Let's Look At Some Political Maps

[Seawytch]

The GOP fucked up, big time. They fucked up ten years ago when they had all the power and did not get out in front of the issue of rising healthcare costs outpacing inflation. They handed the issue to the Democrats on a silver platter.

And now we are on our way to single payer healthcare.

Thanks a lot, assholes.

Didn't the GOP "get ahead of this" in 1989 when the Heritage Foundation proposed the individual mandate?

 

[Mustang]

some states obviously believe in the free market.....even when applied to the healthcare industry....that 90% can always be changed with the flick of a pen...

the GOP has proposed all kinds of reform....it's a party with many new ideas....in fact the Demrats steal them (like Romneycare)....compared to the GOP the Demrats are a top-down monolith and behave like the Borg....it's hard to compete when they control the mainstream media...so 'blockage' of course becomes the last resort....

i agree that the GOP 'moderates' are a bunch of backassward idiots who cave at almost every turn.....it's time the TPs take over...

Free markets? Most companies hate free markets and competition because then they have to compete based on price and service. But all things being equal, they prefer to be in a position where they can offer you a product that you have little choice other than to take it or leave it, and they use gov't to help them in that regard. That's one of the reasons that healthcare companies segment the market the way they do. And you don't really hear about cable companies competing with each other, do you? They promise lower rates, and then the rates go up because they don't have any real competition outside of possibly satellite providers whose business plan is most successful in rural areas where there is no cable service.

The point is that business WANT gov't to help them maintain a relative monopoly in certain areas.

the point is to have government that ALLOWS free markets to exist....Ocare doesn't cut it...

Whether Ocare ends up being a rousing success, a moderate success, a moderate failure, or a flop, I couldn't say. But it DOES promote competition with several providers (the number depends on the state) competing for customers who are able to review plans, all of which must provide certain minimum standards of care and preventive care (which should lower costs). And that review is pretty much like an end of year open enrollment period in business when people get to choose between plans.

 

[Mustang]

Let's be honest here, Kiddies...

ObamaCare is going to prohibitively expensive because the healthy folks that are supposed to sign up for it simply won't. Why would you pay a high premium for coverage that chances are you won't be using when in a worst case scenario you can sign up for coverage after you've become sick or injured because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition? So the bulk of the people who WILL be signing up for ObamaCare coverage will be the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions...meaning the cost of the program will be high to treat those expensive patients.

So ask yourself what's going to happen then?

While you CAN sign up for coverage after you become sick or injured, I don't think you can be immediately treated under your plan since there's a waiting period. Undoubtedly, you'll end up in an ER somewhere LONG before you'll ever see a doctor under your new plan.

And that's not what's meant by a previous condition anyway. I believe that the definition of a previous condition is something that's on your medical record because you were once diagnosed and treated for it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Free markets? Most companies hate free markets and competition because then they have to compete based on price and service. But all things being equal, they prefer to be in a position where they can offer you a product that you have little choice other than to take it or leave it, and they use gov't to help them in that regard. That's one of the reasons that healthcare companies segment the market the way they do. And you don't really hear about cable companies competing with each other, do you? They promise lower rates, and then the rates go up because they don't have any real competition outside of possibly satellite providers whose business plan is most successful in rural areas where there is no cable service.

The point is that business WANT gov't to help them maintain a relative monopoly in certain areas.

the point is to have government that ALLOWS free markets to exist....Ocare doesn't cut it...

Whether Ocare ends up being a rousing success, a moderate success, a moderate failure, or a flop, I couldn't say. But it DOES promote competition with several providers (the number depends on the state) competing for customers who are able to review plans, all of which must provide certain minimum standards of care and preventive care (which should lower costs). And that review is pretty much like an end of year open enrollment period in business when people get to choose between plans.

how can you say it PROMOTES competition when the regulations have already made many insurers DROP OUT of the competition because it's too expensive.....and the few remaining will wind up either raising rates even higher or else drop out or go bankrupt because of too few healthy members and too many sick ones....

 

[Mustang]

the point is to have government that ALLOWS free markets to exist....Ocare doesn't cut it...

Whether Ocare ends up being a rousing success, a moderate success, a moderate failure, or a flop, I couldn't say. But it DOES promote competition with several providers (the number depends on the state) competing for customers who are able to review plans, all of which must provide certain minimum standards of care and preventive care (which should lower costs). And that review is pretty much like an end of year open enrollment period in business when people get to choose between plans.

how can you say it PROMOTES competition when the regulations have already made many insurers DROP OUT of the competition because it's too expensive.....and the few remaining will wind up either raising rates even higher or else drop out or go bankrupt because of too few healthy members and too many sick ones....

