Last week I recommended an article about the private option plan that the federal government had approved for Arkansas to use in expanding Medicaid type insurance for that state's poor.
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/02/eye-recommend-in-arkansas-private.html
At that time, the plan's success was evident, but in jeopardy. Incumbent conservative Republican state legislators were finding themselves in the crosshairs of even-more-conservative Republican legislative candidates who are focusing their mid-term campaigns on attacking those incumbents who voted for the ACA private option plan. The would-be legislators sole argument seems to be that it is supported with money approved by President Obama's signature health care law, which Republican indoctrination has labeled a "bad thing" to be fought against at every opportunity.
This week, the state legislature in Arkansas endorsed a plan that attempts to protect their jobs while at the same time silencing their critics. Rather than repeal the private option, their proposal would keep it intact, (thus saving themselves from trying to explain to their constituents why they decided to take their health insurance away); but would make it illegal for any government agency to spend any appropriated money to assist those looking for help in accessing the plan. In other words, they'll keep the option; but they don't want anyone to know it exists.
Representative Nate Bell (R) who proposed the new restrictions explained "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment" in order to reduce costs. When he was asked by Representative John Catlett (D) why he thought it was a good idea to withhold information about insurance options from the citizens of Arkansas. Mr. Bell replied, "I certainly don't see the downside at all in not providing people with the opportunity to engage in something that I believe is bad for them."
Mr. Catlett: "So you're saying we should (keep) our people ignorant?"
Mr. Bell: "No sir, that's not what I'm saying."
Then I wonder what he thinks he IS saying? And exactly why does he believe having health insurance "is bad?" Is he willing to give up his state-paid health insurance to prove his point?
Update: Indiana Delays Same-sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment
Wa-a-a-a-ay back in December, I wrote about the two year journey that Indiana's Republicans were on to get an amendment added to the state constitution designed to strengthen the same-sex marriage ban that is already law in Indiana.
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/12/same-sex-marriage-indiana-republicans_26.html
Getting a state constitutional amendment passed is (thankfully) an arduous process in Indiana. Two separately elected legislatures must pass the amendment--which explains the two year journey--then it must be approved by state-wide ballot.
The amendment passed by the last legislature included language that would also exclude civil unions: "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriages for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized." At the time I wrote that post, I pointed out that public attitude toward same-sex marriage has changed a lot in two years and public polls show the amendment would not be a state-wide ballot slam dunk.
The current Indiana legislature was faced with a dilemma: vote on the amendment as it was passed by the previous legislature in order to get it on the November ballot and hope it is approved, or change some of the language, (particularly the clause addressing civil unions), and re-set the two-year clock to zero.
Indiana's business community (always a voice that is heeded by the Republican Party), said they thought the amendment, in total, was a bad idea because it would make it difficult to attract businesses and the best employees to the area. Yesterday, the Indiana legislature made a move that protects their standing with conservative/anti-gay marriage voters while still keeping themselves in the good graces of the business/money people in the state. They voted to remove the civil union clause while keeping the rest of the amendment as written, essentially pushing any chance of the amendment becoming part of the state constitution until at least 2016.
Conservative Republican organizations are already planning retribution. Chris Plante, regional director for the National Organization for Marriage, who pushed for the ban to go forward: "Republicans who did this will most certainly be targeted."
With all the challenges of state laws pending in federal District Courts, this issue will undoubtedly be decided long before it comes up for another look from Indiana's lawmakers, so they're off the hook. Darn it! (Though I must congratulate them. This was a 5-star example of political butt protecting.)
No comments:
Post a Comment