Do Rep Voters Honestly Believe that the BBB Will Benefit Them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the Catholic Bishops of America have criticized Trump’s BBB. You all just don’t get how inhuman and self serving this big disgusting bill is.

https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/news/2025/07/05/u-s-bishops-criticize-trumps-budget-bill-for-cuts-to-social-programs/

So you support a theocracy?
Do you support restrictions on abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so evil and blatant to start the bill right after mid terms. People are so easily manipulated and duped. I’m scared for this country.

And republicans do this every time they pass a crappy bill. And voters fall for it over and over again.

Check out the "infrastructure" built with Build Back Better.

How much do you pay for health care vs pre-Obamacare? My insurance rates have gone up every year, both pre and post-Obamacare; they went up at about the same rate, both pre and post-Obamacare’, but more was covered under Obamacare.

Were you able to "keep your doctor?" Yes, I was able to keep all my doctors.

I was able to get a tax rebate on my new HVAC. Glad I did it when I did it, since that will be going away!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My family will save a few thousand dollars a year...but that's only because it's mostly undoing the part of the 2017 bill that increased our effective tax rate (the SALT cap). The fact that the SALT deduction even applies to us means we're wealthy enough that we didn't need a tax cut...especially not in order to justify a much larger tax cut to the uber-wealthy.

Explain this tax cut for the wealthy. I've heard they will be paying the same rates as last year.

Pick a talking point. Either it cuts taxes for the wealthy or it doesn't.

Even NYT admitted that it cuts taxes for all brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

There will be working people who will lose Medicaid because of the onerous requirement to verify their employment every 6 months. There will be working people on Obamacare who will lose health care because of the onerous requirement to re-enroll annually (and pay the subsidy themselves), as opposed to automatic renewal (they also shortened the enrollment timeframe). That is the trick the GOP is relying on — putting obstacles in place so that people will lose what they have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

There will be working people who will lose Medicaid because of the onerous requirement to verify their employment every 6 months. There will be working people on Obamacare who will lose health care because of the onerous requirement to re-enroll annually (and pay the subsidy themselves), as opposed to automatic renewal (they also shortened the enrollment timeframe). That is the trick the GOP is relying on — putting obstacles in place so that people will lose what they have.

And, further to this, I have yet to see the data the GOP speaks of regarding all the free-loaders on Medicaid. Most data I see shows that most people who can, are working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What higher deficit? They largely kept the same tax rates.
There would have been a higher debt no matter what budget passed, as we saw with all the CRs the last 15 years.
This time they managed to corral the conservatives whining about the deficit who refused to vote for any budget bill. Thus they didn't have to go to Democrats for votes and could pass a lower level of spending.

Those tax rates were set to expire because they could not be made permanent under reconciliation the first time around. When passed, Trump and Republicans assumed Trump would have two terms and the Dems would likely handle the fallout.

But now they have to handle it. And instead of doing that, they are making the tax cut permanent at a 3.3T cost of the deficit.

The deficit and debt will increase because these cuts were never meant to be permanent. They are not sustainable even with massive spending cuts. Republicans just proved that the level of spending cuts required to get the deficit under control are not viable politically. The only answer is tax increases, and instead of addressing the issue, they are kicking the can down the road and massively increasing the deficit and rate of increase to the debt.

No. The answer is to stop spending our money! It's not the government's money, it's not your money, etc. It's our money, and they can reduce the deficit by cutting programs that don't improve anything and arent working. All this foreign aid has bought us nothing but the hate of the nations we give it to. Covering medical bills of poor people has brought nothing but a growing "eat the rich" mentality. So no more. You want class warfare- or more accurately warfare between people who want to live and work honestly and those who don't-- you've got it now. We aren't duped. We know what we are doing.

You still don't get it, and you obviously DON'T know what you're doing, because they are going to be spending A LOT MORE of "your money."

Explain to me how, by me being able to keep an additional 66k for every million in income, I am losing money. Please. Be specific.

The bill adds trillions of dollars to the debt. By 2032 the national debt will be about $50 trillion because of this bill.

Taxpayers already pay a trillion interest a year on our debt. 1) your taxes will go to pay even more interest on the debt because this adds to that burden. Interest on the debt is going to increase more. 2) the bill makes the SS trust fund run out a year earlier in 2032. Do you think Congress is going to let a bunch of seniors SS check get cut when the trust fund runs out? Hell no. How do you pay for it? Increase taxes or run even more debt.

Why isnt the answer to cut spending then? You talk as though a tax increase is the only solution, and it's not.

Cut money from what? We just got rid of USAID and fired thousands of federal workers and federal spending still going up.