You know, when conservatives talk about regulations it's as if they see them as some kind of evil that's inflicted on otherwise innocent businesses who are just trying to help people in some altruistic way. That's not the case.

Now, while I would never make the claim that every regulation is a great idea or has the intended effect without any unintended negative side effects, I can say that over several decades the regulation of insurance companies has helped to keep policy holders from getting ripped off by unscrupulous people who would have absolutely no problem with taking premiums while offering little or no coverage for what policy holders pay if they could get away with doing so.

My understanding is that the ACA mandates that insurance companies have to meet certain minimum standards of care, and preventive care etc. If they can't achieve that, or if their business model is such that their target market is not the general public, then it's best for all concerned if they don't participate. And they're not forced to participate from what I can tell. Maybe they'll choose to compete at another time when they have their costs more in line or once they see how their competitors are faring.

But I CAN tell you that there's an old axiom in economic theory that postulates the following question: How does a company know that it should enter a particular market? And the answer to that question is this: They know to enter the market if the least efficient company among the current competitors is making a profit. So, the point is this: If other companies are making money, new companies will want to enter the market and compete for those healthcare dollars.

 

[auditor0007]

Just a quick question, when the healthcare.gov website goes out in all 50 states, how many pissed off voters will there be in 2014?

Thought I'd run that by you.

Healthcare.gov is not for all 50 states. It is for all those red states which refused to set up their own state exchanges.

A lot of blue states have set up their own exchanges and their citizens don't have anything to do with healthcare.gov. They are singing up by the thousands on their state web sites. Every day, more and more people are getting health insurance. ObamaCare membership is growing and growing and growing. This is why I keep saying the GOP better get in front of that really quick.

Just more stupid shit the GOP fucked up on. "Fuck you. We didn't set up a state exchange, so you will just have to use that fucked up federal site. You're welcome!"

why should states let the Feds increase their Medicaid programs when they are going broke to begin with....?

instead of whining about it.....why not promote and try some GOP plans like allowing cross-state plans and limiting malpractice costs and giving individuals the same tax bennies that companies get....etc.

Cross state plans are no answer at all. Just because you allow a company that operates in Mississippi to sell insurance in New York doesn't mean the people in New York will get the same low rates as people in Mississippi. Rates are based on demographics of a certain area along with the cost of healthcare in that area, not the cost of healthcare in Mississippi.

 

[Vox]

Cross state plans are no answer at all. Just because you allow a company that operates in Mississippi to sell insurance in New York doesn't mean the people in New York will get the same low rates as people in Mississippi. Rates are based on demographics of a certain area along with the cost of healthcare in that area, not the cost of healthcare in Mississippi.

so why you are so opposed to that? if that won't work - they will withdraw from the market. yet dimocraps (and you singing their music) are fighting nail and tooth the most simple provision which won't cost anybody anything and may bring prices down.
WHY ARE YOU,LEFTARDS, SO AGAINST IT?

 

[Trajan]

Here is a list of state legislatures which shows which party controls each chamber:

Here is a map of which states are and are not expanding Medicaid under the ACA:

“It is sad that in New Hampshire, you can stay at home, raise your kids and not work and get food stamps and health care, but then those of us who are actually working and paying taxes and trying to help ourselves can’t get a little bit of insurance for health care,” said Billie Jo Buskey, owner of a Plymouth hair salon.

Buskey, 35, and her husband, a landscaper, both started working at age 14 and make just under $28,000 a year. But that is too much to qualify for Medicaid under New Hampshire’s current income guidelines. Neither can afford health insurance so they go without. Their sons, ages 5 and 13, are covered by Medicaid, which has more generous eligibility criteria for children.

Buskey prides herself on paying her bills – mortgage, phone, electricity, and day care — on time. Last year she needed to have her gall bladder removed, and now owes the hospital more than $8,000, which will take her nearly six years to pay off at $115 a month.

“I’d much rather pay $115 a month for health insurance than $115 a month to pay off one hospital bill,” she said. It is still unclear what private coverage options would be affordable to Buskey and her husband, if any, without Medicaid expansion.

