So I got into an exchange with my local state representative on Twitter just after the S.C. House voted against the expansion of Medicaid under Obamacare, despite the wishes of lots of sensible conservative people (and Democrats) that wanted it passed.
His response to me was, essentially, that the state couldn't afford it (never mentioned the costs of leaving half a million people without insurance) and when I told him the smart states were glad for states like ours because there will be more of our federal tax dollars available to them, he said that isn't true. I guess he better hurry up and tell Chris Christie. The people of South Carolina, I said, are paying taxes for services they're not going to be allowed to receive...
Murrell Smith (@MurrellSmith), of Sumter, and I got into an exchange on Twitter that went a little bit like this:
Me: "Thanks a lot, @MurrellSmith. You've got your healthcare, so I suppose that's good enough. Anything to say to #Sumter's uninsured?"
Him: "@tzbauknight This State doesn't have a blank check like the federal Govt."
Me: "The smart states thank you for our money."
Him: "@tzbauknight that argument is incorrect but don't let the facts get in the way of a good talking point."
Me: "So that money is not going to be spent, and I get a tax credit?"
Him: "@tzbauknight Medicaid is a draw down program. If we don't take it, then it won't be borrowed and distributed by the federal govt. #factcheck"
So he thinks that South Carolina's opting out of Medicaid expansion doesn't mean other states will have access to those federal dollars, and, presumably, that's money the federal government doesn't have or need and won't borrow.
I can't say that I believe him, but I'd love to know what he's basing his argument on.
Anyone?