That’s because do 60% of all federal
Spending is on SS, Medicare, defense and interest on the debt. This bill increases both defense spending and interest on the debt.

Take it up with seniors if you want to cut their SS or Medicare. Good luck with that.

I don't want to cut Medicaid. And I do think taxes will have to go up because our population is becoming inverted with too many old people and too few young people. I just dont see why that argument is 1) reason enough to keep taking and spending our money, which we will need to invest for our own futures, 2) the only answer. We should be cutting all this foreign aid, etc and taking care of our own people. We are on an unsustainable path of spending and the generations below us are going to get smacked hard if we dont change our ways.

Tell me what you want to cut. We just cut foreign aid (check). We just fired lots of federal employees (check). The nation’s deficit will still be higher this year because of the aging population, more defense spending and more interest on the debt and because of this bill. Tell me what you want to cut to bring spending down.

When the trust fund runs out in 2032, the two main answers are raise taxes or cut benefits.

A lot of farm subsidies. For example, tax subsidies incentivize farmers to use a horrific hog farming method that pollutes groundwater and has led to an increase in cancer in places like Iowa. I'd like to stop funding that. Ethanol. Subsidies to processed food manufacturers. Reduce subsidies for higher education because it is leading to escalating education prices.

Also we can increase revenue. We can build a better tax base. We need to be far smarter about funding than we are now because we dont have enough babies to sustain this.

Omg. For the love of god go read this bill. It increases money for farm subsidies. Increases subsidies for ethanol. Because Republicans always take care of their farmers.

And it cuts loan limits and Pell grants. The loan limits are one of the few good thing in this bill. But those minuscule “savings” are already in this bill that adds trillions to the debt. So it is Still not an answer to what will you cut when the trust fund runs out in 2032.

You asked me what I want to cut, and I answered. The only thing you're telling me is that BBB didnt go far enough, which I agree with. We need to keep cutting. I'm told that we are saving no money by cutting USAID for $70B and $270B for Dept of Ed. So let's keep cutting.

What I’m telling you is this bill goes the opposite direction. It adds trillions more to the debt. You know the old adage about holes - stop digging. Trump just dug another 4 trillion hole. The stuff you you want to cut is a handful of dirt in comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What higher deficit? They largely kept the same tax rates.
There would have been a higher debt no matter what budget passed, as we saw with all the CRs the last 15 years.
This time they managed to corral the conservatives whining about the deficit who refused to vote for any budget bill. Thus they didn't have to go to Democrats for votes and could pass a lower level of spending.

Those tax rates were set to expire because they could not be made permanent under reconciliation the first time around. When passed, Trump and Republicans assumed Trump would have two terms and the Dems would likely handle the fallout.

But now they have to handle it. And instead of doing that, they are making the tax cut permanent at a 3.3T cost of the deficit.

The deficit and debt will increase because these cuts were never meant to be permanent. They are not sustainable even with massive spending cuts. Republicans just proved that the level of spending cuts required to get the deficit under control are not viable politically. The only answer is tax increases, and instead of addressing the issue, they are kicking the can down the road and massively increasing the deficit and rate of increase to the debt.

No. The answer is to stop spending our money! It's not the government's money, it's not your money, etc. It's our money, and they can reduce the deficit by cutting programs that don't improve anything and arent working. All this foreign aid has bought us nothing but the hate of the nations we give it to. Covering medical bills of poor people has brought nothing but a growing "eat the rich" mentality. So no more. You want class warfare- or more accurately warfare between people who want to live and work honestly and those who don't-- you've got it now. We aren't duped. We know what we are doing.

You still don't get it, and you obviously DON'T know what you're doing, because they are going to be spending A LOT MORE of "your money."

Explain to me how, by me being able to keep an additional 66k for every million in income, I am losing money. Please. Be specific.

The bill adds trillions of dollars to the debt. By 2032 the national debt will be about $50 trillion because of this bill.

Taxpayers already pay a trillion interest a year on our debt. 1) your taxes will go to pay even more interest on the debt because this adds to that burden. Interest on the debt is going to increase more. 2) the bill makes the SS trust fund run out a year earlier in 2032. Do you think Congress is going to let a bunch of seniors SS check get cut when the trust fund runs out? Hell no. How do you pay for it? Increase taxes or run even more debt.

Once again, this is a prediction. It is not fact.
There are economists who believe this is not true.
Remember - many of these same people predicting gloom regarding the debt also said tariffs would lead to inflation and a recession.
They are still waiting for that to happen...... (It ain't gonna happen.)