A couple who works their ass off would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, but they are being blocked by the Republicans in their state legislature. And this is wrecking them financially.

The people are not going to forget this.

The issue ad writes itself:

“Once again, they’re playing a political game in saying no to all aspects of Obamacare, no matter how common sense and right for us as a state and as a nation,’’ said Kary Jencks of the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance, a social justice advocacy group. “The folks who end up paying a price are the hard-working middle- and low-income people.’’

So while all the right wing pundits are gleefully poking a stick at the snafu'd federal website, the real pain is going to last much longer for those who are being blocked from Medicaid by the GOP.

The website will get fixed. The denial of Medicaid will, too, when the citizens kick the GOP to the curb.

The GOP is playing a very, very dangerous game. If the state legislatures change color because the GOP is perceived as denying healthcare access to hardworking people, those newly blue legislatures are going to redraw congressional districts, and that will change the color of the House of Representatives. For a long, long, long time.

Republicans in the Legislature have blocked the state from participating in a federally funded expansion of the Medicaid program, meaning that up to 58,000 Granite State residents are in line to be denied coverage.

58,000 pissed off voters in a small state.

New Hampshire's state Senate is red. 13 Republicans to 11 Democrats.

58,000 pissed off voters like the hard working couple.


Let's see what color NH Senate is 14 months from now.

I think I understand your angst, and you have a point to a point.

I say would first, that even if they embraced the obamacare vision and 'let' those folks jump on medicaid 'they' still need to pay for it, those federal $ may come and they may not, ask Cali. how easy it is for them to collect the $$ due them for border enforcement.......second- maybe, just ,maybe they know that tis thing won't pan out, as in those 3 million invincibles signing up to help carry Obamacaid.....if they don't, then...?

 

[Freewill]

Why didn't she have catastrophic insurance.....?

it would probably have only cost about $100/month...and would have covered her gall bladder operation...

this plus saving some pre-tax dollars in a Health Savings Account for regular checkups would be an effective plan...

Taking personal responsibility? Really that is the best you got to offer the liberals? My gosh man I am sure no one on the left even mentioned anything but relying on the government and see where it got her.

 

[g5000]

Healthcare.gov is not for all 50 states. It is for all those red states which refused to set up their own state exchanges.

A lot of blue states have set up their own exchanges and their citizens don't have anything to do with healthcare.gov. They are singing up by the thousands on their state web sites. Every day, more and more people are getting health insurance. ObamaCare membership is growing and growing and growing. This is why I keep saying the GOP better get in front of that really quick.

Just more stupid shit the GOP fucked up on. "Fuck you. We didn't set up a state exchange, so you will just have to use that fucked up federal site. You're welcome!"

why should states let the Feds increase their Medicaid programs when they are going broke to begin with....?

instead of whining about it.....why not promote and try some GOP plans like allowing cross-state plans and limiting malpractice costs and giving individuals the same tax bennies that companies get....etc.

Cross state plans are no answer at all. Just because you allow a company that operates in Mississippi to sell insurance in New York doesn't mean the people in New York will get the same low rates as people in Mississippi. Rates are based on demographics of a certain area along with the cost of healthcare in that area, not the cost of healthcare in Mississippi.

Does a senior citizen in Mississippi pay lower rates for Medicare than a senior citizen in New York?

 

[g5000]

I think I understand your angst, and you have a point to a point.

I say would first, that even if they embraced the obamacare vision and 'let' those folks jump on medicaid 'they' still need to pay for it, those federal $ may come and they may not, ask Cali. how easy it is for them to collect the $$ due them for border enforcement.......second- maybe, just ,maybe they know that tis thing won't pan out, as in those 3 million invincibles signing up to help carry Obamacaid.....if they don't, then...?

When Massachusetts enacted RomneyCare, the "invincibles" waited until the last minute before signing up. It is only natural that those who want insurance, and who have been unable to get it, will sign up first. And it is only natural those who don't want it will wait until the last minute to sign up. I think we will see a rush of young and healthy people signing up when the deadline approaches for them. The fine for not participating was cheaper than insurance in Massachusetts, but people still obeyed the mandate nevertheless.

If the GOP is counting on ObamaCare failing, they are on the wrong side of that gamble. RomneyCare grew and grew in popularity. Five years after enactment, 74 percent of the people of Massachusetts said they wanted to keep it around, even though half said it still needed tweaks to fix it.

That is a super-super-majority.

