I think there's something missing from contemporary "conservatives" -- in their psychological make-up, I mean. Here's a few recent stories that point to what I'm talking about:
I'm sure you've heard about the kittens in the subway. For background, here's the original story; of course, it became an issue in the NY mayoral race. One candidate said he wouldn't have stopped the trains.
This tweet from Josh Barro nails it:
A little snark never hurt anyone, right?
A hospital closing in North Carolina: Why? Because the governor and legislature decided against Medicaid expansion.
Note that it's all Republicans who have rejected the expansion, even though the federal government will pay the full cost until 2016, and 90% thereafter. Because "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!11!"
A side note on that story:
I've written before about the extravagant charges hospitals levy for care, so I'm not terribly confident in any figures the industry provides. Still, I won't dispute that they lose money on a regular basis.
Via Crooks and Liars.
Food stamps are a perennial target. This story starts a couple of months ago.
You may remember that the House separated the provisions for food stamps from the farm bill, leaving the subsidies intact. The fate of the food stamp program is up for grabs.
That's it -- take food away from poor people so you can keep your subsidy payments coming.
That's enough to make my point, I think. Wait, you're saying. What's the connection between lost kittens, Medicaid expansion, and SNAP?
Simple: the "conservative" solution is the one lacking in compassion, empathy, charity, and generosity -- those Christian virtues that they are too ready to forget when it comes to their own self-interest. Or the chance to pander to their base, which is just as soulless as they are.
The capper is this story, which I noted yesterday. It's worth a repeat, because nothing typifies the contemporary "conservative" more than Tony Perkins:
Do I need to belabor the point?
I'm sure you've heard about the kittens in the subway. For background, here's the original story; of course, it became an issue in the NY mayoral race. One candidate said he wouldn't have stopped the trains.
Republican front-runner Joe Lhota — whose previous job was, in fact, running the MTA — would not have stopped the trains. "No, Joe does not think a train line should be shut down" to save two kitties, a campaign spokesperson tells Daily Intelligencer.
This tweet from Josh Barro nails it:
A little snark never hurt anyone, right?
A hospital closing in North Carolina: Why? Because the governor and legislature decided against Medicaid expansion.
Vidant Health, a nonprofit 10-hospital network, will shutter the 49-bed Vidant Pungo Hospital in Belhaven, about an hour's drive east of the chain's Greenville headquarters, within six months, the company announced this week. Other considerations, including outdated facilities, also led to the company's decision to close the hospital but North Carolina foregoing the Medicaid expansion contributed to the decision, Vidant Health CEO David Herman told The Huffington Post.
North Carolina is one of 26 states where Republican governors or state legislators have rejected the Medicaid expansion. The expansion is intended to provide health benefits to anyone who makes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, which is $15,282 for a single person this year.
As a result, the states will turn down billions of federal dollars and millions of poor residents in these states will remain uninsured even after Obamacare's coverage expansion takes full effect next year.
Note that it's all Republicans who have rejected the expansion, even though the federal government will pay the full cost until 2016, and 90% thereafter. Because "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!!11!"
A side note on that story:
The hospital industry nationwide has lobbied state lawmakers and governors to adopt the Medicaid expansion as a way to reduce the burden of medical bills that go unpaid when poor patients can't afford their treatments. Nationally, hospitals provided $41.1 billion in so-called uncompensated care in 2011, according to the most recent data from the American Hospital Association.
I've written before about the extravagant charges hospitals levy for care, so I'm not terribly confident in any figures the industry provides. Still, I won't dispute that they lose money on a regular basis.
Via Crooks and Liars.
Food stamps are a perennial target. This story starts a couple of months ago.
The House plans to vote this week on a farm bill that cuts nearly $21 billion from food stamps, and several members who support the cuts have benefited significantly from the various forms of farm subsidies provided by the same legislation.
You may remember that the House separated the provisions for food stamps from the farm bill, leaving the subsidies intact. The fate of the food stamp program is up for grabs.
Shortly before Congress adjourned for its August recess, House Republican leaders disclosed that they plan to move a bill in September that cuts SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the food stamp program) by about $40 billion over ten years — double the cut in the House Agriculture Committee farm bill and almost nine times the SNAP cut in the Senate-passed farm bill.
That's it -- take food away from poor people so you can keep your subsidy payments coming.
That's enough to make my point, I think. Wait, you're saying. What's the connection between lost kittens, Medicaid expansion, and SNAP?
Simple: the "conservative" solution is the one lacking in compassion, empathy, charity, and generosity -- those Christian virtues that they are too ready to forget when it comes to their own self-interest. Or the chance to pander to their base, which is just as soulless as they are.
The capper is this story, which I noted yesterday. It's worth a repeat, because nothing typifies the contemporary "conservative" more than Tony Perkins:
Sounds like a real conservative to me:
After Jordan insisted that the GOP-led House should strip funding from Obamacare by using the budget and debt ceiling debates as leverage, the Religious Right leader [Tony Perkins, of FRC] came up with a brilliant plan to tell President Obama that Congress will only approve military action against Syria if the money comes out of Obamacare: “You could even take it to the issue of Syria. If the President wants to expend resources in going into Syria, maybe you should have to choose between funding Obamacare and funding a war in Syria, can’t do both.”
That's it -- take money away from providing health care for Americans so we can bomb brown people. Sounds like Perkins, all right. (Remember, he got his start in politics playing white supremacist.)
How very "Christian."
Do I need to belabor the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment