Republican Party Seeks Health Care for Whites Only

[GoodEnoughForMe]

The Michigan legislature is currently in the act of passing a bill that would put work requirements on Medicaid. However, since many of the rural, white counties that state congressmen represent have large swaths of population receiving Medicaid, the Republican party has come up with a devious solution; exempt counties from the work requirement with unemployment rates higher than 8.5%. This would allow the rural, white counties in the northern lower peninsula and upper peninsula to be exempt from work requirements. What it doesn't exempt are places like Detroit, Flint, Muskegon, cities with large (or majority) black populations whose unemployment rate is above 8.5% as a major city but who reside in counties (Wayne, Muskegon, etc.) whose unemployment is below 8.5%. Thus, rural, white Michiganders will be routinely exempt from the new Medicaid work requirements, while black and Muslim residents of places like Detroit would not be exempt and would have Medicaid stripped. The kicker is that this program will also cost the state millions of dollars as opposed to saving money, with Republicans mostly arguing for it on the grounds of getting everyone off government support, except of course the white people near them.

Feel free to discuss if you agree or disagree with this bill and why, if white people would rather be poor as long as black people are worse off than them as opposed to both being equally middle class, and if this is another case of that gosh darn economic anxiety.

 

[Lexicus]

This is a perfectly logical step for a political party whose animating force is not "movement conservatism" but white supremacy. It's interesting because I sort of predicted it would happen - to the extent that free market pretexts for upward redistribution of wealth are abandoned, there will be escalating efforts to dole out social benefits to "deserving" (read: white) Americans while taking them away from undeserving (read: nonwhite) Americans.

 

[Broken_Erika]

How long until all the other republican states follow suit?

 

[Chose]

Based on your description of the bill, the title of this thread is rather incorrect. You don't need the misleading title IMO, the details of the bill speak for themselves.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

How long until all the other republican states follow suit?

States have been pretty aggressive about this with a Republican administration now. Kentucky, Indiana, and Arkansas have done so, Michigan and Ohio are in the process. This is a unique take on it, in that it is pretty ridiculously, explicitly and obviously racist, but essentially any Republican-lead state will be looking to pass some manner of work requirements over the next couple years.

Based on your description of the bill, the title of this thread is rather incorrect. You don't need the misleading title IMO, the details of the bill speak for themselves.

It's strongly worded but I stand by the claim that a large swath of Americans don't want government programs of any kind for people of color. Including health care. This bill is mostly just an 'acceptable' outcome down that path.

 

[Lexicus]

Based on your description of the bill, the title of this thread is rather incorrect. You don't need the misleading title IMO, the details of the bill speak for themselves.

It's only "misleading" if you decide to take it literally, which, like, have you ever been on the internet before?

States have been pretty aggressive about this with a Republican administration now. Kentucky, Indiana, and Arkansas have done so, Michigan and Ohio are in the process. This is a unique take on it, in that it is pretty ridiculously, explicitly and obviously racist, but essentially any Republican-lead state will be looking to pass some manner of work requirements over the next couple years.

Have they just passed simple work requirements or have they fiddled with it in similar ways to get the outcomes they want?

Also, can we talk about the fact that the Trump administration allowing states to impose work requirements in the first place is flagrantly illegal?

 

[Chose]

It's only "misleading" if you decide to take it literally, which, like, have you ever been on the internet before?

Haha, it's only misleading if you take it literally... Right, that is how misleading things work. This is exactly the kind of thing that certain people outside your political circle will get hung up on. It doesn't just happen on internet forums, it happens in the news all the time. Then, instead of talking about the issue, you end up talking about #FakeNews and liberal media bias.

 

[aelf]

Easy defense for the bill by moderates and anyone to the right of them: At least it's not making everyone miserable. It's ensuring that some won't be miserable, and that's a silver lining.

 

[Lexicus]

Haha, it's only misleading if you take it literally... Right, that is how misleading things work. This is exactly the kind of thing that certain people outside your political circle will get hung up on. It doesn't just happen on internet forums, it happens in the news all the time. Then, instead of talking about the issue, you end up talking about #FakeNews and liberal media bias.

