I was confident this would eventually happen, because Ohio has a lot of uninsured working class people and providers want to get paid.
Huge blow for the Tea Party in Ohio, though. They have a single issue and that issue is opposition to Obamacare. I think they should immediately shut down the state government if they haven’t done so already:
A little known budgetary panel today voted 5-2 to accept $2.56 billion in federal funds to pay for the controversial expansion of the federal-state health insurance of last resort.
Two Republicans joined the panel’s two Democrats and Gov. John Kasich’s appointed chairman to do what the 132-member General assembly would not — expand eligibility for Medicaid to some 275,000 additional Ohioans.
But the maneuver is expected to draw a legal challenge.
Mr. McGregor, a moderate Republican known to occasionally break with his caucus, voted “yes,” joining with Sen. Chris Widener (R., Springfield), Rep. Chris Redfern (D., Catawba Island), Sen. Tom Sawyer (D., Akron), and Mr. Kasich’s board chairman, Randy Cole.
Mr. McClain, whose district stretches as far north as Seneca County, joined Sen. Bill Coley (R., West Chester) in the minority.
“Our members want to seriously quicken the pace of a series of bills that relate to Medicaid reforms and improving the opportunities for low-wealth and struggling citizens to move up and off of having a need for Medicaid,” Mr. McCain said.
“Low-wealth”? What is this new phrase? Is it a way not to give them credit for working?
What else would you expect from a low-intelligence legislator?
Wealth inequality would actually be a great thing to focus on since the racial disparity is way worse than income inequality. I think there is some wealth component to Medicaid although I haven’t heard that in the context of Obamacare so you may be right that in this care it’s just messaging BS.
The GOP/Tea Party’s number one goal is to hurt people that aren’t a part of their tribe. The refusal to expand medicaid in states they control is a prime example.
Sounds like Mr Luntz has been busy. New Talking Point!
Even Florida’s Gov. Voldemort wanted to accept Medicaid expansion…possibly because he — excuse me, his wife — has vast holdings in healthcare clinics. But the wingnut supermajority statehouse said no, so one million or so low-wealth Floridians are without coverage. Even those who would love to take advantage of ObamaCare get sticker shock because there’s no subsidy. It’s a crime, or should be.
I believe that white Real ‘Muricans who make less than $40,000/year are “low wealth”, blahs and browns in that income catagory are poor.
Hmmm. Well techically it makes kind of sense. The reason people can’t afford their monthly premiums is low income. The reason they can’t pay their medical bills out of pocket is low wealth.
Low-wealth, but equal in the franchise.
Hence, voter suppression.
I’m with the poster above. If we continue to hear this phrase from GOPers, it’s been Luntz tested and approved.
Maybe the euphemism “low-wealth” is a symptom of unwillingness in certain political quarters to admit that there are poor people in the state.
Close. When Republicans try to say the words “poor people” their throats lock up and their tongues go all weird so we get moochers, takers etc. That wouldn’t work in this context so low-wealth it is.
“Low-income” is a common enough substitute for “poor”, so it’s possible he meant that. Or maybe there is some rhetorical sleight of hand going on here.
@Amir Khalid: Yup. Only Blahs can be poor. Whites with little money are simply unwealthy.
If you call them “poor” people might feel like something should be done to fix that. If you call them “low-wealth” people can tell themselves it just means they only have one Mercedes.
The Pale Scot
How ’bout “the asset challenged”?
Wealth that’s a fine how do you do!
“Not economically viable”
I did a double take on that first Republican’s name because I initially read it as McClan.
It’s probably a mental Freudian slip of some sort, though I’ve no idea as to why knowing someone was an anti-Medicaid Republican would make me think “Clan” (he said disingenuously).
Mike in NC
Tweety had some buffoon on earlier tonight (from SC, I think) who thinks the TP will totally control the GOP by next year. Another guest said he was delusional. So both sides do it…
Mike in NC:
Next year? Someone should tell him that prediction came true five years ahead of schedule.
PBO rebroadcast on ACA website problems.
C-Span 1. Now.
[ETA: And just this moment got an email from “The White House”: Not just a website.]
Something good happened, and nobody can express happiness because y’all are freaked out by some meaningless semantic thing?
“Low wealth” to me sounds like consuming all income; not able to save.