Fiscal conservatives (as opposed to phony conservatives like MAGA) hate this bill. They love the permanent tax rates. They hate the debt load of this bill.

As they should. We now have $37 trillion of debt. Donald Trump alone added $13 trillion of that. And remember, we had a budget surplus under Clinton. But right now, our interest payments on that debt are roughly the equivalent of our entire defense budget - more than a trillion dollars every single year. And that interest must be paid. Obviously we have massive austerity and high taxes in our future. But Republican irresponsibility is all about transferring wealth to the rich today, and to hell with tomorrow. There are no fiscally conservative Republicans left. They are all in with this insanity. Republicans are just like drug addicts. They never think about consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:… if they’re not billionaires? They honestly believe that the cuts to Medicaid will only kick out “illegals” and lazy people? That the new higher deficit won’t have a negative impact on the economy and everyday people? I’m really trying to understand how Rep voters believe this. Is it Fox News propaganda? Are they really that gullible?

I give no effs about lazy losers on Medicaid.

There are significant benefits to this bill for the not-rich average American. My DH is a LEO and the no tax on overtime will be huge in our house, we were doing the math on that last night. I expect a lot of middle class people who work an hourly wage will find this benefit substantial.

Deductions for social security is also a big winner.

I am a small business owner and the depreciation of 100% now for equipment is huge. So is the pass through deduction of 20%.

So no we aren’t gullible or stupid, we just know how to read.

All in favor of income redistribution when you are the benficiary. Odd how that works.

Keeping my own income is not redistribution. Jesus Christ people.

Great!

Let me know when you want to fund your own army.

The close to 1 million in federal taxes I’ve paid during my lifetime covers that.

And no doubt your earnings were supported by government spending. Which of these contributed?
-- a stable business environment, created by effective laws and regulations (eg, standardized weights and measures, inspection of organic products, contract enforcement, etc etc etc.)
-- trade with foreign countries
-- fellow workers educated by public schools and free of diseases like polio?
-- COVID loans
-- air travel without constant crashes
-- technology developed from scientific research originally funded by government grants

and so on.

But you go, PP. Surely you deserve your money more than the rest of us.

Um yeah, I do deserve MY MONEY more than YOU DESERVE MY MONEY.

Christ on a cracker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is so evil and blatant to start the bill right after mid terms. People are so easily manipulated and duped. I’m scared for this country.

And republicans do this every time they pass a crappy bill. And voters fall for it over and over again.

Check out the "infrastructure" built with Build Back Better.

How much do you pay for health care vs pre-Obamacare?

Were you able to "keep your doctor?"

I paid significantly less when I got my healthcare through the ACA. I kept the same insurance company, the same doctors, and got a better plan than I had before— when I was paying for coverage on my own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The GOP has overpromised and the bill under delivers. Even strategists are asking them to tone it down. GOP keeps saying “it’s be the biggest tax cut in history” but mainly it’s just an extension of current rates. People are wanting more money now because prices are starting to go up. And they’re not going to see any real difference on taxes.

Some people will benefit from a few new temporary cuts. But Poor seniors won’t get the new senior deduction. Poor families won’t get the expanded child credit. A lot of people won’t get much benefit out of no tax on tips because they don’t report most of their tips in any case. Biggest winners are probably cops and other people who get a lot of OT pay.

If I recall correctly, one of the things Project 2025 wants to do is re-formulate overtime, which might make the provision in the OBBBA moot:

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-cut-access-to-overtime-pay/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the Catholic Bishops of America have criticized Trump’s BBB. You all just don’t get how inhuman and self serving this big disgusting bill is.

https://lavocedinewyork.com/en/news/2025/07/05/u-s-bishops-criticize-trumps-budget-bill-for-cuts-to-social-programs/

Why on earth would I care what a bunch of pedo-sky-fairy believers have to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:… if they’re not billionaires? They honestly believe that the cuts to Medicaid will only kick out “illegals” and lazy people? That the new higher deficit won’t have a negative impact on the economy and everyday people? I’m really trying to understand how Rep voters believe this. Is it Fox News propaganda? Are they really that gullible?

I give no effs about lazy losers on Medicaid.

There are significant benefits to this bill for the not-rich average American. My DH is a LEO and the no tax on overtime will be huge in our house, we were doing the math on that last night. I expect a lot of middle class people who work an hourly wage will find this benefit substantial.

Deductions for social security is also a big winner.

I am a small business owner and the depreciation of 100% now for equipment is huge. So is the pass through deduction of 20%.

So no we aren’t gullible or stupid, we just know how to read.

All in favor of income redistribution when you are the benficiary. Odd how that works.