Yeah, because people who talk about #FakeNews and liberal media bias are totally talking about those things in good faith, and totally would never talk about those things if CFC posters like @GoodEnoughForMe would just title their threads better

Accusations of "liberal media bias" almost invariably mean the accuser is a fascist who would like all the media in the country to be run directly by the Trump White House, so I think we should spend less time catering to the "needs" of such people and more time bagging on them like the goosestepping morons they are.

In all seriousness, the thread title is less misleading than hyperbolic.

 

[sophie]

There's no way this would stand up to any sort of judicial scrutiny.

But yeah this is some serious bullfeathers right here.

In other news, great change to the autocensor mods/admins. It has the OwenGlyndwr seal of approval!

 

[Lexicus]

There's no way this would stand up to any sort of judicial scrutiny.

You don't think so? Federal court, you might be right, but I wouldn't be remotely surprised if five Supreme Court justices sign on.

 

[rah]

Can't believe that the unemployment tie-in won't be struck down by the courts. Or I guess I just don't want to believe.
x-post

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Haha, it's only misleading if you take it literally... Right, that is how misleading things work. This is exactly the kind of thing that certain people outside your political circle will get hung up on. It doesn't just happen on internet forums, it happens in the news all the time. Then, instead of talking about the issue, you end up talking about #FakeNews and liberal media bias.

I don't pretend that this forum is really all that important - and hyperbolic, joke-y thread titles are pretty normal here. I trust most people here to read the context/OP and not just make snap-judgements on the title. It's different than how I would present it, to, say, my white rural Michigan family! But for the purposes of this forum, it's sort of purposely snarky/whatever.

 

[Chose]

Accusations of "liberal media bias" almost invariably mean the accuser is a fascist who would like all the media in the country to be run directly by the Trump White House, so I think we should spend less time catering to the "needs" of such people and more time bagging on them like the goosestepping morons they are.

I think that was joke? Anyways, it's not about catering to their needs, it's just about saying things accurately. And sure, a bit of hyperbole is fine when preaching to the choir, but if you are interested in persuasion, inaccurate "hyperbolic" titles don't work very well.

 

[Broken_Erika]

But Hyperbole is Fun! Way better than sluggishbole or normalbole or somewhatslowerthanaveragebole.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that was joke? Anyways, it's not about catering to their needs, it's just about saying things accurately. And sure, a bit of hyperbole is fine when preaching to the choir, but if you are interested in persuasion, inaccurate "hyperbolic" titles don't work very well.

I don't think that bending over backwards to conduct discussion on rhetorical terms suitable/favorable for right-wingers is a very effective tactic of persuasion, either.

And no, it wasn't a joke. "Liberal media bias" is a purely projecting accusation that really means the media are not actually fascist propaganda outlets. The only way to really circumvent charges of "liberal media bias" is to turn every media outlet in the US into the Daily Stormer.

 

[Chose]

I don't think that bending over backwards to conduct discussion on rhetorical terms suitable/favorable for right-wingers is a very effective tactic of persuasion, either.

And no, it wasn't a joke. "Liberal media bias" is a purely projecting accusation that really means the media are not actually fascist propaganda outlets. The only way to really circumvent charges of "liberal media bias" is to turn every media outlet in the US into the Daily Stormer.

What you said just isn't true, unless you really want to say that all conservatives in the US are fascists. In which case I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. And again, it's not about bending over backwards, I was simply advocating for stating things accurately.

 

[aelf]

A Nazi might complain about hyperbole if you call them inhuman, genocidal freaks - he might say that they're still human and it's just the Jews and a couple of other groups that they really have problem with.

 

[miaasma]

What you said just isn't true, unless you really want to say that all conservatives in the US are fascists. In which case I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. And again, it's not about bending over backwards, I was simply advocating for stating things accurately.

it's an implied outcome that takes minimal effort to interpret from the bill's description, i don't see what's inaccurate

 

[Chose]

it's an implied outcome that takes minimal effort to interpret from the bill's description, i don't see what's inaccurate

No, the implication of the bill is not health care for only whites, actually. It would disproportionately give health care to whites and is quite racist and disgusting, but it's just factually inaccurate to say only whites. I mean, the OP said himself it was hyperbolic and joke-y. Anyways, I'm done talking about this.