Obamacare? That the program would be a no brainer if it did not have the name "Obama" attached to it. After all, he is (now) admittedly perceived by some southern Republicans as "the black guy in the White House."
As President Truman once wrote; "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." Perhaps President Obama should have checked out the history of the Marshall Plan before he put his name on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? I wonder if the Republicans would oppose it so greatly had he called it "Reagancare" instead?
I will be off until Wednesday due to the observance of the last two days of Passover. See you again Wednesday night.
RSS Feed
