Reply to ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "ACA being repealed, why no outrage here?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.[/quote]
Yea, that's really "fair and equitable".  If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?[/quote]
Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.[/quote]
But Obama never touted it to be "fair and equitable".  And those red states that are getting more now only are because they declined the medicaid expansion in the first place.  Why didn't they take the medicaid expansion with ACA but are willing to do so now?[/quote]
He didn't? He went on the airwaves and announced that his new health care plan would be unfair, and prohibitively expensive, to many lower-middle class workers? I don't recall that. All I remember is his promise that we would lower premiums by $2500 a family on average, and everyone could keep their doctors and their plans. MORE people covered, with BETTER insurance, and LESS EXPENSIVE to boot! What could possibly go wrong?

And true, the red states will get more because this new plan corrects this uneven application of subsidies. (Virginia is a blue state, but will get more, BTW.) For the last few years, a greater amount of taxpayer funds went to Medicaid expanded states, and the other states had to subsidize them. This new plan sees that the freebies are distributed evenly. Much more fair.[/quote]
Show me where he said ACA was "fair and equitable"?

And I repeat...  [b]And those red states that are getting more now only are because they declined the medicaid expansion in the first place.  Why didn't they take the medicaid expansion with ACA but are willing to do so now?[/b]  Why did they force their lower/middle income people to pay the tax penalty instead of providing a way to get medical insurance through the exchange via subsidies?[/quote]
Because, first, unlike Democrats, they didn't want to obligate middle-class taxpayers to a program that wasn't affordable, for either them or the state, in order to give more freebies to people lower down on the income scale. That's unfair. And two, it's a different situation when the money is distributed evenly, rather than when states like CA and NY take up the lion's share. This is much more fair, and how it should have been from the start. There never should have been a Medicaid expansion "opt-in" in the first place, and now we are correcting the problem.

But....why are liberals mocking conservatives in red states as voting in such a way that they will be worse off - and yet at the same time acknowledging that the red states are going to get more federal subsidy dollars? The red states will be better off after the correction, and that is what they voted for. [/quote]
They forced the lower/middle class folks to either pay the penalty or buy insurance with zero subsidies.   The other states are much larger and they took the medicaid expansion.  It makes sense that they should get more.  It's why NY and CA have more House of  Reps than say a state like AK.  The authors of the new bill are trying to bribe AK to vote for it by saying that AK can keep ACA.  How is that "fair" to the other states?

I agree.. states shouldn't have been able to decline the medicaid expansion. It should've been forced on them to help the lower/middle class people.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics