Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.

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?

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.

Show me where he said ACA was "fair and equitable"?

And I repeat... 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? 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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.

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?

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.

Show me where he said ACA was "fair and equitable"?

And I repeat... 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? 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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Obama bribed the last holdouts for his Obamacsre disaster. It's politics as usual.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Yea, that's really "fair and equitable". If you have to bribe these folks maybe there's something wrong with the bill?

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to bribe their colleagues, particularly Collins and Murkowski. How insulting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now the Trump Administration is out to completely sabotage the American public by severely limiting the ability of ACA subscribers to enroll in the 2018 cycle.

Truly deplorable.

+1

Anonymous wrote:So now the Trump Administration is out to completely sabotage the American public by severely limiting the ability of ACA subscribers to enroll in the 2018 cycle.

Truly deplorable.

Anonymous wrote:For all of the bitching about ACA, the Republicans STILL haven't come up with a better solution despite having nearly 8 years to work on one.

I'm sick of hearing your bitching at this point.