http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_10/not_fully_american040593.php
good to be back.
In an absolute must-read—particularly for anyone who hasn’t thought through the implications of the Romney/Ryan Medicaid block grant proposal—Jonathan Cohn of TNR takes a close look at state-level decisions over the health and subsistence needs of poor people.He discovers, as anyone familiar with the subject would strongly suspect, that the poverty-ridden precincts of the Deep South are precisely where state lawmakers are most likely to make life even more miserable for the needy if they get the chance. Indeed, as I’ve noted here on more than one occasion, today’s southern Republican governors and legislators are not only avid to turn down the incredibly good fiscal deal offered to them via the Affordable Care Act, but routinely attack the status quo as far too generous and “socialistic,” and would greet a block grant for Medicaid (or any other “welfare” program) as an opportunity to cut eligibility and benefits to the bone.
the right stated from before day one on the pres. time in office they had no intention of helping him look good and by default slapped "we the people" in the face and kicked us to the curb while they set about their number one job sink this admin. at our expense and detriment. affordable care is not about the credibility of the plan it's about keeping our money in the pockets of insurance companies. those who are to engaged in hate seem oblivious to the fact that all this falls on their heads as well.
Restricting access to public assistance and programs obviously isn’t on the same moral plane as denying people the right to vote or holding them as slaves. But these things should weigh on our consciences all the same. Food stamps keep people from going hungry. Unemployment checks prevent people from losing their homes. Health insurance keeps people from suffering and dying. Food, shelter, medicine—these are basic needs to which all people, and certainly all Americans, should be entitled. Over the course of the last century, from the Progressive era through the New Deal and Great Society, the United States slowly but surely moved toward guaranteeing those things. Giving the red states the power to deviate from this course means giving them the right to undo that progress.
i've known from the firt time i heard "give it back to the states", all one needed to do was look around at half the states that have attempted to make unconstitutional law where there was no infraction, look at womens rights, those 47% er's, that is what giving back to states will conjure up in your lives.
Advocates for the red-state approach to government invoke lofty principles: By resisting federal programs and defying federal laws, they say, they are standing up for liberty. These were the same arguments that the original red-staters made in the 1800s, before the Civil War, and in the 1900s, before the Civil Rights movement. Now, as then, the liberty the red states seek is the liberty to let a whole class of citizens suffer. That’s not something the rest of us should tolerate. This country has room for different approaches to policy. It doesn’t have room for different standards of human decency.
this is the plan and platform of the Romney administration, you can accept it or vote it out
