All GOP candidates were against the King v. Burwell decision

[7,052,770]

Every single one of them wanted millions of Americans to be thrown off their insurance. I was hoping someone would have the courage to admit that that's not the most optimal outcome...

[7,052,770]

If Christie or Perry had been the only one to be relieved that millions of people get to keep their insurance, ya know, the same millions of people who have votes they need in the primaries and the general election, they could have shot up into the Top Tier.

But I guess neither of them are really in it to win it...

[Simfan34]

If Christie or Perry had been the only one to be relieved that millions of people get to keep their insurance, ya know, the same millions of people who have votes they need in the primaries and the general election, they could have shot up into the Top Tier.

But I guess neither of them are really in it to win it...

Would any of those millions have supported them for it, though?

[Bull Moose Base]

I bet all of them were relieved by the decision because it spares them from having to come up with a solution to deal with the fallout. The exception I think is Kasich who, had the GOP been forced to protect people getting subsidies, would have gotten cover on his accepting the Medicaid expansion. It's harder for him now that Obamacare has been preserved as a GOP bogeyman.

[RRProgressive]

Republicans hate poor people. News at 11.

[7,052,770]

If Christie or Perry had been the only one to be relieved that millions of people get to keep their insurance, ya know, the same millions of people who have votes they need in the primaries and the general election, they could have shot up into the Top Tier.

But I guess neither of them are really in it to win it...

Would any of those millions have supported them for it, though?

Assuming that's a serious question, yes. The idea that people getting Obamacare subsidies are a bunch of minorities/Democrats/non-voting moochers is a fantasy invented by Fox News to whip up their gullible audience.

At the very least, voters are not going to vote for someone campaigning on taking their health insurance away from them, even if they won't automatically vote for Republicans who promise to keep it intact.

[Simfan34]

If Christie or Perry had been the only one to be relieved that millions of people get to keep their insurance, ya know, the same millions of people who have votes they need in the primaries and the general election, they could have shot up into the Top Tier.

But I guess neither of them are really in it to win it...

Would any of those millions have supported them for it, though?

Assuming that's a serious question, yes. The idea that people getting Obamacare subsidies are a bunch of minorities/Democrats/non-voting moochers is a fantasy invented by Fox News to whip up their gullible audience.

At the very least, voters are not going to vote for someone campaigning on taking their health insurance away from them, even if they won't automatically vote for Republicans who promise to keep it intact.

I was thinking the people getting the subsidies were the gullible audience- they oppose Obamacare despite benefiting from it. Hence I'm challenged to imagine Republican primary voters reward a candidate for taking such a stance.

[CountryClassSF]

Every single one of them wanted millions of Americans to be thrown off their insurance. I was hoping someone would have the courage to admit that that's not the most optimal outcome...

They wouldn't be thrown off their insurance, they would have stopped receiving subsidies paid for them by others' high premiums.
I pay almost $500 a month for insurance because I don't qualify for subsidy.  That's over 10% increase upon last year's premiums, and significant increase prior to passage of Obamacare

[Torie]

Every single one of them wanted millions of Americans to be thrown off their insurance. I was hoping someone would have the courage to admit that that's not the most optimal outcome...

They wouldn't be thrown off their insurance, they would have stopped receiving subsidies paid for them by others' high premiums.
I pay almost $500 a month for insurance because I don't qualify for subsidy.  That's over 10% increase upon last year's premiums, and significant increase prior to passage of Obamacare

Do you prefer paying for subsidized health insurance for the poor through tax revenues, and assuming your income is high enough, paying higher taxes to raise such revenues?

[Brittain33]

It's a pretty safe position to stake out after Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy spared them the catastrophic consequences.