If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Wisconsin governor renames Obamacare to "BadgerCare" and claims it was a Republican idea   (npr.org) divider line 50
    More: Ironic, Governor of Wisconsin, obamacare, BadgerCare, Republicans, Wisconsin, Medicaid, Kaiser Health News, Center on Budget  
•       •       •

1059 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 8:44 AM (21 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-19 08:45:22 AM
What a snake.
 
2013-11-19 08:46:24 AM
It WAS a Republican idea. Back in the 90s before Republican became synonymous with "frothing insanity."
 
2013-11-19 08:46:42 AM
I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.
 
2013-11-19 08:47:03 AM
ACA is an abject failure. David Dewhurst told me so, your argument is invalid
 
2013-11-19 08:48:18 AM
 
2013-11-19 08:48:25 AM
Heritage Foundation approves (or at least the old crew that thought this up would, Jim DeMint not so much)
 
2013-11-19 08:48:54 AM
Call it whatever the fark you want. ObamaCare isn't the real name anyway.
 
2013-11-19 08:48:55 AM
My timeline was a bit off, but I called it.
 
2013-11-19 08:51:56 AM
To be fair, Badgercare existed here for a hell of a long time before the ACA.


Walker is a moron though.  It's sad that he had such a week opponent in the last election, and that people jumped the gun on the recall election, essentially making it impossible to do anything until the next election.
 
2013-11-19 08:52:28 AM
This is one of the least insane things I've heard Republicans do this month.  If it lets them save face, they can call it whatever the hell they want.
 
2013-11-19 08:56:19 AM
The republicans should have done this from the very beginning. Instead of demonizing it, they could have worked on fixing the problems and then get the credit once the bugs are worked out.
 
2013-11-19 08:56:19 AM

DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.


I don't understand why he didn't go the Arkansas route to get the federal government to help pay for it though. Wasn't their budget so unbalanced a couple of years ago that he had to slaughter the unions to balance it? Wouldn't a bucket of free money help with those budget concerns?
 
2013-11-19 08:57:31 AM
www.mememaker.net
 
2013-11-19 08:58:22 AM

catusr: The republicans should have done this from the very beginning. Instead of demonizing it, they could have worked on fixing the problems and then get the credit once the bugs are worked out.


Yes, but that would have been soshamalizums, and those is very badly-like. Potato.
 
2013-11-19 08:59:09 AM

catusr: The republicans should have done this from the very beginning. Instead of demonizing it, they could have worked on fixing the problems and then get the credit once the bugs are worked out.


TeaTards didn't give them a chance.  They had to be 100% against Obama and anything associated with him or be primaried by some nut.
 
2013-11-19 08:59:24 AM
Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.
 
2013-11-19 09:01:16 AM
"... fewer people dependent on the government, not because we've kicked them out but we've empowered them to take control of their own destiny."

Isn't this the most clear example of GOP strategy. No, no, we're not kicking people out, we're empowering them, yeah, that's the ticket!
 
2013-11-19 09:02:04 AM

stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.


That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.
 
2013-11-19 09:02:39 AM

WhackingDay: "... fewer people dependent on the government, not because we've kicked them out but we've empowered them to take control of their own destiny."

Isn't this the most clear example of GOP strategy. No, no, we're not kicking people out, we're empowering them, yeah, that's the ticket!


Oh FFS, might as well put up "Arbeit Macht Frei" signs at the state line...
 
2013-11-19 09:04:13 AM

sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.


Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.
 
2013-11-19 09:04:51 AM
Skinny Pete approves.

/It was Gingrichcare before it was Obamacare.
 
2013-11-19 09:05:50 AM

CPennypacker: Call it whatever the fark you want. ObamaCare isn't the real name anyway.


True, but Obama embraced the name after the SCOTUS decision.
 
2013-11-19 09:05:56 AM
FTFA: a nonpartisan review will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020 than if he'd gone for a full expansion that would have pulled more federal dollars into the state.

Congratulations party of responsible spending.
 
2013-11-19 09:06:13 AM

WhackingDay: "... fewer people dependent on the government, not because we've kicked them out but we've empowered them to take control of their own destiny."

Isn't this the most clear example of GOP strategy. No, no, we're not kicking people out, we're empowering them, yeah, that's the ticket!



It's not just the GOP.  Democrats simply don't have dozens of well funded "think tanks" dedicated to twisting the words of the opposition into contrived nonsense the press can't help but use to sell controversy.

Democrats are more like "well let's see if this works."  While Republicans are more like "how can we fark Democrats with this?"  And the press is like "How can we make money?"
 
2013-11-19 09:06:17 AM

sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.


Except for the fact that the constitution pertains to state law as well: see Jim Crow.
 
2013-11-19 09:07:04 AM
Hey Subby, BadgerCare's been around since 1999.  So instead of setting up the new exchanges maybe they want to work with an established infrastructure.  Of all the things Scott Walker's done in the past year this should barely move the outrage mercury.
 
