Texas House head-fakes on Medicaid expansion

Buried in the good news about the death of school vouchers coming out of yesterday evening's state budget marathon is the sad fact that House members passed -- and later rescinded -- consideration of a discussion about the possibility of Medicaid expansion.

If that description sounds convoluted, it's because the debate in Austin was also. To Olivia Messer of the Observer...

For a brief few hours on Thursday, members of the Texas House endorsed a version of Medicaid expansion—or at least some parameters for it—but then changed their minds.

The title of that piece has the words "flip-flop" in it. Which is an appropriate description of what happened.

As Becca Aaronson of the Texas Tribune reported, the amendment wouldn’t have even directed HHSC to expand Medicaid. Rather if the state negotiated with the Obama administration to expand eligibility, the amendment said, Texas would’ve had to reduce “uncompensated care costs, [promote] the use of private insurance plans and health savings accounts, and [establish] wellness, cost-sharing and pay-for-performance initiatives. It also called for creating customized benefit plans for different Medicaid populations. The Legislative Budget Board would have been charged with determining whether such a deal addresses those reforms.”

The House initially approved the amendment Thursday afternoon. But just a few short hours after the amendment passed, Rep. Geanie Morrison (R-Victoria) proposed that the House reconsider the vote. Though Morrison initially voted in favor, she later argued vehemently that she hadn’t been “clear on what the amendment does” and that other Republicans had been similarly confused. “I want to have a discussion and then make the decision.”

The amendment was sponsored by Burnham, the lower chamber's most progressive member, and supported by Republican John Zerwas, whom I have written about previously.

House Democrats and Republicans both rose to defend the measure and to prevent reconsideration—the parliamentary version of a do-over. Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer (D-San Antonio) said, “What we’re doing here might be the most we’re ever going to do on [Medicaid].” Burnam pointed out that the measure was actually quite similar to language  Sen. Tommy Williams (R-The Woodlands) had proposed for the Senate version of the budget (and which was approved) two weeks ago. Rep. John Zerwas (R-Simonton), who collaborated with Burnam on the amendment, took to the microphone to clarify that “it’s really not a Medicaid expansion at all.”

Rep. Craig Eiland (D-Galveston) said that the amendment would certainly not ensure passage of Medicaid expansion, since Gov. Perry has so clearly opposed it anyway. “The governor has stated quite clearly that there will be no Medicaid expansion as is proposed,” he said. “If he ever tells you that he will veto something, it’s not a threat, it’s a promise.”

Even still, the floor voted 93-54 to reconsider the amendment.

I'd really like to know the backstory here. I'm going to speculate that somebody (-bodies) got bum-rushed by the governor or some of his hoods at the right-wing think tanks. I can't tell from the coverage how many members voted to approve the amendment initially and then switched their vote, but that will eventually be revealed.

As Burnam notes, the proposal remains in the Senate's version.

“It’s still in the Senate amendment,” Burnam said. “It’ll go to conference and people will talk about whether we remain open-minded and try and figure out a way to work with the national government that’s throwing out some of this money or do we just kiss it off?”

But the stench of ignorance hangs in the air like a... well, you know.

When asked if he bought the argument that Republicans truly didn’t understand what the amendment was about, Burnam said, “Unfortunately, that’s right. Unfortunately, they’re so closed-minded and bigoted and so not understanding about Obamacare that they just went along because the leadership was for it.”

So it seems that what we have here is legislators taking a vote on something that they apparently didn't fully understand. And when they got whipped by the "Obamacare is eee-vil" thugs, then they suddenly got themselves back in the far right line. So now, Medicaid expansion will probably die a slow death in some back committee room. That's a metaphor for what's going to happen to the poor, ill Texans who can't afford to get healthcare as it stands. This is the outcome I both dreaded and predicted.

Congratulations to the advocates of Texas education on finding some sanity in the Texas House with respect to vouchers. But as for the po' folks... too bad for you.

I suppose they should hire better lobbyists in the next session.

Because no person is illegal

Another conservative meme falls down.

Starting now, you will never see the "lazy" words "illegal immigrant" in another AP story unless they're quoting someone important saying it. That faint sound you hear is Senate reporters from the AP, The New York Times, and beyond smacking their delete keys, rethinking their agenda setting aloud, and figuring out how we talk now, amidst a serious legislative discussion, about the millions of illegal immigrants people living in the U.S. without legal permission. AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll explains the timely style change: 

The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term "illegal immigrant" or the use of "illegal" to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that "illegal" should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally.

Coe-rrectamundo. Adverbs shouldn't be nouns. Verbs increasingly become nouns, but not descriptors. This is important.

The caterwauling about Ill Eagles was nothing but a racist diatribe when it was birthed years ago by old, angry white Republicans. But they kept screeching about it until they finally got some media attention, and then it became part of the American discussion. But once "illegal" became people -- men, women, and children -- that's when the xenophobes oops, people with xenophobia lost the battle. Now they are losing the war.

The stricken phrase, as the AP's Carroll explained to Poynter, "ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone’s life to become the modifier before their name." She added that the use was a "lazy device."

Just as there are no longer schizophrenics or diabetics, but people with diabetes and schizophrenia. What, you didn't know that either?

Yes, we'll have to endure the whining and moaning of those who are outraged at the PC encroaching on their freedumb of speech. They'll point to George Carlin, alleged liberal icon, as evidence that political correctness has, like socialism, run amuck across this great land.

"Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it's especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech."

Rest in peace, George. I'm still a big fan, even though you're wrong in this case.

At least in the documented and official history, the USA will no longer stigmatize economic refugees with a word that refers to criminal behavior. Will people without citizen status commit crimes? I feel certain they will, just as US citizens do every day. And like the Republicans who violated the speed limit on their way to work this morning, or tear the tags off their pillows, or cheat on their taxes, we won't be calling them "illegals". They're just people who violated the law. Some got caught and some got convicted, and some did not. They're all still innocent until proven guilty.

No person is illegal. Not in God's eyes, and now, not by the judgment of the Associated Press.

Regular folks -- along with the differently-abled people who can do so -- are standing and applauding.

Related: The only thing Republicans have to fear about immigration reform is the GOP itself.

Only 35 percent of Republicans support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll. Among conservative Republicans, only 30 percent support it. Despite, say, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio doing a tour of conservative talk radio to pitch his immigration proposal, support among Republicans has actually declined since February. But Republicans don't just have to win over the Republican base. There are many groups within the GOP that are fighting immigration reform, or are ambivalent about it.

What the poll numbers reveal about immigration reform all depends on how the questions get asked. And while it is true that some in the GOP have sobered up about their chances of winning future elections and are coming around to the light, it's also true that some never will.