Hoping ObamaCare will fail vs. working to defeat it are two different things, and people are going to remember the GOP worked to defeat it.

 

[Seawytch]

Healthcare.gov is not for all 50 states. It is for all those red states which refused to set up their own state exchanges.

A lot of blue states have set up their own exchanges and their citizens don't have anything to do with healthcare.gov. They are singing up by the thousands on their state web sites. Every day, more and more people are getting health insurance. ObamaCare membership is growing and growing and growing. This is why I keep saying the GOP better get in front of that really quick.

Just more stupid shit the GOP fucked up on. "Fuck you. We didn't set up a state exchange, so you will just have to use that fucked up federal site. You're welcome!"

why should states let the Feds increase their Medicaid programs when they are going broke to begin with....?

instead of whining about it.....why not promote and try some GOP plans like allowing cross-state plans and limiting malpractice costs and giving individuals the same tax bennies that companies get....etc.

Cross state plans are no answer at all. Just because you allow a company that operates in Mississippi to sell insurance in New York doesn't mean the people in New York will get the same low rates as people in Mississippi. Rates are based on demographics of a certain area along with the cost of healthcare in that area, not the cost of healthcare in Mississippi.

Cross state plans seldom work because each state has it's own laws. However, there is a provision in the ACA for companies to do just that...as long as they meet certain criteria.

 

[Trajan]

I think I understand your angst, and you have a point to a point.

I say would first, that even if they embraced the obamacare vision and 'let' those folks jump on medicaid 'they' still need to pay for it, those federal $ may come and they may not, ask Cali. how easy it is for them to collect the $$ due them for border enforcement.......second- maybe, just ,maybe they know that tis thing won't pan out, as in those 3 million invincibles signing up to help carry Obamacaid.....if they don't, then...?

When Massachusetts enacted RomneyCare, the "invincibles" waited until the last minute before signing up. It is only natural that those who want insurance, and who have been unable to get it, will sign up first. And it is only natural those who don't want it will wait until the last minute to sign up. I think we will see a rush of young and healthy people signing up when the deadline approaches for them. The fine for not participating was cheaper than insurance in Massachusetts, but people still obeyed the mandate nevertheless.

If the GOP is counting on ObamaCare failing, they are on the wrong side of that gamble. RomneyCare grew and grew in popularity. Five years after enactment, 74 percent of the people of Massachusetts said they wanted to keep it around, even though half said it still needed tweaks to fix it.

That is a super-super-majority.

Hoping ObamaCare will fail vs. working to defeat it are two different things, and people are going to remember the GOP worked to defeat it.

be that as it may, Romneycare is not sustainable, as a sate they just have not caught on yet, wait times etc. are multiplying, and.....well, here, I picked a fairly 'neutral source';

Is RomneyCare Working? - Hit & Run : Reason.com


look, a state is a state, they can especially in a state where in the leg. is controlled by one party and a friendly gov. make changes, pick one pocket to put money in another, they need to and raise taxes fees etc. on the fly, read the article, then remember economy of scale and the entire nation swallowing this all at once.

you might this interesting too.....

http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/si...cation/MassHealth Revenue Chartpack FINAL.pdf

 

[rdean]

I think I understand your angst, and you have a point to a point.

I say would first, that even if they embraced the obamacare vision and 'let' those folks jump on medicaid 'they' still need to pay for it, those federal $ may come and they may not, ask Cali. how easy it is for them to collect the $$ due them for border enforcement.......second- maybe, just ,maybe they know that tis thing won't pan out, as in those 3 million invincibles signing up to help carry Obamacaid.....if they don't, then...?

When Massachusetts enacted RomneyCare, the "invincibles" waited until the last minute before signing up. It is only natural that those who want insurance, and who have been unable to get it, will sign up first. And it is only natural those who don't want it will wait until the last minute to sign up. I think we will see a rush of young and healthy people signing up when the deadline approaches for them. The fine for not participating was cheaper than insurance in Massachusetts, but people still obeyed the mandate nevertheless.

If the GOP is counting on ObamaCare failing, they are on the wrong side of that gamble. RomneyCare grew and grew in popularity. Five years after enactment, 74 percent of the people of Massachusetts said they wanted to keep it around, even though half said it still needed tweaks to fix it.

That is a super-super-majority.

