ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

[Anonymous]

I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

But the people voting now are senators. And they are choosing to correct this inequity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

Taking away from others. Shrinking the pie. Moving it around to appease the red states who bailed when they had the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

But the people voting now are senators. And they are choosing to correct this inequity.

By removing pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps from those who have them? That's not correcting an inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

Taking away from others. Shrinking the pie. Moving it around to appease the red states who bailed when they had the chance.

They are not shrinking the pie, but rather more fairly dividing the same pie. California, Maryland, New York, and Mass., which make up 20% of the population but devour 40% of the pie are going to get beat down to their fair share. Liberals are all about everyone paying and getting their fair share, so all will be good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

Taking away from others. Shrinking the pie. Moving it around to appease the red states who bailed when they had the chance.

They are not shrinking the pie, but rather more fairly dividing the same pie. California, Maryland, New York, and Mass., which make up 20% of the population but devour 40% of the pie are going to get beat down to their fair share. Liberals are all about everyone paying and getting their fair share, so all will be good.

Taking away pre-existing conditions is extremely unpopular with all Americans. Trump promised better, cheaper health care. So much winning!

[Anonymous]

At Least 1.4 Million Nonelderly Adults with Disabilities Would Lose Medicaid Under Graham-Cassidy

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/news/2017/09/25/439524/least-1-4-million-nonelderly-adults-disabilities-lose-medicaid-graham-cassidy/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

You are saying that the R Congress are correcting the mistakes of the R governors who chose not to accept the expansion? How are they correcting that mistake? Will they force those Governors to accept the new medicaid expansion?

Why should those Governors accept the expansion under the new bill but not ACA? Why would that be I wonder?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

Taking away from others. Shrinking the pie. Moving it around to appease the red states who bailed when they had the chance.

They are not shrinking the pie, but rather more fairly dividing the same pie. California, Maryland, New York, and Mass., which make up 20% of the population but devour 40% of the pie are going to get beat down to their fair share. Liberals are all about everyone paying and getting their fair share, so all will be good.

You are misinformed. They are shrinking the amount of money going to the states in total


"First and foremost, this is because the block grant funding would be insufficient to maintain coverage levels equivalent to the ACA. The block grant would provide $243 billion less between 2020 and 2026 than projected federal spending for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies under current law. In 2026, block grant funding would be at least $41 billion (17 percent) below projected levels under the ACA."

[Anonymous]

Susan Collins is a no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why liberals are so against people in red states now getting their "fair share" of the subsidies (especially since they were the ones who won the election, largely because they were tired of getting overlooked). Aren't libs about equity and all that? The people in the red states, who are suffering under Obamacare even more than most, will get some relief with this new legislation. True, the people in the blue states will get less, but they were getting more than their fair share. Or are libs only about seeing that poor Democrats (urban poor) get the bucks, and are just fine with the poor Republicans (rural poor) getting the shaft?

Let's divide up the pie more evenly. What could possibly be unfair about that??

That's because the red state governors chose not to participate. They sacrificed the well being of their people to try to make a political point.

+1 Governors played political gamesmanship with the health of their residents just to score points against Obama.

And thankfully the R Congress is hoping to correct that mistake.

Taking away from others. Shrinking the pie. Moving it around to appease the red states who bailed when they had the chance.

They are not shrinking the pie, but rather more fairly dividing the same pie. California, Maryland, New York, and Mass., which make up 20% of the population but devour 40% of the pie are going to get beat down to their fair share. Liberals are all about everyone paying and getting their fair share, so all will be good.

They are a absolutely shrinking the pie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Susan Collins is a no.

Yay! She has more balls than the rest of the Rs put together.