Scotus decision is a slap in the face to all those obstinate republican governors

[SoCalDem]

Last edited Thu Jun 25, 2015, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

who (probably) conspired to deliberately NOT set up state exchanges. They were determined to try to screw up the ACA roll-out. They gave their own citizens NO THOUGHT, even to the point of refusing to expand the FREE (to the state for a number of years) Medicaid money.

They willingly sacrificed the medical needs of their own people, just to mess with the ACA..

The federal exchange was always meant to be the fall-back position for a few stragglers that did not get their exchanges up and running in time..

Part of the reason there were so many glitches, is because they created an emergency situation, just because they could..

And many of them were actually re-elected

[Fred Sanders]

1. The fascist Governors denying ACA subsides and benefits to their citizens through a state exchange are evil.

And I am holding back my real feelings about them and their fascist, corrupt, money grubbing, power lusting false 'Christian' kin.

But when the mass media choose - never mind the boot-licking of the likes of cable news and CNN - to treat the likes of Trump and crew as not the racist pigs that they, as somehow not the spitting image of The Ugly American, whatya gonna do?

[missingthebigdog]

2. The governors aren't denying ACA subsidies

In the states that refused to set up exchanges, people can buy their health insurance, and receive their subsidies, through the federal exchanges. Their eligibility for those subsidies was the subject of today's decision.

What the fascist governors ARE denying people is access to healthcare if they are poor. In states that have refused to expand Medicaid, those living in poverty are in a catch 22 situation in which they aren't poor enough for Medicaid but are too poor for subsidies.

Today's decision doesn't help them....

[Fred Sanders]

3. Thanks, I stand corrected on the subsidies.

[Scuba]

4. Prime example: Squat Wanker, who thinks punishing the poor will get him to the White House.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. It's not even free money. It's money the people paid to the federal government.

It's their own money.

One of the most important jobs of a state delegation (governor, congressperson, and senator) is to ensure a state brings their (more than) fair share home.

Granted, these right-wing paradise states are mostly poor and get more than their fair share sucking on the government teet they hate so much. But why stop now?

[Octafish]

6. If we had a news media with Integrity, the nation would know this part of the story.

Instead, it's whatever is needed to maintain the rich getting richer and the Democrats getting blamed and shafted for the heck of it will be foisted for all to contemplate.

[gratuitous]

7. Yes, they were re-elected

I'll give you a clue as to why: Check out the comments to any story you see online about the Supreme Court decision yesterday. I went to MSN a couple of times. Chock full of rants about tyranny and loss of freedom (to die from a wholly treatable conditions, I'm guessing), but mostly about masses of unidentified people who are too lazy to get jobs, who just want something for nothing from the government, and proud posters who declaim again and again just how tired they are of paying for other people's benefits and entitlements.

Now, where do you suppose so many people got the exact same misinformation? So many of the posts are near-verbatim rants about lazy moochers. They're about one handgun away from being Dylann Roof 2.0.

[lame54]

8. Many of these rants are from ACA recipients

[Jim Lane]

9. I disagree. Whether to set up a state exchange was a nonconsequential administrative decision.

One of the major points made in defense of the subsidies in the recent SCOTUS case was that no one interpreted the law as restricting subsidies to participants in state exchanges. In none of the states was there any history of "Let's set up an exchange to make sure our people get subsidies." That whole argument, which has been (and is still being) touted by the right-wingers as self-evident from the text of the ACA, was invented for the first time long after the statute had passed.

I'm actually surprised that so many states did set up their own exchanges. If the feds would be doing it anyway, why bother?

The real point, as noted upthread, is the decision not to expand Medicaid. Unlike the question of state exchange versus federal exchange, the question of Medicaid expansion had a real impact on the well-being of many of each state's citizens.