This bill is nothing more than dotage to the Koch's.

Plain and simple. It does nothing for the American public whatsoever, regardless of the spin the GOP is trying to place on it. It will be detrimental to tens of millions of people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which state would that be? Because most of them are going to experience less money sent their way.

There was a map posted on here somewhere that showed which states, of which there were many. Can't remember them all, but Texas was the biggest winner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

Not really. It all depends on how far back you go. These are the blue states who expanded Medicaid and therefore are soaking up the majority of federal dollars. All this bill is doing is re-balancing so that red states get as much help as blue states.

Some of those red states decided not to take the medicaid expansion. So, more money for other states, including blue states.

I know that. Still doesn't refute the fact that the blue states are getting the lion's share. As it stands now, a lower-middle class person in a blue state cannot afford to pay for the very treatment that an "expanded" Medicaid person earning just slightly less gets entirely for free. This bill reverses that inequity, and all states are treated fairly.

By treated fairly you mean that the blue states that pay more to the federal government are now going to subsidizing even more the welfare red states that receive much more from the feds than they give. Conservatives love to cry about those coastal liberal states, but those economic powerhouse states are supporting the poor dependent red states. Welfare queens, that's what those states are. Conservatives are all about state power and lower taxes. So let's have the blue states keep their federal tax dollars in-state, instead of this distribution of income going on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

Not really. It all depends on how far back you go. These are the blue states who expanded Medicaid and therefore are soaking up the majority of federal dollars. All this bill is doing is re-balancing so that red states get as much help as blue states.

Some of those red states decided not to take the medicaid expansion. So, more money for other states, including blue states.

I know that. Still doesn't refute the fact that the blue states are getting the lion's share. As it stands now, a lower-middle class person in a blue state cannot afford to pay for the very treatment that an "expanded" Medicaid person earning just slightly less gets entirely for free. This bill reverses that inequity, and all states are treated fairly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

Not really. It all depends on how far back you go. These are the blue states who expanded Medicaid and therefore are soaking up the majority of federal dollars. All this bill is doing is re-balancing so that red states get as much help as blue states.

Some of those red states decided not to take the medicaid expansion. So, more money for other states, including blue states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

Not really. It all depends on how far back you go. These are the blue states who expanded Medicaid and therefore are soaking up the majority of federal dollars. All this bill is doing is re-balancing so that red states get as much help as blue states.

We don't have money to handle healthcare, says the guy flying at 300k a pop to Aspen.

Anonymous wrote:And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

I don't think citizens know that the pending bill is essentially a give-away to Red Taker states, transferring federal tax dollars paid from Blue states to meet the severe healthcare needs of Red states. It's absurd. We are getting the worst of both worlds - higher taxes for working professionals in blue states without the ability to deduct state taxes.

And here is an article on the impact to state and local government: http://www.governing.com/week-in-finance/gov-finance-roundup-repeal-replace-damaging-states-pennsylvania-downgrade.html

I am surprised there aren't pitchforks and torches from these folks to their reps in DC.

The states that get hurt under this bill are massively subsidizing the red states in aggregate already, so this will put those state legislators and governors int the position of either further subsidies to the rest of the country or further increasing the state and local tax burden (which presumably won't be tax deductible any further on the schedule A).

This is a massive FU to the blue states who have been trying to be responsible to their constituents while providing a boon to red states who have lower state tax burdens but exponentially fewer services for its residents, such as the 4 day school week in Kansas and Oklahoma.

Ironically, Louisiana gets feels the pain as much or more than any other state, yet one of its senators is the author if the bill.

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.

Any links with an easy list of numbers? You all are posting those states have 20% of Medicaid recipients but get 40% of the Medicaid money now from the federal government. Are all other fed to state numbers based on individuals who would get the same in any state?

I just read an article on Philly.com-The Philadelphia Inquirer. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/pa-nj-could-lose-big-under-latest-obamacare-repeal-20170921.html PA loses 12 million and some comments:
where does the 12billion that PA gets come from ?
From federal taxes paid by the people and businesses of Pennsylvania

Under this potential repeal will states be allowed to use state tax dollars towards coverage? Obviously states and therefore their individual taxpayers might be subsidizing other states.

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.

Speaking of the Kochs, I was reminded that they funded a wing of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum. Seems like they're very interested in the story of human evolution. They're probably stomping around in their penthouses beating their chests at the thought of killing off so many of us with just the stroke of a pen.

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.

You think Chris Christie and Scott Walker are going to decide "what is best for their electorate"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Yes I do.

They have yet to do it during their tenures. Why would they start now?

Forget during their tenure. You want CHRIS CHRISTIE determining anything related to HEALTH? Okay then. Let me ask Keith Richards what he thinks about naturalizing and heading up the DEA.

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.

You think Chris Christie and Scott Walker are going to decide "what is best for their electorate"? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Yes I do.

They have yet to do it during their tenures. Why would they start now?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Which state would that be? Because most of them are going to experience less money sent their way.