Grammar in Fisher Resolution is Revealing

Grammar in Fisher Resolution is Revealing
By
James Scott Trimm

The Fisher campaign and the liberal media (their surrogates) have been engaging in intellectual gymnastics to avoid the clear meaning of the resolution upon a natural reading by a normal person.  A facsimile of the resolution is at the bottom of this blog so you can read it for yourself.

The natural reading of this resolution is that is asks the state "...to seek all possible options to adequately fund uncompensated and uninsured care for indigent Texans..." and opens by proposing a single option: "Whereas, the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] would add more that a million Texans living near or below the poverty line to Medicaid coverage,... "

In fact when the liberal Star-Telegram endorsed Fisher on February 10th, the article sought to justify Fisher’s Obamacare support writing:

Fisher is dogged by a 2013 hospital board resolution asking the Legislature for more money to fund indigent care, listing as one “possible option” to include more Texans in federal Medicaid.

It is reasonable for a county hospital trustee to ask the Legislature for more money for indigent care, particularly when many patients come from other counties that never contribute a dime.

And on an earlier occasion Pastor Fisher’s administrative assistant at Metroplex Chapel suggested that the document was forged with photoshop <click here>. That same day Stickland publicly confronted Fisher with the document at a candidate forum and Fisher was speechless.

Those trying to explain away Fisher’s resolution have now had time to formulate an excuse.  So now they want us to believe that Fisher’s resolution is contrasting “all possible options” with Obamacare which it discounts as unfeasible and unsustainable. 

While studying this document in detail I noticed a grammatical error which is very telling as to the intended meaning of the resolution.  I noticed that in the final phrase there is a very telling grammatical error:

Tarrant County Hospital District Board of Managers asks the Texas Legislature to seek all possible options to adequately fund uncompensated and uninsured care for indigent Texans that is feasible and sustainable.

Now the careful reader will notice that the noun “options” is plural while the verb “is” is singular.  This reveals to us that the plural phrase “all possible options” is actually a cover phrase for the singular “Obamacare” which is the only option which was actually mentioned in the document.  The document does not talk about what is not feasible and is not sustainable, it talks about what is feasible and is sustainable.  The verb is singular and the singular option presented is Obamacare.  The true intent of the document is to ask the Texas legislature to embrace Obamacare as the singular solution, and it is clearly Obamacare that the document intends to say “is feasible and sustainable”. 

Like Bill Clinton, Fisher is confused by the meaning of the word “is”:


Certainly this educated man would not have mismatched the verb “is” with a plural subject “options” unless he was using the phrase “all possible options” as a euphemism for “the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare]” which had been the singular option offered in the resolution. 

AADDENDUM:  Unless of course "care" is the noun intended to be paired with "is" in which case JPS is talking about care that is feasible and sustainable. ... in other words rationed healthcare and death panels.... Which is even worse.  This would also discount any claim that the documents saying that Obamacare is unfeasible or unsustainable because it would actually be talking about unfeasible and unsustainable levels of care rather saying that Obamacare is financially unfeasible and unsustainable for the State.