Keeping my own income is not redistribution. Jesus Christ people.

Great!

Let me know when you want to fund your own army.

The close to 1 million in federal taxes I’ve paid during my lifetime covers that.

And no doubt your earnings were supported by government spending. Which of these contributed?
-- a stable business environment, created by effective laws and regulations (eg, standardized weights and measures, inspection of organic products, contract enforcement, etc etc etc.)
-- trade with foreign countries
-- fellow workers educated by public schools and free of diseases like polio?
-- COVID loans
-- air travel without constant crashes
-- technology developed from scientific research originally funded by government grants

and so on.

But you go, PP. Surely you deserve your money more than the rest of us.

Um yeah, I do deserve MY MONEY more than YOU DESERVE MY MONEY.

Christ on a cracker.

...more than the rest of us deserve the money we've earned.

What an idiot and an a$$hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

There will be working people who will lose Medicaid because of the onerous requirement to verify their employment every 6 months. There will be working people on Obamacare who will lose health care because of the onerous requirement to re-enroll annually (and pay the subsidy themselves), as opposed to automatic renewal (they also shortened the enrollment timeframe). That is the trick the GOP is relying on — putting obstacles in place so that people will lose what they have.

And, further to this, I have yet to see the data the GOP speaks of regarding all the free-loaders on Medicaid. Most data I see shows that most people who can, are working.

The work requirement.

You’re welcome.

[Anonymous]

If this bill is so great, why wouldn’t MAGA want it to kick in PRIOR to midterms?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes absolutely. For every million in income, you save an average of 66k. You don't have to be a billionaire for this to be significant cost savings.

Every single tax bracket is getting tax relief. And unless you're a non-working adult on medicaid without a legit reason like illness or dependent care, the health aspects won't affect you. And if you are lounging around without a job and getting medicaid, you just get a job like everyone else. It only requires 20 hours of work per week- most people double that. So I don't see the problem.

That concept about lounging around and getting medicaid is so WEIRD, as if medicaid is something you can trade to someone on a street corner outside a bodega for cash to buy drugs or whatever. Also, if you look at the math, it's unlikely there are enough fully able bodied and work capable people getting medicaid to be kicked off to account for the dollars they are cutting. By your own argument, they would be presumptively health enough to not require much in the way of medical care.

Some of these cuts have to do with keeping the medical system functioning, period. For example, Medicaid partially reimburses providers for bad medical debt accrued by dual Medicare/Medicaid patients who by definition are elderly or disabled, and poor. This is debt that is written off by providers as uncollectible, and the provider has to prove that all available means were taken to collect that debt. The reimbursement rate is 65% and helps keep providers in low income areas especially afloat. The program doesn't go away, it becomes much more restrictive and the reimbursement as little as 25%. Keep in mind that's 25% of unpaid charges that are already lower than what most private insurance covers or the "book price" cost of care.

The savings the GOP trumpets do not tell the whole story by any means, and those savings don't come close to covering the 800B cut. They are buried in changes to Social Security laws (which is where Medicaid, for example, is located in the US Code) and all you see in the legislation is "amendment" to some statute, section, line, and would have to spent a year trying to figure out what it actually means in the real world. You have to go to places like kff.org or other places to get information from the experts who have actually dug through this bill and know what it talks about. GOP legislators certainly did not do that.

You need to pick an argument, because you cant have both. You cant both argue that there aren't enough people on medicaid AND that this will cast millions of people into medical poverty. It either has wide reaching effects or it doesn't.

They are mitigating the impact to providers with alternative payments.

Most of the savings come from cutting green energy subsidies anyway.

There will be working people who will lose Medicaid because of the onerous requirement to verify their employment every 6 months. There will be working people on Obamacare who will lose health care because of the onerous requirement to re-enroll annually (and pay the subsidy themselves), as opposed to automatic renewal (they also shortened the enrollment timeframe). That is the trick the GOP is relying on — putting obstacles in place so that people will lose what they have.

And, further to this, I have yet to see the data the GOP speaks of regarding all the free-loaders on Medicaid. Most data I see shows that most people who can, are working.

The work requirement.

You’re welcome.

Your comment does not make any sense. The data I have seen shows that most people on Medicaid ARE working; the GOP has not shown me the data they have. Loss of Medicaid does not equate to the work requirement — some people will lose it because they are unable to verify every 6 months that they are working. Maybe they cannot get away from work to prove they are working. Maybe they are on summer break from school. Maybe they are hospitalized and are thus not in a position to prove they are ill. Maybe they are low IQ and don’t known what they should be doing.