Republicans lose when they adopt the linguistics of the Left - Granite Grok

Republicans lose when they adopt the linguistics of the Left

NH State Rep Joe LaChance - screwing NH Taxpayers on Medicaid Expansion

This is the turnoff for Medicaid Expansion
This is the turnoff for Medicaid Expansion

Happens every time when the Right allows the Left to shape and define the battlefield. From the Union Leader (emphasis mine, reformatted):

“If Chris had his way in the vote he cast multiple times, 50,000 people would not have their health care,” Van Ostern said. He admitted the next state budget would likely require more dollars from state taxpayers to keep that coverage, saying it can come from existing revenues. “I think that will be some part of the equation,” Van Ostern said.

Sununu countered that the state should not make permanent the coverage. “I have never proposed cutting 50,000 people off the Medicaid rolls,” Sununu said. He favors a “New Hampshire solution” that should not require any more money from taxpayers. “Once you make that permanent, you have lost all your leverage, all your leverage with the federal government to designing a New Hampshire solution,” Sununu said. The state shouldn’t brag that the Medicaid rolls have increased by nearly 80 percent, he added. “That is not a good metric; that we have increased the numbers that require government assistance,” Sununu said.

A couple of points:

  • Van Ostern sets the battlefield, the conditions of the debate by the statement of “what, you would deny something that we have given them already” (“50,000 people would not have their health care”). 
  • Sununu falls into the Democrat trap (or should I put it, the Progressive trap as other NH Republicans have made the same line of argument even as they pushed to expand Medicaid – like Joe LaChance) with ““I have never proposed cutting 50,000 people off the Medicaid rolls”.  He now has, and always will be, labeled as one of those Scrooge McDuck heartless ones, taking away a new entitlement.

Which was the entire premise in the first place.  And Republicans passed it into law.  And will forever be called heartless just like Republicans passing the Federal 1964 Civil Rights laws over the objections of the Democrats.  And have been called bigots by Democrats ever since, even those they passed it (another successful political ju-jitsu move by the Statists).

  • Another shot in the foot: ““New Hampshire solution” that should not require any more money from taxpayers.” Sorry, there ain’t that much waste, fraud, and abuse in NH’s systems to provide medical insurance, even the low cost, low paying, cut rate being peddled.  So how does Sununu going to pay for it if taxpayers aren’t?  And given that he blew by the “NH” adjective that most NH pols use (i.e, “NH taxpayers” in trying to make things pixie dust and unicorns and making us believe that Federal Taxpayers are a completely different subset of people having their money taking from them).
  • increased the numbers that require government assistance”. Instead of as an afterthought, this should have been his main line of attack but upped the ante on “dependency” and used it like a spiked club and wielding it with glee.  After all, Dems are seen as the Party of government dependency.

To be clear, Van Ostern is not in the clear here either.  I dryly point out a problem with Van Ostern’s “it can come from existing revenues” statement:  really, what WOULD he cut from Government to make that happen?  Here is is a pretty much a zero sum game that he’s laid down for the same dollar can’t go to two different items.

But we’ve seen this before with gay marriage being passed here in NH – it started off as one thing, civil unions, and then the kevetching started again that it was “unequal” and gay marriage must be enacted.  I’m quite sure that the same “sliding, slippery slope” tactic will be used again as THOSE THINGS (those that should be cut to fund Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion) will then be subjected to the “How can we take XYZ away from people that depend on them?” and revenues will have to be raised.  His above statement will be wiped off of history.

 

 

>