I don't understand how this confers political benefit to the republicans or the white house. Can somebody explain a non conspiracy model how this helps them electorally running into the midterms?
Is there some way aside from the obvious mistruths they can demonstrate its the democrats fault, and achieve some electoral advantage?
Wyoming is extremely "red" according to Web searches (I am not an american)
My default assumption here is, it cannot, and this is going to cost them seats.
Extremely red states don't care. They won't flip at all. And none of the districts are even remotely competitive. Only the primaries matter.
A cursory look says Wyoming has a population of ~580k and ~340k registered voters. The article says Wyoming has 46k people on ACA. Republicans win landslides in Wyoming (40%-50% margins) and 46k people is 12% of voters max (likely closer to ~4% at risk).
Thanks. So, the upside is saving money, at the expense of alienating poorer voters in (this example) a state where their majority is so big they don't care.
When people don’t have access reliable healthcare, they tend to use even more expensive (for society) options like emergency rooms and grey/black market. People who become disabled or die from lack of healthcare don’t tend to pay much in the way of taxes.
All indications show that this is absolutely terrible for republicans' self interest, and popularity. trump has gone from winning the popular vote ~~(over 50% voted for him)~~ (a plurality of 49.8% voted for him) to polling at the 30%s. The recent 2025 elections (an off-year, so a variety of smaller elections at the state / city level mostly) have shown democrats are absolutely performing much better right now. This is not contested by either party.
> Is there some way aside from the obvious mistruths they can demonstrate its the democrats fault, and achieve some electoral advantage?
You discount the skill republicans have at lying -- regardless, when people are feeling the pinch in their pockets, they will blame whoever is in power. Currently it is the republicans.
It's all about promises made to the industry, privatization of everything.
Politics? We don't need no stinking politics because there are already US troops deployed in this country, and do you for one minute think that immigrants and non-white citizens are going to go through checkpoints at voting lines without harrassment or detention or arrest on Trumped up charges? Few states have vote by mail.
Courts have not taken action to defend the constitution. In one particular case, quite the opposite.
Finally, basic preventative health care — at least for children — could save more than it costs when we take into account the overall economic effects of poor health outcomes. We should consider making it an entitlement.
If you're 80 years old, you probably should not receive a subsidized hip replacement.
If you can't afford it on your own, there should just be a palliative care mandate after some age. We shouldn't save the soon-to-be-dead at the expense of the people with a long time horizon.
Or, we should pay doctors far less. I don't think they're multi-millionaires in other countries. Not all of them are in America, but many of them are.
What other choice is there? About 10% of all US healthcare spending is on end-of-life care [1]. It's not pleasant to talk about, but it is a discussion that needs to take place.
Speaking only of the financial aspect, not any other ethical issues:
Those end-of-life patients paid into the system, earlier in their lives, financing the cost of earlier generations of end-of-life patients. It would be unfair to change the social contract now.
In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
You may be able to alleviate this financial issue (and not any other ethical issues) by phasing-in this policy change with the youngest generation of Medicare taxpayers, somehow.
> Those end-of-life patients were paying into the system, earlier in their lives, financing of the cost of earlier generations of end-of-life patients. It would be unfair to change the social contract now.
> In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
This hits upon the core issue: the next generation is substantially smaller than the last and relative costs have ballooned due to greater availability of therapies. The generational contract is that you pay your taxes a percentage of wages -- in effect, a PAYG mechanism. If wages do not rise sufficiently to cover increased costs, that does not imply that the generational contract was unfulfilled; the taxes were paid.
The demographic pyramid and weaker than necessary wage growth really renders the care demanded burdensome to the point where we have already provided elderly cost advantages in insurance in the form of cost premium multiple maximums and medicare from payroll taxes while beggaring the rest of the population in the process.
> In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
Fundamentally, children are an investment. They produce cash flow (taxes) from increased public health. The end-of-life are not; by definition, they will be dead soon. It's a horrible thing to say, but in the face of ever increasing elder care burdens and weak public debt/gdp ratios, what real choice is there?
> If wages do not rise sufficiently to cover increased costs, that does not imply that the generational contract was unfulfilled; the taxes were paid.
That's an interesting alternative view I had not considered. I think it is debatable. I believed the generational contract to be "healthcare for 65+ with 20% copay, etc., no gov. expense spared" whereas you argue the generational contract to be "Medicare payroll tax of X% is constant over all time; spend it wisely." I would argue the first option was the original intent of the Medicare law.