Hoping ObamaCare will fail vs. working to defeat it are two different things, and people are going to remember the GOP worked to defeat it.

be that as it may, Romneycare is not sustainable, as a sate they just have not caught on yet, wait times etc. are multiplying, and.....well, here, I picked a fairly 'neutral source';

Is RomneyCare Working? - Hit & Run : Reason.com


look, a state is a state, they can especially in a state where in the leg. is controlled by one party and a friendly gov. make changes, pick one pocket to put money in another, they need to and raise taxes fees etc. on the fly, read the article, then remember economy of scale and the entire nation swallowing this all at once.

you might this interesting too.....

http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/si...cation/MassHealth Revenue Chartpack FINAL.pdf

The Democratic Party is not really "one party". It's a coalition. It has had to form a consensus before a public position and it has been that way for years.

Republicans are 90% white. The crazies lead that party.

And that's why your post falls apart.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's be honest here, Kiddies...

ObamaCare is going to prohibitively expensive because the healthy folks that are supposed to sign up for it simply won't. Why would you pay a high premium for coverage that chances are you won't be using when in a worst case scenario you can sign up for coverage after you've become sick or injured because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition? So the bulk of the people who WILL be signing up for ObamaCare coverage will be the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions...meaning the cost of the program will be high to treat those expensive patients.

So ask yourself what's going to happen then?

Because after this year the open enrollment period will be about 6 weeks from mid October to the beginning of December.

Healthy people will sign up for preventive care as well. Screenings, tests, and check ups will have no out of pocket costs.

Also ACA has been most popular with the younger generation...which happens to be among the most healthy.

Let's see how "popular" it is once the younger generation discovers what it's going to cost them out of pocket every month. I'm making the prediction right now that the kids have a change of heart once they have to start ponying up to pay for the folks with pre-existing conditions and the ones who will be getting huge subsidies. I predict that they will do everything they can NOT to get stuck paying for this.

 

[Oldstyle]

When Massachusetts enacted RomneyCare, the "invincibles" waited until the last minute before signing up. It is only natural that those who want insurance, and who have been unable to get it, will sign up first. And it is only natural those who don't want it will wait until the last minute to sign up. I think we will see a rush of young and healthy people signing up when the deadline approaches for them. The fine for not participating was cheaper than insurance in Massachusetts, but people still obeyed the mandate nevertheless.

If the GOP is counting on ObamaCare failing, they are on the wrong side of that gamble. RomneyCare grew and grew in popularity. Five years after enactment, 74 percent of the people of Massachusetts said they wanted to keep it around, even though half said it still needed tweaks to fix it.

That is a super-super-majority.

Hoping ObamaCare will fail vs. working to defeat it are two different things, and people are going to remember the GOP worked to defeat it.

be that as it may, Romneycare is not sustainable, as a sate they just have not caught on yet, wait times etc. are multiplying, and.....well, here, I picked a fairly 'neutral source';

Is RomneyCare Working? - Hit & Run : Reason.com


look, a state is a state, they can especially in a state where in the leg. is controlled by one party and a friendly gov. make changes, pick one pocket to put money in another, they need to and raise taxes fees etc. on the fly, read the article, then remember economy of scale and the entire nation swallowing this all at once.

you might this interesting too.....

http://bluecrossmafoundation.org/si...cation/MassHealth Revenue Chartpack FINAL.pdf

The Democratic Party is not really "one party". It's a coalition. It has had to form a consensus before a public position and it has been that way for years.

Republicans are 90% white. The crazies lead that party.

And that's why your post falls apart.

And yet those "crazies" keep nominating the most moderate Republican running! That's why YOUR post falls apart! You keep trying to paint the GOP as "extreme" and they keep nominating guys like McCain and Romney who don't have an extreme bone in their bodies. Gee, how do you explain THAT, Deanie! Duh?

 

[Jackson]

Let's be honest here, Kiddies...

ObamaCare is going to prohibitively expensive because the healthy folks that are supposed to sign up for it simply won't. Why would you pay a high premium for coverage that chances are you won't be using when in a worst case scenario you can sign up for coverage after you've become sick or injured because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition? So the bulk of the people who WILL be signing up for ObamaCare coverage will be the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions...meaning the cost of the program will be high to treat those expensive patients.

So ask yourself what's going to happen then?

Because after this year the open enrollment period will be about 6 weeks from mid October to the beginning of December.

Healthy people will sign up for preventive care as well. Screenings, tests, and check ups will have no out of pocket costs.