2013-11-19 09:08:08 AM

DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.


Must be a usage of smart I'm not familiar with, "will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020..."
 
2013-11-19 09:08:42 AM
Actually having read TFA it's still kinda bad. From what I've read, Medicaid has done a very good job of keeping healthcare costs low, better than Medicare and much better than private health insurance.  Moving people off Medicaid is probably going to hurt more than it helps.
 
2013-11-19 09:09:06 AM

wotthefark: FTFA: a nonpartisan review will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020 than if he'd gone for a full expansion that would have pulled more federal dollars into the state.

Congratulations party of responsible spending.


Half a billion dollars? Pocket change.

/or not really
 
2013-11-19 09:13:23 AM

Cheron: DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.

Must be a usage of smart I'm not familiar with, "will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020..."



Rejecting Medicaid funds is dumb as hell, but at least the people are being moved into the exchanges.  States like Texas are just flatly farking the people.
 
2013-11-19 09:19:56 AM

Ken VeryBigLiar: Hey Subby, BadgerCare's been around since 1999.  So instead of setting up the new exchanges maybe they want to work with an established infrastructure.  Of all the things Scott Walker's done in the past year this should barely move the outrage mercury.


So it's not Damn Dirty Commie Socialism if the infrastructure already existed?
 
2013-11-19 09:19:57 AM

Cheron: DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.

Must be a usage of smart I'm not familiar with, "will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020..."


Politics.  It's smart politics.

He gets to take credit for Obama's work:
Walker says everyone losing coverage will be able to buy subsidized plans under the Affordable Care Act, and many will find monthly premiums under $20.

"You're going to hear some detractors claim that moving people to the private market or to the exchanges isn't affordable," Walker said in February. But he maintains that these critics aren't aware of how much the subsidies will bring down the cost of coverage
."

He also gets to brag to his base that he cut back on programs for freeloaders AND he gets to add a ton of people to the list of those Obama lied to when he said they could keep their plan:
At the same time, Walker announced that the state for 77,000 people who have incomes above the poverty line.

The sad thing is that it is smart politics - there's no way he can lose.
If it works out - he can take the credit for improving people's health care, and can write up an ad about how Obama stole people's health insurance.
If it doesn't work - he can blame it on the failures of Obamacare, and can write up an ad about how Obama stole people's health insurance.
 
2013-11-19 09:24:54 AM

Serious Black: DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.

I don't understand why he didn't go the Arkansas route to get the federal government to help pay for it though. Wasn't their budget so unbalanced a couple of years ago that he had to slaughter the unions to balance it? Wouldn't a bucket of free money help with those budget concerns?


Because republicans don't care about deficits and budget shortfalls. They say they do with their words, but their actions prove otherwise. It's nothing more than rhetoric for them that they will abandon the instant they no longer need to use it to unseat democrats with.
 
2013-11-19 09:29:24 AM

jayhawk88: Ken VeryBigLiar: Hey Subby, BadgerCare's been around since 1999.  So instead of setting up the new exchanges maybe they want to work with an established infrastructure.  Of all the things Scott Walker's done in the past year this should barely move the outrage mercury.

So it's not Damn Dirty Commie Socialism if the infrastructure already existed?


No but the way Subby makes it sound, Walker just took ACA and called it this which is pretty far away from what actually happened.
 
2013-11-19 09:34:22 AM

DarnoKonrad: Cheron: DarnoKonrad: I'm actually pretty impressed with Walker here.  He's doing what Kentucky did in re branding the program while taking advantage of ObamaCare's flexibility for states to customize the program at the state level.  This is smart politics -- rather than hurting people and the nation to spite Obama.

Must be a usage of smart I'm not familiar with, "will cost state taxpayers an additional $460 million through 2020..."


Rejecting Medicaid funds is dumb as hell, but at least the people are being moved into the exchanges.  States like Texas are just flatly farking the people.


He couldn't throw them into the coverage gap without the state legislature helping him do that. Passing and signing a law to gut Medicaid down to the old minimum standards would almost certainly piss a ton of people off.
 
2013-11-19 09:35:35 AM

cameroncrazy1984: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Except for the fact that the constitution pertains to state law as well: see Jim Crow.


State Law has to follow National Law, and he's not breaking any.  The National Law is that everyone has to buy health insurance.  Everyone is getting a chance.  I don't like Walker in any way, shape, or form, but he's not breaking National Law, and the reasoning behind this makes sense.  Let people on the current system above the poverty level buy their own insurance, cover more people below the poverty level get Badgercare.

pueblonative: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.



If your argument is simply that the Constitution stops a truly socialist government... well, yes, but that's not really what I meant.  I just meant that the major Republican argument is again National Government overreach.  Geez, I forgot how seriously and literally everything is taken in the politics thread...
 
