"Partisan politics is also at play," notes Binker dryly in this article about McCrory's decision to thumb his nose at Obamacare.

This one's going to leave a mark.

That said, it sounds like our existing Medicaid system is an epic disaster. Not sure if the remains of the tech press still covers that kind of story, but I'll see if I can get someone interested.

Comments

[Spag]

Yeah, the only reason McCrory isn't going along with Democrats is because he's a Republican. Such a partisan fellow. If it wasn't for that, he'd be all for Obamacare and Democrats would be against it.

[Andrew Brod]

At the risk of disrupting the fun you're having in disagreeing with something that wasn't actually said...

Binker didn't say that partisan politics was the only reason.

[Ed Cone]

al·so [awl-soh]
adverb
1.in addition; too; besides; as well

My guess is that the Medicaid decision is going to cause a lot of pain for a lot of folks, and not just poor ones.

[formerly gt]

"Binker didn't say that partisan politics was the only reason."

but he did say it was "a reason". and then he failed to offer any evidence that partisanship was "a reason".

i mean Ed seems to know it's in part a partisan move and you seem to feel the same. but what actual evidence is there?

[Roch]

Good question, gt. From my read, there is no evidence. If the Rs want to fix the tech troubles before pouring additional funds into a broken system, maybe they have a point. They have two years to repair it and make decisive determinations on exchanges and medicaid expansion. If, in eighteen months, the health care options available to the citizens of North Carolina are not keeping up with the rest of the nation, the people will decide if they want to keep up or be South Carolina.

[Andrew Brod]

This is an odd game. What constitutes "evidence" of partisanship? Politicians rarely sign affidavits attesting that their actions are partisan. And yet the glaring lack of such evidence hasn't stopped Republicans from accusing others of the sin of partisanship. And that's fine with me.

For the most part, one has to infer partisanship from sequences of decisions and relevant comparisons. As for the former, we can now certainly see how far to the right McCrory will go to govern the state. And fair enough: he ran as a Republican. Are his decisions since he took office partisan? Is it partisan to clear out all the statewide boards so the governor can fill them with his appointees? Sounds kinda partisan to me.

As another example, a lot of national Republicans supported the expansion of Medicare under Bush 43, even though the expansion was completely unfunded. But state-level Republicans are horrified, horrified I say!, by a Medicaid expansion that will be nearly entirely funded by a federal government presided over by a Democrat. Of the 17 states that are refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion, or are leaning that way, how many have Republican governors? All 17. Sounds kinda partisan, doesn't it?

Mind you, I don't think "partisan" is a dirty word. Spag's the one who had a hissy fit about it.

[polifrog]

'Partisan' isn't a dirty word, but "partisan reasons" implies something wholly different, a vacuous herd mentality.

I don't see that in McCrory's case and neither, apparently, does Binker, as he offered no evidence.

Ed could have just as well said:

"Partisan politics is also at play," notes Binker [emptily] in this article about McCrory's decision to thumb his nose at Obamacare.

He didn't.

Instead he adopted Blinkers empty partisanship as his own.

[Spag]

That's right, frog. Ed chose what points he thought were important to post. But naturally in Andrew's world, it's my fault for injecting "partisan" into the discussion, not Ed's or Binker's.

Andrew writes:

"Is it partisan to clear out all the statewide boards so the governor can fill them with his appointees? Sounds kinda partisan to me."

Possibly, but consider how long the Democrats have held the governor's mansion and filled those posts with Democrats. It stands to reason that each successive Democratic administration would have little interest or incentive to change a board composed of their own partisan members. But a Republican elected with a different philosophy does have such an interest and incentive just as I expect the next Democrat will.

The way this issue is framed, the only way McCrory could prove that he isn't being "partisan" is to go along with Obamacare. It's just possible that he doesn't like Obamacare and maybe that's one reason he is aligned with Republican's on the issue instead of opposing Obamacare simply because he is a Republican.

It should also be noted that it takes two parties with competing ideas to be partisan. McCrory could just as easily argue that Democrats are being partisan by not agreeing with him. But that doesn't fit the narrative that has been building about the Republican who won't do the right thing and act like a Democrat.

[Andrew Brod]

So what if McCrory is being partisan? Why does the accusation bother you so?

Not wanting him to "act like a Democrat" sounds pretty partisan. And that should be okay.