Wealth is not necessarily income, but what one can save/retain.
So now should we call Bachmann and Steve King low intelligence Congress critters?
@The Pale Scot:
Always the apt word.
Other side of the coin is fun too. The smug-endowed? The low-empathied? The grift-gifted? (well, if we’re going for rhymes, the empathy-emptied)
@burnspbesq: Well, you’ve got a good point, but the semantics of this are interesting from a purely linguistic point of view. Lots of different vectors, including (but not limited to)…
* the stigma over the word poor or the phrase “low income”
* the inability to admit there are poor people in this country
* the twin meanings of the word wealth — one relative (“affluence”) and another fixed (“a raw measure of financial state”)
It’s all these different vectors bouncing off each other that makes it fascinating — what provokes this change in language and meaning? Was it deliberate or accidental? Is it a single instance, or one of the rare moments where you can actually pin-point a moment where language changed?
More precisely, it is what one has saved/retained/received from others.
GHayduke (formerly lojasmo)
A little OT, but I got my $4900 health care bill knocked down to $450 after the clinic pulled their heads out of their collective asses and ran our bills through my wife’s union goon cadillac insurance.
Dumb bastards left her insurance off my son’s and my account for eight years.
Jesus never said nothin’ ’bout the wealth-challenged.
“Low wealth” is such a Batchelder expression. That man needs to be voted out of office.
Low-wealth probably means low to no assets. Medicaid ties into both your income and your savings/investments/home ownership. Even if you have a low income but have some assets, you might not be eligible for Medicaid. I’d be interested in finding out where the dividing line is. Historically, seniors had to spend down their savings to get Medicaid to cover nursing home costs. (By spend down, I mean SPEND down almost to nothing; some assets were “saved” for a a spouse but the amounts are very low.)
Davis X. Machina
@PurpleGirl: In order to be considered one of the deserving poor, the first thing is, you have to be one of the poor. Crony Calvinism in action.
@PurpleGirl: It’s my understanding ACA changes that rule to income only counts for Medicaid eligibility. I think that’s one of the big resistance points, states had less power to fuck their really serious poors, browns, and blahs.
I don’t think that, for the probably majority of Teatards, the problem is not so much admitting the existence of the poor, but rather what, if anything, should be done (by the government) to alleviate their condition. Of course, for most Teatards, said remedies start at “do f*ck-all“, and go downhill from there: it’s all wrapped up in their version of “The American Way”…
@Sophist: But I think that “low wealth” is functioning in a totally different way in this instance. Its like it takes the dirt off of low income and transforms the person from dirty poor to rising middle class if they can only be given a little push. In fact, nonsensically, the Republican who is trying to expand medicaid and subsidies seems to think that by doing so he is getting rid of medicaid. Its more like a new euphemism that the Republicans think will enable them to take the money but not be accused of helping (ugh) poor people.
Man, I wish NC could do this. Or in the alternative, our chickenshit governor could get worried enough about his re-election prospects to decide he’s got to stand up to our asshole legislators. A long shot.
America consists only of wealthy people and white people and male people — the others don’t count. So if you’re middle-class or poor, you’re “low wealth.” If you’re black or hispanic, you’re “low whiteness.” If you’re female, you’re “low maleness.”
It’s the new jargon favored by our elites.
We need to reduce the number of low-wealth low-whiteness low-maleness individuals in America, is their message. AKA: round up all the non-white non-rich non-males and kill ’em.
YUKYUK, , Mclaren you have nailed it on the head! You might get a few texts from the Rethuglican National Committee wanting to hire you.
I myself, am very white, very male, and yet mysteriously great wealth has not washed over me like a ronny-reagun river yet.
@Yatsuno: If that’s true, that is truly great. And that will help so many people.
@mclaren: That is actually a very insightful thing you’ve said, Mclaren. it reminds me of the marvellous scene in an episode of The Office where the stupid boss is trying to explain the new health care rules to the staff and he revers to women as having an “inverted penis.” They can’t figure out what he’s talking about until they realize he doesn’t seem to grasp that there is a word for female genitalia. I also like the way your observation meshes with the notion that there is something inherently wrong and deformed about the various “minorities” in the US. It takes marked and unmarked categories to new depths.