ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

And you enjoy commie soros money. We have nothing on you and planned parenthood and your idol Margaret Sanger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

So the proposed plan in the current bill is so good that they had to bribe her to vote for it by allowing her state to keep the plan they are repealing? This is batshit crazy. ANd it would be hilarious if so many things were at stake. This is Keystone cops politics.

Murkowski isn't voting for it. Apparently people were thanking her back in Alaska for voting against it.

really good story on why the GOP decided to beat this dead horse one last time - their wealthy donors back home demanded it during the August recess:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/behind-the-senate-gops-high-stakes-health-care-gamble-unrelenting-criticism-back-home/2017/09/21/fad330da-9e44-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html

I'm wondering if they are just hoping that if they keep brining it up for a vote, the holdouts will get tired of it and just vote yes. Then they can say, "See, we delivered -- even though it's a pile of dung. Now you can't say we didn't do what we said we'd do."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So they are bribing Murkowski by telling her Alaska can keep Obamacare if she is willing to repeal for the rest of the country

WTAF

So the proposed plan in the current bill is so good that they had to bribe her to vote for it by allowing her state to keep the plan they are repealing? This is batshit crazy. ANd it would be hilarious if so many things were at stake. This is Keystone cops politics.

Murkowski isn't voting for it. Apparently people were thanking her back in Alaska for voting against it.

really good story on why the GOP decided to beat this dead horse one last time - their wealthy donors back home demanded it during the August recess:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/behind-the-senate-gops-high-stakes-health-care-gamble-unrelenting-criticism-back-home/2017/09/21/fad330da-9e44-11e7-8ea1-ed975285475e_story.html

Lol wash Po Po nope, not buying it.

[Anonymous]

24% approval rating for this legislation.

Own it GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

In giving it to the states, the best part is CA, MA, NY, and MD are all big losers. 40% of current funds go to these 4 states and new bill will ratchet them back to a prorata share over 10 years. Love it.

[Anonymous]

PP, those 4 states only have 20% of the population but due to their expanded m%edicare get 40% of current federal funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

In giving it to the states, the best part is CA, MA, NY, and MD are all big losers. 40% of current funds go to these 4 states and new bill will ratchet them back to a prorata share over 10 years. Love it.

And Virginia, a red state, is coming out a winner.

[Anonymous]

If a winner is fewer people covered, then sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a winner is fewer people covered, then sure.

More money for the state to use to help people buy health insurance

As far as "fewer," you mean that people who don't want to be forced to buy health care and only do to avoid a penalty will now have the option whether to purchase? They're not being kicked off the system - they are voluntarily opting out.

[Anonymous]

This "repeal" bill is better than the one that was voted down a couple of months ago. This new one still has subsidies, in effect. It balances out the subsidy money among states in the form of bloc grants, and each state can use the funds to help provide care for its constituents. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement on what we have now:

- insurers leaving exchanges in droves and fully 1/3 of U.S. counties having only ONE exchange option
- in many instances poor people getting for free what middle-income people have to go without, due to unaffordability
- choice has been decimated while premiums have risen at an exorbitant rate - and all for less coverage (via sky-high deductibles).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

In giving it to the states, the best part is CA, MA, NY, and MD are all big losers. 40% of current funds go to these 4 states and new bill will ratchet them back to a prorata share over 10 years. Love it.

And Virginia, a red state, is coming out a winner.

Virginia is a red state? LOL. Uh, no. Gov -D. Senators - D. 2016 presidential pick -D

If it weren't for gerrymandering, Virginia would be pure blue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

In giving it to the states, the best part is CA, MA, NY, and MD are all big losers. 40% of current funds go to these 4 states and new bill will ratchet them back to a prorata share over 10 years. Love it.

And Virginia, a red state, is coming out a winner.

Virginia is a red state? LOL. Uh, no. Gov -D. Senators - D. 2016 presidential pick -D

If it weren't for gerrymandering, Virginia would be pure blue.

No, you're right. Technically not a red state. I shouldn't have said that. What I meant was that Virginia "acted" as a red state in refusing the Medicaid expansion giveaway. (That was because the Republican legislature block the D governor's wish to take the money.) So, as a result, VA is now coming out a money when they distribute these state grants.

[Anonymous]

Let's see, do I trust a bunch of opinions of random DCUM posters, or do I trust the opinions of every single medical association, all 50 state medicaid directors and virtually any valid professional practitioner opinion in the medical field that this GOP bill will be a catastrophe for the country?


Hmmm, I am not sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a state issue, period. Let the Governors decide what is best for their electorate. It would be much easier to fight at the state level if you have a problem than to plow through federal bureaucracy. All the Feds will do is forever keep throwing money at it, it needs to go.

Pointlessly cruel. May you "pro-lifers" forever bear the shame and stigma of doing your level best to kill as many as possible. Get that Koch money.

You're a bunch of greedy psychos.

And you enjoy commie soros money. We have nothing on you and planned parenthood and your idol Margaret Sanger.

Soros fled communist Hungary and has devoted much of his money and life to strengthening emerging democracies in former communist countries, so your post is automatically invalidated by your false description of him.