General Discussion

riversedge

(76,288 posts) Mon Jun 30, 2025, 04:58 PM 7 hrs ago

Yikes! This bill is a disaster for Alaska. But most states have similar stories of a bleak future if this passes

He is right--many states will be digging for funds only to find the pot is dry!
It will be the people who need the money-food, shelter, medical care who will be suffering the most.

Yikes! This bill is a disaster for Alaska. But most states have similar stories of a bleak future if this passes—especially red states.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Call your Senators and urge them to #VoteNo 👀

Link to tweet

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Yikes! This bill is a disaster for Alaska. But most states have similar stories of a bleak future if this passes (Original Post) riversedge 7 hrs ago OP

Wow!!! Wait Traildogbob 6 hrs ago #1

So why is Murkowski voting for it? The Cha 6 hrs ago #2

My understanding is she was a no, then they reworded it so Medicaid would only be cut in the "lower contiguous states." CrispyQ 6 hrs ago #4

Oh wow I did read Cha 6 hrs ago #5

It was a good call on the parliamentarian's part. CrispyQ 5 hrs ago #6

Murkowsky got played. drray23 6 hrs ago #3

Traildogbob

(11,381 posts)

1. Wow!!! Wait

Reply to riversedge (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:00 PM

6 hrs ago

Murkowski is a bad deal maker????
Well, she was against Trump, the greatest in history.

Cha

(312,490 posts)

2. So why is Murkowski voting for it? The

Reply to riversedge (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:04 PM

6 hrs ago

last I heard.

TY

CrispyQ

(39,897 posts)

4. My understanding is she was a no, then they reworded it so Medicaid would only be cut in the "lower contiguous states."

Reply to Cha (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:31 PM

6 hrs ago

AK & HI would be exempt from cuts, so Murkowski changed her vote. But the parliamentarian said You don't get to cut Medicaid for some states & not others. I'm not sure where she stands now.

Cha

(312,490 posts)

5. Oh wow I did read

Reply to CrispyQ (Reply #4)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:52 PM

6 hrs ago

That last night about the Parliamentarian.. and wondering what Murkowski was going to do now?
Mahalo for the remainder, Crispy Q🕊️🕯️💙🌈🇺🇸🌊

CrispyQ

(39,897 posts)

6. It was a good call on the parliamentarian's part.

Reply to Cha (Reply #5)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 06:25 PM

5 hrs ago

If they get away with that bullshit "contiguous states" distinguishment, it's just a little hop to red state/blue state. It's what they want to do—benefits for red states & penalties for blue. I asked a right wing relative once, if he thought republicans were so good at governing, why did he always live in blue states? .....Crickets.

drray23

(8,279 posts)

3. Murkowsky got played.

Reply to riversedge (Original post)

Mon Jun 30, 2025, 05:27 PM

6 hrs ago

She did extract concessions and voted for the first procedural vote allowing the bill to be put on the floor. Unfortunately for her, after she did that, the parliamentarian ruled those tweaks invalid and removed it from the bill.

We will see if Murkowski votes for the final passage now that she does not have anything to offset that.

Reply to this discussion