New York Times: Letting People Keep Their Health Plans is Just Like Slavery

Didn't Martin Bashir just do a whole rant about that?

Slave-trade Gonna keep y'all in chains


You use liberal race-baiting to chart the movement's descent into complete insanity. At this point, they could compare just about anything to slavery and racism.

Like letting people keep their health plans. No, seriously.

Lincoln told a big lie in his inaugural address of 1861.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists,” he said, reaching out to the breakaway South. “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

He was saying to a Confederacy that would enshrine owning another human being in its new constitution: If you like the slaves you’ve got now, you can keep them. It was a lie in the sense that Lincoln made a promise, changed by circumstances, that he broke less than two years later -- and probably never meant to keep.

Timothy Egan, the author of this racial insanity, writes books on history. It never seems to occur to him, that Lincoln meant what he said, and had no plans to do so. Nor would he have been able to barring a Civil War.

But that's a technicality that overlooks the insanity of comparing letting people keep their health plans... to slavery.

Didn't Martin Bashir just do a whole rant about that? Do we have to get him out of bed to discuss performing bodily functions in the New York Times' mouth?

More seriously, it's the epitome of the ends justifying the means. Except if your ends is ending the slavery of human beings, it's rather different than if your end is moving more people onto Medicaid.

Lincoln said an entire section of the country could continue to enslave more than one in three of its people. Obama wrongly assured about five million people that they could keep their bare-bones health plans if they liked them (later amended when it turned not to be true).

As inapt as those comparisons are, what is distressingly similar today is how the South is once again committed to taking a backward path.

So the idiot making the idiotic comparison admits his idiotic comparison... but then with typical liberal logic, pivots to blasting the South.

Speaking as a non-southerner, who has never been to the south, can we end this Civil War already? Opposition to ObamaCare is quite high in the West. Millions of non-Southerners are angry over losing their health plans. Meanwhile the Party of Slavery is using the slavery that it didn't oppose to demand support for its enslavement of millions to health care.

By refusing to expand health care for the working poor through Medicaid, which is paid for by the federal government under Obamacare, most of the old Confederacy is committed to keeping millions of its own fellow citizens in poverty and poor health.

Not expanding Medicaid is just like slavery. And apparently all this is limited to the South. It's not happening anywhere else.

What we could see, 10 years from now, is a Mason-Dixon line of health care. One side (with exceptions for conservative Midwest and mountain states) would be the insured North, a place where health care coverage was affordable and available to most people. On the other side would be the uninsured South, where health care for the poor would amount to treating charity cases in hospital emergency rooms.

So it's the South plus the West and the Midwest. Maybe it's a Mason-Dixon line of Medicaid states without jobs and taxpayers pitted against productive places like North Dakota and Texas.

Texas, where one in four people have no health care and Gov. Rick Perry proudly resists extending the Medicaid helping hand to the working poor, would be the leading backwater in this Dixie of Despair.

Texas, which is prosperous is poor. But California, which is bankrupt, is on the right side of the Medicaid Civil War. And leading the new Confederacy is Ted Cruz.

Boy, this new Civil War is very confused. Maybe it's nothing like the Civil War at all.