Wisconsin
Related: About this forumScott Walker: Denying health care to low-income people helps them 'Live the American Dream'
Defending his fellow Republican governors decision to block Medicaid expansion in their states, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) on Friday suggested that denying health coverage to additional low-income Americans helps more people live the American Dream because they wont be dependent on the American government.
Walker has recently leveled some criticism at other GOP leaders for accepting Obamacares optional Medicaid expansion, saying they shouldnt necessarily trust the government to come through with the federal funds to cover the policy. During an appearance on MSNBCs Morning Joe on Friday, Walker was asked whether his position stemmed from an ideological criticism, and if he believes the handful of Republican governors implementing this provision of the health law are not genuine conservatives.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/11/14/3592511/scott-walker-medicaid-expansion/
And people voted for this guy? And we also voted to accept the medicaid money?
Something is seriously wrong in Wisconsin.........
Autumn
(44,762 posts)The government provides him with everything he fucking has. People are fucking stupid, they should be physically dragging his ass out of wherever he does his dirty deeds and toss his ass in the gutter. Naked, in the snow.
simak
(116 posts)There's considerable room to argue that the potential beneficiaries in question are not the people for whom he appears to be speaking. But I'd rather hear Walker address it first instead of launching straight into an unconstructive attack.
Then there's also the Oregon study which ranked Medicaid efficacy right up there with "nothing" as a healthcare strategy...
I for one would like to see risk pooling based on something other than insureds having a common employer - that is, it shouldn't be tied to your job/workplace.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)with no insurance companies standing between the providers & the payors. Provider & patient decisions (monitored for various kinds of potential abuse) determine the necessity and appropriateness of treatment rather than some nurse somewhere employed by an insurance company to issue denials of coverage.
simak
(116 posts)They're not the same thing.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I was trying for a quick response, not an exhaustive one.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I was thrown off with out warning on the day in 2014 Obamacare enrollment ended. Tens of thousands of us were (87,000 if I remember right).
I have rewritten this 4 times. No matter what I write, I have no documentation I can show you.
Being a poor person in Wisconsin under Walker and his Libertarian Overlords (David Koch among them) is increasingly onerous. The meager social safety net is being strained by greater numbers of us relying on it as well as a dedicated effort to gut the safety nets funding by the followers of Ayn Rand.
The context of his quoted statement is; Scott Walker has Libertarian Overlords who are using Wisconsin as a laboratory to try out different strategies to undo FDR's progressive policies. The same thing is going on in Kansas with near identical results (Wisconsin's debt crisis has yet to ripen. Wait a year).
simak
(116 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)I provided context, both his and mine.
I may have read too much into you post however.
One statement in an interview is not sufficient context to accurately judge an interview. One individual interview is not sufficient context to accurately judge his abilities as a leader. Have to deal with attempting to survive his leadership provides ample context. .
simak
(116 posts)in the OP and the referenced article.
The other side holds a very different view of both the costs and benefits of ACA. Idealistically, it would be better if we were all self-sufficient. Pragmatically, we simply can't all be so.
Nobody holds the view that people should die or go without. I don't see how it helps anyone to pretend that Walker wants whatever nonsense was ascribed to him in the OP.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)It's a no brainer. Walker is against that also.
Get a job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps! Yeah, how bout all those "job creators" creating no jobs, (Walker) than wanting to shred the meager social safety net.
simak
(116 posts)without insurance or subsidies?
I don't buy into the premise that people can't afford most healthcare. Veterinary medicine uses the same technologies for much less money. I'd like to see exactly what we're getting for our money in the differences that account for the added costs when the patient is human.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)universal healthcare. Cut the insurance company's out. They are just bloodsuckers. That's what they do.
simak
(116 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)If you give him (via his SuperPac, Wisconsin Club for Growth) $700,000.00; he will change long standing environmental laws to allow you too to strip mine in protected old growth forest.
He will advocate expensive pointless unconstitutional drug testing for those seeking help to further strain the budgets for social services, thus "proving" the systems are too bulky and not productive.
He will form a private enterprise called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation; which, through almost complete lack of regulation and oversight, will give out millions of dollars of the state budget in loans, grants, and no bid contracts to other private corporations who claim to be job creators. And be so effective as to be 1/2 of the national average in job creation; with the added bonus of shipping jobs out of state and loans unpaid and untraceable.
In his lust for more money, he can be tricked into thinking a phone call from a known trickster "journalist" is if fact a phone call from one of his Libertarian Overlords, and in spite of monstrously blatant cartoonish hyperbole, will continue to toady up to the caller.
I think what you are calling characterizations are actually personality traits.
simak
(116 posts)I think Walker is probably only half as bad as his detractors make him out to be.
Public sector unions are toxic, and one of the greatest threats to the general welfare today. Do not reflexively support them - they have never endured the struggle of their industrial counterparts, and their defined benefit pensions are unsustainable, bloated, and arguably unearned.
The Democratic Party has forged an unholy alliance with government unions in this country, and the two are aligned against the interests of the taxpayer. This could be an example of how any politician can be bought, but I mean it only as an example of something good that Walker has done - and an example of why I take everything said about him with a grain of salt.
You could buy a lot of welfare and medical care with the money diverted to government pensions, and every Democrat should be able to see that.
I do not wish to spend the rest of my life second in line behind retired civil servants. They should have to fund their own pensions just like we do. So I kind of like some of what Walker has done, and I don't automatically believe everything bad I hear about him. Wisconsin voters seem to agree.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)...there are elected officials who have not sold their actions to the highest bidder. Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kshama Sawant, to name a few.
And I suspect the Scott Walker is very good at concealing his actions and alliances. In all probability we know of less than half of his shady dealings.
You have some interesting opinions of unions. It reminds me of conversations I had with counter protesters who were going to Madison. Damn near word for word. They were misinformed as well. I have also heard them use the phrase "good Walker has done" which seems to be cross dimensional as well, good deeds by Walker certainly haven't happened in this one.
You seem to be well versed in the republican talking points used to sell Act 10 to the public. Good luck with that here.
simak
(116 posts)Last edited Mon Nov 17, 2014, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)
It's quite simple: politicians cannot represent the employer - taxpayers - in good faith when they negotiate with unions. Too many of them are working for the other side. That's a conflict of interests.
Furthermore, civil service does not tie the success of the union with the success of the overall venture. If GM goes under it hurts the UAW, but if a municipality operates at a loss it will just hike taxes to meet its pension commitments. Where are the incentives?
Finally, when have civil servants ever been exploited as a labor force? In fact, government jobs are notoriously cushy. The only reason there are public sector unions is because there's no real opposition to them. It's not like govt employees have ever been abused like miners or factory workers. It's not like the money comes out of the politicians' own pockets when they negotiate a contract.
And yes, it's corrupt that unions pay tribute to Democrats, including Dems like Franken, Warren and Sanders, all of whom supposedly cannot be bought. Have any of them refused union money?
I'm a taxpayer. I put away my own money for retirement. If I'm lucky I'll be able to live on my nest egg someday. I have no guarantee. Unlike a clerk at the DMV who will knock off for good at 50 years old and then live for three decades off of my taxes because having enough money in an account somewhere is really not a prerequisite for his retirement.