Rick Perry Stands Tall Against Socialism, Obamacare and Godless Federal Dollars

Categories: Perry 2012

rickrick0709.jpg
Ready to make the tough decisions that will keep us pure
Governor Rick Perry has confirmed in a letter today to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he's no pal of socialism and as such, must reject two key measures of Obamacare - a state insurance exchange and expanding Medicaid.

To embrace a state exchange would mean playing by U.S. government rules - and even though Perry doesn't know what those are exactly (because they haven't all been pomulgated yet) - he is certain they will be bad for Texas.

As for expanding Medicaid - that would mean allowing millions more Texans into the program, a program Perry already thinks won't last and the whole thing will just end up costing more taxpayer money.

Perry, who deftly turned away federal "Race to the Top" education dollars because he didn't want the state's own education standards to be replaced by federal ones, is once again calling on the people of this state to make their own way without interference from the feds. Even if it means giving up millions of dollars in aid.

He also turned down federal funds for the Unemployment Insurance program in Texas in 2009 because that would have meant more people would qualify for benefits. But Perry knew helping more out-of-work people then would have mean higher unemployment taxes for businesses later.

"If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare," Perry said. "I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

"I stand proudly with the growing chorus of governors who reject the Obamacare power grab. Neither a "state" exchange nor the expansion of Medicaid under this program would result in better "patient protection" or in more "affordable care." They would only make Texas a mere appendage of the federal government when it comes to health care."

In the press release distributed today, it notes that "Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges."

Perry has "a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups - not just optional Medicaid populations - and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement."

The Perry manifesto did not include an explanation of who would be entitled to Medicaid payments or how they would be "tailored" -- do you get more if you paid into the system or less if you have your own money?

But stay tuned. With material this good to work with, there's no way this is Perry's last word on our President, his programs or how we educate our kids and take care of peoples' health needs.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
11 comments
Kbish74
Kbish74

He just keeps on proving what an idiot he is, doesn't he?

Smiley Moon
Smiley Moon

You are right David to not be too excited about what is coming from either camp.  Problem is that people can't see beyond their own political colors, they are having a go at Perry's views here simply because they don't like him.  Even if he was right beyond question, they'd still say this stuff.  Obama hasn't got it right either, but that's neither here nor there.  They'll attack anything the opposition says.

Smiley Moon
Smiley Moon

Telling it like it is bro...  The British NHS is not so great.

David Houston
David Houston

In the past year my British father waited over 6 months for a routine knee operation under the NHS!  That was unbelievably listed as an Emergency Case. He'd have been delighted to get it done in 6 weeks, and bring an end to the pain.  Waiting for a hospital referral takes a long time. There's a long time between seeing a General Practitioner and a Specialist. Long story short, you'll wait 6 months in the UK. There is no money in the NHS right now, it's stretched due to mass immigration from the EU, and people who never paid a penny into it now benefiting from the service, but that's another story. As for your other point, no we really don't need Socialism. There is no patriotism involved when money is removed from your pay packet before you got paid, which is what happens in the UK. You have no choice. A great many British people these days have moved to Private Health Care, and that has come out of a complete mistrust in and of the NHS. Bottom line is the British also have a Private Health Care System! Now why should they need such a thing, if the NHS is so great? As I said, neither President Obama or his detractors are giving a full or satisfactory solution, it will take sane debate to iron out the problems in both systems. Seriously Gared, you want Socialism? Careful what you wish for...

Gaspar Ramsey
Gaspar Ramsey

My Pappy tole me that if somebody wants to give you legal money, take it. Be a fool not to. Oh, we're talking about Rick Perry, n'cest pas? Showed everybody what a fool he is on national television, and now jes' keeps on keepin' on.

David Houston
David Houston

Hex, I'm not only British, but I worked in the National Health Service! I've seen behind the curtain.  It is an utter shambles and an excuse for a Health Service today.  Recent reports in the press of actual Rats mice and cockroaches running in the Wards, long waiting lists for people needing surgery, and MRSA cases are pretty real.  In fact a friend of mine survived the surgery in a British hospital, but died of a hospital infection, he'd picked up! This is reality and I wish it was just a freak occurrence, but it's all too common. People don't know what they pay for, since the NHS contribution is removed from their wages before they get them. British people had no choice to opt-out at all until the mid 1980's when the then Tory government pushed BUPA and private health care.  As I said the Brits will argue that it is the best thing since sliced bread, without question, you are doing it here, but the reality is it's not that great and when it comes down to it, you may not actually be treated at all  Doesn't matter that you've paid for it. They have computers (and people employed for that purpose) which calculate whether it is cost effective to save your life, or give you that surgery you need. Again makes no difference that you've been paying into the system your whole life. Actually socialism is bad, modern European 'Social Democracy' is what is practised by one of the major political parties in the UK these days (British Labour Party) and that's more acceptable, but that's much different from Socialism, eg. ex-PM Tony Blair is a Social Democrat. Let's not confuse two very different ideologies. Social Democracy however does seem surprisingly close to the System of politics of Mr. Obama.  Again I'm a Brit and a former Nurse. Seen it all and done it all, and there isn't a lot about the NHS I'm proud of. You get access to a Doctor, and that's a good thing but then he'll refer you and you'll wait months to see anyone, and months for a hospital referral. Seriously take a good look at what you imagine is better than what you have already. Perhaps Canada has a better system. Google this story, and tell me how this example of Socialized Medicine is an improvement... "Hospitals hit by a vermin invasion: Rats, mice and cockroaches 'putting patients at risk'" - The Daily Mail, 9 April 2012

Maxatomic
Maxatomic

Sorry, too subtle of sarcasm.  If President Obama announced tomorrow that he was supportive of a budget that was identical to the Ryan plan, it would somehow be denounced as an example of Kenyan anti-imperialistic socialism.  Ridiculous, but it seems to work.

Anse
Anse

I beg your pardon; Texas's *red voters*--Republicans--live mostly in the suburbs and rural areas.

Anse
Anse

That won't happen, because states like Alabama, Mississippi, and just about every other Southern state--except Texas--utterly depend on federal spending to cover stuff because their own citizens won't allow state tax increases to take care of their own. In fact, I believe Texas is the only red state that sends more income taxes to DC than we get back in federal appropriations; the rest of them get far more back than they contribute. Blue states like Massachusetts, New York, and California contribute more; the blue states, with some exceptions, are basically subsidizing the red states. You can even break that phenomenon down within the states themselves: in Texas, most of the major metro areas are predominantly Democratic. Texas's blue voters overwhelmingly live in the suburbs and rural areas. Yet the cities generate far more tax revenue than suburban and rural areas. All of this is why some of the most pork-obsessed politicians are Republicans. Sure, there are Democrats at the trough, too, but at least Democrats aren't screaming about "big government" all the time while they've got they're taking home the bacon. 

Anse
Anse

Seriously? If you think a tried-and-true socialist would be in favor of supporting the private insurance industry, you need to do some more study on what socialism is.

Now Trending

Houston Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...