2013-11-19 09:38:21 AM

pueblonative: Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.


The 14th Amendment made (most of) the protections provided by the Bill of Rights, and a couple parts of the original Articles, applicable to the states.  However, it didn't do anything to alter the limits on the Federal government imposed by Article I Section 8.  Nor did it impose those limits on the state.  So the federal government is limited to the types of regulations allowed under Article I, Section 8, which includes the ability to regulate interstate commerce and to tax and spend for the general welfare (although the types of taxes the Federal government can impose is limited compared to those available to the states).  However, the federal government still lacks the ability to regulate for the general welfare (a so called general police power) while the states do have that ability.

So I think the original point stands.  States could constitutionally impose far more in terms of regulations than the Federal government can.  For example, the states can constitutionally impose criminal penalties for failing to purchase health insurance (or car insurance, or any number of other purchase mandates) while the federal government can only impose such a mandate via an income tax penalty (or income  tax credit).
 
2013-11-19 09:58:17 AM
Lundah
Oh FFS, might as well put up "Arbeit Macht Frei" signs at the state line...

They did.
 
2013-11-19 10:04:00 AM

pueblonative: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.


The 14th incorporates the protections of individual rights. It doesn't nullify the 10th.

Unless you were referring to the view that the Commerce Clause effectively gives the federal government unlimited power to do anything.
 
2013-11-19 10:10:23 AM

BMFPitt: pueblonative: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th incorporates the protections of individual rights. It doesn't nullify the 10th.

Unless you were referring to the view that the Commerce Clause effectively gives the federal government unlimited power to do anything.


What does the 10th Amendment do exactly? If we took it out of the Constitution, what kinds of previously unconstitutional laws would then be constitutional?
 
2013-11-19 10:12:28 AM
Long live the bumbling badger of mediocrity!
 
2013-11-19 10:14:15 AM

Serious Black: What does the 10th Amendment do exactly? If we took it out of the Constitution, what kinds of previously unconstitutional laws would then be constitutional?


Well, it is supposed to limit federal power.  It says any power directly not given to the Federal Government is the power of the State (or the people) unless it is specifically not empowered to the State.

Ever since the commerce clause has been liberally interpreted, it has a lot less power.
 
2013-11-19 10:19:48 AM

Serious Black: BMFPitt: pueblonative: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th incorporates the protections of individual rights. It doesn't nullify the 10th.

Unless you were referring to the view that the Commerce Clause effectively gives the federal government unlimited power to do anything.

What does the 10th Amendment do exactly? If we took it out of the Constitution, what kinds of previously unconstitutional laws would then be constitutional?


EVERYTHING. Arson, murder, jaywalking. They'd all be fair game.
 
2013-11-19 10:37:44 AM
Sorry, still not giving Walker any credit. There's lots of holes in his plan that can and have been pointed out already.
 
2013-11-19 10:38:31 AM

Serious Black: BMFPitt: pueblonative: sign_of_Zeta: stpauler: Socialism is totes ok ONLY at a state level. Anything more and it's the Taliban knocking at your door. Can't you see the difference? No? Well, you should or something.

That argument is actually logical, at least from a Constitutional view.  Limits are on the federal government, not the State Government.

Let me point you to the 14th Amendment.

The 14th incorporates the protections of individual rights. It doesn't nullify the 10th.

Unless you were referring to the view that the Commerce Clause effectively gives the federal government unlimited power to do anything.

What does the 10th Amendment do exactly? If we took it out of the Constitution, what kinds of previously unconstitutional laws would then be constitutional?


Under the prevailing view of the Commerce Clause, basically nothing. The way SCOTUS has neutered it, it just means that that the federal government has to bribe the states to do certain things, rather than just dictating to them.

Not sure how that is relevant to my statement, though. Are you arguing that states have strictly limited powers due to the 14th somehow?
 
2013-11-19 10:47:23 AM
Kasich did the same thing by expanding Ohio's medicade. In the grand scheme of things it's a band-aid on a gaping, pulsating wound that is Walker/Kasich. They don't want to get primaried by the screaming lunatics but make no mistake: they're still scumbags who will do whatever they can to make money and fark the state for the sake of the Kochs and ALEC.
 
2013-11-19 11:12:16 AM

catusr: The republicans should have done this from the very beginning. Instead of demonizing it, they could have worked on fixing the problems and then get the credit once the bugs are worked out.


Yah but that requires foresight and analytical thought. That's, like, hard and stuff.
 
2013-11-19 11:13:50 AM
Everybody knows about Wississippi, god damn.
 
2013-11-19 01:15:15 PM
Completely Misleading Headline!... or lying subby.

We have had Badger Care here for more than a Decade!
 
2013-11-19 05:27:27 PM

Hagbardr: What a snake.


True but unfortunately he has good handlers.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report