It would only be a meaningful distinction if a GOP member would make a different decision than Kasich were that GOP member the governor of Ohio instead. The fact that a number of GOP governors made the same decision as Kasich makes me think it isn’t unreasonable that the same would be true of some, if not many sitting GOP House members.
Did you read the stuff I posted there about what Kasich actually had to do in Ohio to implement the expansion?
I was already aware of it.
Then surely you recognize that it’s somewhat at odds with the idea that it was easy or expected of a GOP governor, given that the GOP legislature in his own state refused to do it, and after he fought them for a year, he sidestepped them.
Alright I give up. It’s been many years since I’ve encountered epistemic closure on the left, but it does happen, albeit less frequently than on the right this century. Trying to negate a meaningful distinction with some kind of contingent speculation; that’s just, yeah, no.
Just like I don’t waste time dealing with zealots of the right, I won’t waste time on zealots of the left, except for Armando, b/c reasons.
It’s because we all remember the glory days of Windswept Armando.
Sigh. It isn’t about the difficulty, it is about the motivation. Republican Governors of purple states expanded Medicaid because it was politcally savvy for them to do that, because they have to win statewide elections. Republican legislatures don’t have to win statewide elections, so they are free to oppose it. Republican Congressmen don’t have to win statewide elections, ditto. So it isn’t an act of principle, it’s an act of self-interest.
Look at the link I gave you. Brewer (Arizona), Branstad (Iowa), Snyder (Michigan), Sandoval (Nevada), Christie (NJ), Martinez (NM), Dalrymple (ND), Corbett ¶ all expanded Medicaid nearly immediately. All safe Dalrymple are, like Kasich, Republican Governors of purple or blue states. If you add Chaffee and Walker, that’s 11.
But it isn’t speculation. The other GOP governors in Kasich’s position made the same decision Kasich did.
At the time, only 7 others had done it. So how many does that mean didn’t? 20+?
I’m not sure why you are arguing against this. The position of the GOP party was that the Medicaid expansion was bad. Most GOP governors initially fought against it. Kasich was the exception, not the rule here.
The idea that it was a bog standard GOP position to fight against your own GOP controlled legislature to implement a policy that was demonized by the GOP, is nuts. It wasn’t.
On a separate, finer point, here in PA Corbett didn’t implement a real Medicaid expansion. He was a douche, and after delaying, he eventually tried to compromise on a half ass solution. But then we elected Wolf who implemented the traditional Medicaid expansion suggested by the ACA. This is really neither here nor there, just a minor thing about the state i actually live in.
“Is there anything good about being HS football starting quarterback?”
Yes, probably.
“Is there anything good about being white trash living in a trailer park?”
Not really, no.
Just because I can’t resist sticking in my 2 cents here, in Michigan the legislature fought like crazy against Medicaid expansion. Synder stuck to his guns and made it happen. Two years later, the legislature is back at work trying to kill it, and Synder’s not opposing it. Just because a governor did the right thing once doesn’t mean he’s gonna stick with it.
You should be able to imagine that I’m as frustrated as you are. You offered as evidence of Kasich’s difference from his peers that he expanded Medicaid. But in fact, every single other Republican Governor in Kasich’s position made exactly the same decision. There’s nothing at all unusual or courageous about what he did compared with his peers in the same circumstances. Republican Governors who have to deal with large numbers of Democratic constituents chose the Medicaid expansion, and Republican Governors who don’t have to deal with large numbers of Democratic constituents did not choose the expansion. Kasich is not unique; he’s perfectly ordinary.
Now, beyond that, you made your claim that he was unique in apparent ignorance of the actual facts. And when I warned you that you were wrong on the facts and tried to point you in the right direction, you dismissed my comments totally. Now that you know you were wrong on the facts, you’re simply trying to move the goalposts to a different question entirely, and blaming me for being difficult. Own up to your mistake, and find another line of rationalization for your view that Kasich is unique. This one doesn’t work.
We literally did it in the 50’s. We jacked the top rates up to like 90% or something insane and when people bitched Eisenhower slapped them with his dick and told them they were lucky to live in America and they need to do their part.
I was going to respond, but I don’t think this is worth any further discussions. Good luck to you in your endeavors, Scott.
And to you.
I know not this scottagibson, but he is doing the Lord’s work. And he’s correct about Kasich, who is an entirely undistinguished American conservative politician.
This is funny but basically not true. The WW2 debt was simply rolled over into new debt issues, and over time economic growth diminished it to basically nothing. Permanent reasonable deficits aren’t really a problem for a wealthy, growing country that borrows in its own sovereign currency. Growth will overwhelm the deficits; and if it doesn’t, the US won’t become Greece or Venezuela, because the US can’t be squeezed by creditors like Greece or Venezuela, because the US controls the medium of exchange in which the debt is denominated.
Don’t get me wrong. If conservatives want to respond to the debt ‘crisis’ by jacking up tax rates on the wealthy, I’m wth them. Otherwise, they just use deficit hysteria as a means to gut social safety net programs. And fuck that.
How very Republican of you.
