Krauthammer: Rick Scott’s Medicaid decision was “honorable”
There has been a recent trend of Republican governors embracing the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, and this week Florida governor Rick Scott became the latest to jump on the bandwagon. On Fox News earlier today, Bret Baier held a panel discussion on this shift, with Charles Krauthammer saying that while the health care law is insolvent and terrible, it is the law of the land, and said that Scott and his fellow governors are making an “honorable” decision for embracing the Medicaid expansion. …
The Weekly Standard‘s Steve Hayes said it’s easy to “understand the rationale” of why Republican governors are embracing parts of the health care law, but found it “particularly galling” that Scott, who “made his career opposing Obamacare” and has consistently been one of its most ardent opponents, pulled a surprising 180 this week. Hayes called Scott’s shift a politically “cowardly” decision. …
Krauthammer then defended Scott’s actions as “honorable” after his long opposition to the health care law, in spite of personally believing the Medicaid provision in the law is too expansive, and clarified that despite his defense he still believes it to be “insolvent” and “a terrible idea.” Powers said that at least Scott is accepting reality and not just pretending that poor people will “disappear” and solve the problem.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
There’s nothing honorable about selling out your principles and your entire state. Once Florida is on the hook for all that Medicaid funding, what do you think that’s gonna do to the state’s finances?
Doughboy on February 22, 2013 at 9:17 AM
The Kraut is wrong, as usual. I don’t know why anyone bothers listening to this guy about anything. The only times he’s ever correct are 18 – 36 months after everyone else has already understood it, and even then Kraut doesn’t really get it.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 22, 2013 at 9:21 AM
Along the same lines as a Japanese Kamikaze pilot being called “honorable”.
120pages on February 22, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Following a terrible law is not “honorable”.
It is gutless.
Hiding behind a law is the hallmark of moral equivalency.
Personal freedom is always stolen under the guise of law.
NeoKong on February 22, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Please, that’s ridiculous (not to mention wrong).
The bottom line here is that if you’re going to criticize the law, say it’s bad policy and too costly, you don’t then turn around and embrace one particular provision of it.
changer1701 on February 22, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Scott believes the law is wrong and a terrible idea but signs off on it anyway, and that’s honorable.
Alrighty then.
Let’s get on with the collapse, the sooner the better while I still have the strength to fight.
Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 9:42 AM
All you purists think it’s an easy sell to tell the citizens of Florida that money being taken from their paycheck will be going directly to people living in other states, and that they will get none of that portion back. How does Gov. Scott deny 1 million poor people in Florida access to Medicaid that will 90% be paid by someone else. Floridians do not get a refund of Federal tax if they opt out. If they don’t take the 90% deal, someone else will. The coercion written into the law is the problem, not Gov. Scott ultimately deciding he doesn’t want to make his citizens suffer health care access in relation to other states, all the while they are paying the bill in those other states. His realizing that isn’t the problem.
Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 9:49 AM
You lost me at “All you purists…”
If desiring to follow the constitution as the framers intended makes me a purist, I plead guilty to puritanism in the first degree.
Douchebag.
gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 9:52 AM
IMHO the honorable thing to do would be to reject the expansion and do everything in your power to help a bad, insolvent program fail as it deserves to do, not add to the mess by taking the cheap way and grabbing the money.
A principle is not a principle if it’s sacrificed on the altar of re-election.
Curmudgeon on February 22, 2013 at 9:54 AM
Since state income and property taxes are deductible at the feral level, you’re making the argument that all states should increase their state income and property taxes, since the ones that don’t just have their residents pay at the feral level for the ones that do have large state taxes. NY and Calif residents benefit the most from this.
Do you really want to make that argument?
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on February 22, 2013 at 9:55 AM
What you said would have a kernel of truth if every dime to pay for this actually came from taxes. This country borrows over 40% of what it spends. It isn’t his current population that is being cheated if he doesn’t take the money. It is future generations that are being cheated by the borrowing. They have no say but will have to pay for the mess.
chemman on February 22, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Politicians don’t have principles they have preferences. When the shtf they can change their preferences to enhance their careers.
chemman on February 22, 2013 at 9:59 AM
My guess is that Scott got bought off by the hospital chains. Part of ObamaCare provides that if you don’t take the Medicaid expansion, the amount of government reimbursements to hospitals in your state for uncompensated care is reduced. That’s a critical reason Kasich flipped on ObamaCare in Ohio. . .
Outlander on February 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM
The “Ruling Class” in all it’s corrupt glory.
This from a man who voted against Reagan twice and was actually an integral part of the Mondale campaign. What a corrupt “Ruling Class” loser!
Mark Levin, a member of the Reagan administration, says that’s not true at all, that the one battle we won against Obamacare was when the Supreme Court ruled that states don’t have to accept the Medicaid expansion.
He goes on to refute Krauthammer point by point:
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-schools-charles-krauthammer-on-why-its-not-honorable-for-governors-to-expand-medicaid/
Jayrae on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 AM
All you purists think it’s easy to just let guns be in the hands of ordinary, average Americans. But the government is trying to keep some guy somewhere from being shot so you need to give up your rights and your guns.
I hate you effin purists always screwing up the march toward national perfection.
Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 10:02 AM
You lost me at “Douchebag”…LOL
Norbitz on February 22, 2013 at 10:04 AM
Embrace the death panels while you’re at it Scott .
Kraut is dead wrong !
Why don’t we just acquiesce to everything !
Lucano on February 22, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Even Krugman says ;
Death panels and sales taxes ( vat )
will be needed to fund health care .
Lucano on February 22, 2013 at 10:21 AM
Good thing that’s the last word I used, huh? Must’ve read through the whole thing.
gryphon202 on February 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM
“I was only following
orderslaws.”gregbert on February 22, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Sure…as Hayes said, it’s easy to ‘understand the rationale’. What is galling is to have someone talk up how detrimental the legislation is, then proceed to implement part of it. See the disconnect?
changer1701 on February 22, 2013 at 10:44 AM
The H*ll it is…
We need a TRUE Conservative to lead the nation.
Palin 2016
ChuckTX on February 22, 2013 at 10:45 AM
the road to hell is paved with honorable intentions.
unclesmrgol on February 22, 2013 at 10:49 AM
It would be one thing if Scott had said “The Feds have us by the balls, we have no choice” but to do a 180 and call it the compassionate thing to do, is gutless.
jnelchef on February 22, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Dr. Kraut, I sometimes disagree with you, and this is one of them. Unlike most HotAirians, I have no use for purity, or vice versa. This is about a politician and his positioning to keep and cling on to power. Ever since the President won in ’12, Gov. Scott has become more and more amenable to the oppos agenda. His statements reflect that. Whether pub or dem, I detest pols who suddenly go against what they’ve been saying all the time, just to cling on to power. Thats not honorable. Its cowardice and deplorable. And thats my 2 cents.
tommy71 on February 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM
LOL – just for arguement …
Let’s say Willard was still Governor of Massachusetts?
What do you think HIS personal position on creating the exchanges in his state would be?
Yep – you guessed it. Romney would think it was a SMASHING idea!!
HondaV65 on February 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM
I told you guys that if you elected Willard – ObamaCare would not be repealed. Look at what’s happening … all the establishment Governors are FLOCKING to O-Care. They love this sh*t … it does EVERYTHING they want – it pulls money from the people and sends it to THEM to decide how to spend it – and for what political purposes they’ll spend it on.
The GOP Establishment – they should be politically exterminated!
HondaV65 on February 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM