Posted on September 16, 2013 by Ruth O’Brien
We live in a polarized time. There’s no better evidence of this than the three options for Obamacare (Doors #1, #2, and #3) proposed or hinted at this week.
Door #1. GOP governors: Extend Medicaid — NOT. The Obama administration has now created a “data hub” for the ACA so everyone can check out every state rather than misinterpret misleading rhetoric.
Meanwhile, critics do not expect Governor Tom Corbett to extend Medicaid to the poor. This will not be Pennsylvania’s solution. (To qualify today, a lone person must earn less than approximately $12,000 per year and have a temporary disability. A family of three must earn less than about $20,000. If you are alone and have no children, you can’t qualify anyway.) Double negative and barn doors intended.
By contrast, Obamacare suggests single adults who are not 65 should be covered if they earn less than $16,000 or live in a three-person household making less than $26,000. Private insurance will have to take care of all those who fit neither criterion. The federal government pays for 100% of the Medicaid expansion, with Corbett’s state of Pennsylvania kicking in only 10% by 2020.
Door #2. Running Republicans = sabotaging until 2017.
Door #3. Warring on men and all bullies who beat up on women in the oldest profession (though we should never forget “lost boys” or men).
Apparently many in the House have been whining to JB (Speaker of the House John Boehner) — too many bullies saying “boo-hoo.”
The worst, I suppose, is Vitter, who, in his own alliteration, is protesting vindictive treatment against Vitter (boo-hoo). How dare the Democrats pick on him when it comes to the Democrats’ maintaining their pushback proposal(s), keeping the GOP from sabotaging Obamacare? Nancy (Pelosi) and Harry’s (Reid) solution: Let’s just deprive all members of Congress — men and women alike; single and married alike; straight, gay and lesbian alike — from preventive care or treatment from any and all issues connected with sexworkers (e.g. the “clap”). Clever common solution.
I find the “universality” of their proposal appealing. After all, they did not mention only women who are prostitutes nor boys and men, but left that open. And after all, they did not say the new 98 (women in the House and Senate) could not get caught visiting prostitutes either. To describe this exemption as “colorblind” would not be appropriate to persons with disabilities, so I prefer to describe this type of universal exemption as applying to men and women alike. A good euphemism might be: including those who can’t see rainbows. But now I have to wonder if I’m being fair to leprechauns?