119
Red states hopeful for a 2nd Trump term prepare to curtail Medicaid
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
119 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19096 readers
2487 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The GOP logic doesn't compute. Do they think that all the working poor are just going to stop working if they could actually go to a Dr. and perhaps get healthier? Do they suddenly have no bills? The unemployment rate is also 3.7% right now, how many people do they possibly think they could "force" to work for health coverage that don't work currently because they have to pay bills they can barely cover? I would love to see them just try and produce some kind of statistics behind of this that shows anything other than just "we need to punish the poor", because apparently being poor has always been something we need to punish.
I have quite a few Republican family members who are wildly opposed to "socialist government healthcare" while being on...yes...Medicare. Go figure.
That’s why Bernie branded his universal healthcare proposal as Medicare for All — medicare is wildly popular.
It's like the people that are strongly against unemployment, you pay into the damn thing so you have it when you need it. Nobody is giving you a hand out, you are just getting back money you allowed the government to make interest/investments with. And having healthier people just seems like a net win for society, but I think some of these people just don't want "those people" to have it, so it's easier and less racist looking to take it away from everyone.
It helps when you acknowledge that the 3.7% tells us nothing.
The government changed the way unemployment is calculated in 1994, so it doesn't count full time seeking people out of work for more than 3 months - the 'chronically' dispossessed. They put the onus on the individual, absolving their system of any defect. "Clearly" they aren't applying enough or trying hard enough, otherwise they wouldn't be unemployed
Do you ever get the feeling that these definitions are written by people whove never experienced what they're defining? Some admins child/nephew/hush money babysitter dropped into a government stipend, by right of birth, or access to those with capital.
Unfortunately when the data gets crunched the old fashioned way, real unemployment is hovering around 24.6%
Which is much more likely, imo, as inflation has made large swathes of lower pay work unteneble for anyone not hyperlocal. Pair this with the pandemic training on financial subsistence living, of those who are sidestepping the system.
We live in an era of income inequality greater than at any other known in modern western history. It was easier to buy a house during the great depression. One set of facts seems in line with that, and one doesn't. I wonder why that would be..