this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2026
20 points (85.7% liked)

politics

31534 readers
2882 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

How did I guess it would primarily go to republicans run states?

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

and

The primary recipients of the checks will be people who earn above 400% of the federal poverty line

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago

this is the $5000 checks that would have never been authorized by congress.

some bullshit made up 'refund' going to red state residents who aren't exactly 'poor', and thus more likely to not be an evil librul or darker-skinned, packaged with propaganda bullshit signed by lord shitstain himself, set to arrive as the mid-term campaign enters the final lap.

[–] Carmakazi@piefed.social 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Didn't they just kick a whole ton of people off of ACA? Like not even a week ago?

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 18 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Yes, because they had paid their premiums but didn't use the service. Big brains at work here.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Obviously (repeat after me) "waste, fraud and abuse". 🙄

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Some trump lackey was on a TV show saying that having an ACA policy and not using it was clearly fraud as it was "statistically impossible". .... As we and anyone who understands insurance knows, those are the people who pay for the ones who do have to use it. Healthy people, particularly men, don't go to the doctor for preventative care or generally unless they have to, but with the abusive horror of pricing in the US system, they must have insurance to make it less likely they are financially destroyed by an unexpected illness or accident. So, the Trump heathens know they're lying, and just want to undermine the ACA because one, they want Americans to suffer and die apparently and two, OBAMA.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

i got a warning here last week saying the same thing. gonna lose it if i don't use it ("it" being a rather minimal-coverage, non-aca plan, that happens to be partially public-funded, run by a nearby regional clinic).

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 3 points 3 weeks ago

Not that it's an equal comparison, but maybe that's why they're so against medicare for all? They think more people paying into the system is worse (which is the opposite of reality).

No, I realize they're against it to hurt people, just trying to find rationality where there isn't any.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Republicans do love getting fucked in the ass with the occasional reach around reward like this.

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 13 points 3 weeks ago
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 10 points 3 weeks ago

I'd cash the check, and still happily vote against every MAGA on my ballot.