Also ACA has been most popular with the younger generation...which happens to be among the most healthy.

Wrong:
The open enrollment (Oct - Dec.) is a fiasco. Actual ewnrollment will be after the first of the year.

The word is out that the cost is prohibitive. Younger people will not be signing up for ACA.

Since people can sign up with pre conditions, they will wait until they are sick.

Since only the sick will probably sign up for insurance right away, the cost of medical procedures will be very costly for the insurance companies.

 

[Nyvin]

Let's be honest here, Kiddies...

ObamaCare is going to prohibitively expensive because the healthy folks that are supposed to sign up for it simply won't. Why would you pay a high premium for coverage that chances are you won't be using when in a worst case scenario you can sign up for coverage after you've become sick or injured because you can't be denied for a pre-existing condition? So the bulk of the people who WILL be signing up for ObamaCare coverage will be the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions...meaning the cost of the program will be high to treat those expensive patients.

So ask yourself what's going to happen then?

Because after this year the open enrollment period will be about 6 weeks from mid October to the beginning of December.

Healthy people will sign up for preventive care as well. Screenings, tests, and check ups will have no out of pocket costs.

Also ACA has been most popular with the younger generation...which happens to be among the most healthy.

Wrong:
The open enrollment (Oct - Dec.) is a fiasco. Actual ewnrollment will be after the first of the year.

The word is out that the cost is prohibitive. Younger people will not be signing up for ACA.

Since people can sign up with pre conditions, they will wait until they are sick.

Since only the sick will probably sign up for insurance right away, the cost of medical procedures will be very costly for the insurance companies.

"is a fiasco"???? You're speaking greek..please elaborate.

Also...it's largely just scare-mongering on who will/will not sign up, right now we don't have a clue who will. I'd say this isn't a time to pull a Dick Morris and call the shots before the shots are fired.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is a list of state legislatures which shows which party controls each chamber:

Here is a map of which states are and are not expanding Medicaid under the ACA:

“It is sad that in New Hampshire, you can stay at home, raise your kids and not work and get food stamps and health care, but then those of us who are actually working and paying taxes and trying to help ourselves can’t get a little bit of insurance for health care,” said Billie Jo Buskey, owner of a Plymouth hair salon.

Buskey, 35, and her husband, a landscaper, both started working at age 14 and make just under $28,000 a year. But that is too much to qualify for Medicaid under New Hampshire’s current income guidelines. Neither can afford health insurance so they go without. Their sons, ages 5 and 13, are covered by Medicaid, which has more generous eligibility criteria for children.

Buskey prides herself on paying her bills – mortgage, phone, electricity, and day care — on time. Last year she needed to have her gall bladder removed, and now owes the hospital more than $8,000, which will take her nearly six years to pay off at $115 a month.

“I’d much rather pay $115 a month for health insurance than $115 a month to pay off one hospital bill,” she said. It is still unclear what private coverage options would be affordable to Buskey and her husband, if any, without Medicaid expansion.

A couple who works their ass off would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, but they are being blocked by the Republicans in their state legislature. And this is wrecking them financially.

The people are not going to forget this.

The issue ad writes itself:

“Once again, they’re playing a political game in saying no to all aspects of Obamacare, no matter how common sense and right for us as a state and as a nation,’’ said Kary Jencks of the New Hampshire Citizens Alliance, a social justice advocacy group. “The folks who end up paying a price are the hard-working middle- and low-income people.’’

So while all the right wing pundits are gleefully poking a stick at the snafu'd federal website, the real pain is going to last much longer for those who are being blocked from Medicaid by the GOP.

The website will get fixed. The denial of Medicaid will, too, when the citizens kick the GOP to the curb.

The GOP is playing a very, very dangerous game. If the state legislatures change color because the GOP is perceived as denying healthcare access to hardworking people, those newly blue legislatures are going to redraw congressional districts, and that will change the color of the House of Representatives. For a long, long, long time.

Republicans in the Legislature have blocked the state from participating in a federally funded expansion of the Medicaid program, meaning that up to 58,000 Granite State residents are in line to be denied coverage.

58,000 pissed off voters in a small state.

New Hampshire's state Senate is red. 13 Republicans to 11 Democrats.

58,000 pissed off voters like the hard working couple.


Let's see what color NH Senate is 14 months from now.

What the hell are you yammering about..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Remind us how you are an independent.....

He's a flaming liberal.