> Fundamentally, children are an investment. They produce cash flow (taxes) from increased public health. The end-of-life are not
You could argue the same for the end-of-life, in at least two ways:
* the end-of-life patient has already produced cash flow to the government, just in reverse order from the student
* Good education produces a higher taxpaying adult, the investment you refer to. I would argue the assurance of end-of-life healthcare also produces a higher taxpaying adult.
> If you go to a hospital in the United States, it's a lot of old people getting expensive care.
You think hospitals aren't full of old people getting care in other countries? And do you think it's possible that young people in the US don't go to the hospital because they can't afford to?
I took that out because I didn't think it was relevant. And yes, that is my point. Young people can't afford insurance in America. It's terrible. I think the GLP-1s are going to make things better. A huge problem, as everybody knows in America, is obesity. That's also a major tax on the system.
Nobody can ever imagine a better system, even if it’s used in literally every advanced nation in the world. Nope, instead we have to let Grandpa die painfully to keep those stock prices up.
I’m starting to think Capitalism as it’s practiced here is a death cult of some kind.
Well, I mentioned palliative care, but in general, I agree with you.
I would much rather doctors just get paid less. I took my son to the ER. He had a very high fever. They gave him a child's aspirin and me a $700 bill.
I just don't know what the answer is. And really, if you go into a hospital, you get the sense that there's people basically taking advantage of subsidized health insurance providers and patients both. Health insurance in America is absolutely atrocious. Next to gun fanatics, it's the worst thing about this country.
https://archive.is/ybtU5
I don't understand how this confers political benefit to the republicans or the white house. Can somebody explain a non conspiracy model how this helps them electorally running into the midterms?
Is there some way aside from the obvious mistruths they can demonstrate its the democrats fault, and achieve some electoral advantage?
Wyoming is extremely "red" according to Web searches (I am not an american)
My default assumption here is, it cannot, and this is going to cost them seats.
Extremely red states don't care. They won't flip at all. And none of the districts are even remotely competitive. Only the primaries matter.
A cursory look says Wyoming has a population of ~580k and ~340k registered voters. The article says Wyoming has 46k people on ACA. Republicans win landslides in Wyoming (40%-50% margins) and 46k people is 12% of voters max (likely closer to ~4% at risk).
Thanks. So, the upside is saving money, at the expense of alienating poorer voters in (this example) a state where their majority is so big they don't care.
The "upside" is national-level PAC money financing your campaign.
It won’t even save money in the long run.
When people don’t have access reliable healthcare, they tend to use even more expensive (for society) options like emergency rooms and grey/black market. People who become disabled or die from lack of healthcare don’t tend to pay much in the way of taxes.
All indications show that this is absolutely terrible for republicans' self interest, and popularity. trump has gone from winning the popular vote ~~(over 50% voted for him)~~ (a plurality of 49.8% voted for him) to polling at the 30%s. The recent 2025 elections (an off-year, so a variety of smaller elections at the state / city level mostly) have shown democrats are absolutely performing much better right now. This is not contested by either party.
> Is there some way aside from the obvious mistruths they can demonstrate its the democrats fault, and achieve some electoral advantage?
You discount the skill republicans have at lying -- regardless, when people are feeling the pinch in their pockets, they will blame whoever is in power. Currently it is the republicans.
<<trump has gone from winning the popular vote (over 50% voted for him)>>
Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote.
You are right there. a plurality, then.
they've reached a local maximum and the only simulated annealing in their party (Trump) doesn't care about this issue at all.
It's all about promises made to the industry, privatization of everything.
Politics? We don't need no stinking politics because there are already US troops deployed in this country, and do you for one minute think that immigrants and non-white citizens are going to go through checkpoints at voting lines without harrassment or detention or arrest on Trumped up charges? Few states have vote by mail.
Courts have not taken action to defend the constitution. In one particular case, quite the opposite.
It’s not pharma that’s driving rising medical costs, it’s hospitals:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-cancer-drug-markups/
Another contributing factor is that Americans consume a LOT of healthcare, often well past the point of diminishing returns:
“Why conventional wisdom on health care is wrong (a primer)”
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/why-conventional-wisdom-o...
