comment: >
  
  That’s not surprising for two reasons. 
  
  
  When Obama Care was first rolled out, health insurance was required at the federal level. And wasn’t there a tax penalty for not having adequate coverage?
  
  
  Florida is a swing state, more purple than red. Like 52/48 red/blue.
context: It never stops half of them from using the benefits that they speak out against. It's gross really. >
  
  They like when they get stuff without having to pay too much for it, but the idea that someone else gets access to it as well pisses them off. Its just selfishness to their core and the belief if other people use something they will eventually not have access to it or will get less. >
  
  I agree completely!! >
  
  They hate Obamacare, they love the Affordable Care Act. >
  
  Trust me, it’s just surprising how many people have vocalized how much they hate Obamacare and how it costs them so much, but that they are thankful for the Affordable Care Act. >
  
  The entire state had to choose between health care or homeowners insurance this year...they can't afford both. MAGA House today working on a resolution paving the way to eliminate Social Security and Medicare as "socialist". >
  
  Probably much easier to join up for Obamacare than it is to vote >
  
  51% to 48% in the 2020 election. I really think we shouldn’t give them the title of “red state”. These assholes win by tiny margins and grab the state governments by gerrymandering and encouraging voter indifference and then have the nerve to claim it as a mandate. >
  
  Redditors think every Californian is a diehard progressive and everyone in the south is a racist redneck. Having lived in a few red and purple states I always found that frustrating as hell. “Cut them off, they made their choice” like bro I only get to vote one time, same as everyone. >
  
  No they didn't! They signed up for Affordable care act. Obamacare is socialism /s >
  
  Health care for those that need it shouldn't be a political argument for a wealthy nation. In fact, most studies agree that a government supported health system would save both individual and government spending on health care overall. Those that argue against government supported health care are likely pursuing personal financial gain opposed to what is best for the populace they have sworn to serve. >
  
  
  Health care for those that need it shouldn't be a political argument for a wealthy nation.
  those that need it
  
  That's everyone.
  The next hurdle will be getting rid of the profit-taking middlemen who add nothing but complexity, friction, and expense. >
  
  99% of our problems relate to profit taking middlemen
  Military industrial complex
  Student loan brokers
  Pharma
  Insurance
  Etc >
  
  PBMs. Pharmacy Benefit Managers. Not so much the insurance. >
  
  Insurance is the middle man. >
  
  PBMs are arguably far worse and have even gotten banned in several states. They only serve to "negotiate" drug contract prices between pharmacies and the insurance. When you call you plan for medications you typically don't get the insurance. You get the PBM which defines the coverage and only services to siphon off money and limit benefits. 
  Don't get me wrong. Insurance is a middle man but the real profiteer in pharma over the last several decades is the rise of PBMs. It's not talked about in really any conversation about drug prices but it is a central figure in the decline of pharmacy work conditions due to underpayment to pharmacies and the managed inflation of pharmaceutical care. >
  
  The legacy of conservatism is greed.