Finally, basic preventative health care — at least for children — could save more than it costs when we take into account the overall economic effects of poor health outcomes. We should consider making it an entitlement.
If you're 80 years old, you probably should not receive a subsidized hip replacement.
If you can't afford it on your own, there should just be a palliative care mandate after some age. We shouldn't save the soon-to-be-dead at the expense of the people with a long time horizon.
Or, we should pay doctors far less. I don't think they're multi-millionaires in other countries. Not all of them are in America, but many of them are.
I think you need some empathy and life experience.
> We shouldn't save the soon-to-be-dead at the expense of the people with a long time horizon.
Easy enough for someone who thinks they have a “long time horizon” to say.
What other choice is there? About 10% of all US healthcare spending is on end-of-life care [1]. It's not pleasant to talk about, but it is a discussion that needs to take place.
[1] https://www.wrvo.org/health/2019-09-30/ten-percent-of-all-he...
Speaking only of the financial aspect, not any other ethical issues:
Those end-of-life patients paid into the system, earlier in their lives, financing the cost of earlier generations of end-of-life patients. It would be unfair to change the social contract now.
In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
You may be able to alleviate this financial issue (and not any other ethical issues) by phasing-in this policy change with the youngest generation of Medicare taxpayers, somehow.
> Those end-of-life patients were paying into the system, earlier in their lives, financing of the cost of earlier generations of end-of-life patients. It would be unfair to change the social contract now.
> In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
This hits upon the core issue: the next generation is substantially smaller than the last and relative costs have ballooned due to greater availability of therapies. The generational contract is that you pay your taxes a percentage of wages -- in effect, a PAYG mechanism. If wages do not rise sufficiently to cover increased costs, that does not imply that the generational contract was unfulfilled; the taxes were paid.
The demographic pyramid and weaker than necessary wage growth really renders the care demanded burdensome to the point where we have already provided elderly cost advantages in insurance in the form of cost premium multiple maximums and medicare from payroll taxes while beggaring the rest of the population in the process.
> In my opinion, it is no different from how adult taxpayers finance public education for children. It is a rolling responsibility from generation to generation.
Fundamentally, children are an investment. They produce cash flow (taxes) from increased public health. The end-of-life are not; by definition, they will be dead soon. It's a horrible thing to say, but in the face of ever increasing elder care burdens and weak public debt/gdp ratios, what real choice is there?
> If wages do not rise sufficiently to cover increased costs, that does not imply that the generational contract was unfulfilled; the taxes were paid.
That's an interesting alternative view I had not considered. I think it is debatable. I believed the generational contract to be "healthcare for 65+ with 20% copay, etc., no gov. expense spared" whereas you argue the generational contract to be "Medicare payroll tax of X% is constant over all time; spend it wisely." I would argue the first option was the original intent of the Medicare law.
> Fundamentally, children are an investment. They produce cash flow (taxes) from increased public health. The end-of-life are not
You could argue the same for the end-of-life, in at least two ways: * the end-of-life patient has already produced cash flow to the government, just in reverse order from the student * Good education produces a higher taxpaying adult, the investment you refer to. I would argue the assurance of end-of-life healthcare also produces a higher taxpaying adult.
> If you go to a hospital in the United States, it's a lot of old people getting expensive care.
You think hospitals aren't full of old people getting care in other countries? And do you think it's possible that young people in the US don't go to the hospital because they can't afford to?
I took that out because I didn't think it was relevant. And yes, that is my point. Young people can't afford insurance in America. It's terrible. I think the GLP-1s are going to make things better. A huge problem, as everybody knows in America, is obesity. That's also a major tax on the system.
This is such a painfully American response.
Nobody can ever imagine a better system, even if it’s used in literally every advanced nation in the world. Nope, instead we have to let Grandpa die painfully to keep those stock prices up.
I’m starting to think Capitalism as it’s practiced here is a death cult of some kind.
Well, I mentioned palliative care, but in general, I agree with you.
I would much rather doctors just get paid less. I took my son to the ER. He had a very high fever. They gave him a child's aspirin and me a $700 bill.
I just don't know what the answer is. And really, if you go into a hospital, you get the sense that there's people basically taking advantage of subsidized health insurance providers and patients both. Health insurance in America is absolutely atrocious. Next to gun fanatics, it's the worst thing about this country.
[flagged]
Trump Announces "Patriot Games"
https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/18/politics/patriot-games-announ...