Rather than writing stuff, Crabgrass links to where it's already clear-as-crystal stated and backed with numbers and reasonably objective, although partisan, commentary.
Elon wants his taxes down, while JD wants two terms in the White House. Cutting a largely rural Republican welfare play - they voted as they did, they need healthcare - that is a measure that serves aims of the one, while it punishes the other.
Guess who's got more swing and sway with a lifelong greed-grifter.
Hint: sunglasses, no beard.
___________UPDATE___________
This additional info does NOT suggest you should not read the DWT item. They are supplemental, not identical. That said, CNN:
Traditionally, Republicans have felt comfortable pursuing significant reductions in Medicaid because they have viewed it primarily as a program for the urban poor. But GOP representatives now hold dozens of seats in districts heavily reliant on Medicaid.
The CNN analysis found that 64 of the 218 House Republicans (not counting two previously Republican-held seats that are currently vacant) represent districts where the number of people on Medicaid exceeds the average share. Those include 17 districts where at least 30% of residents are on Medicaid. At the top of the list are the districts represented by Reps. David Valadao of California (with 60.7% of district residents on Medicaid); Jay Obernolte of California (44.1%); Hal Rogers of Kentucky (44%); Doug LaMalfa of California (39.1%); Dan Newhouse of Washington (35.9%); and Cliff Bentz of Oregon (35%).
Beyond the 64 Republicans with more Medicaid recipients than the average district, another 43 represent districts where at least one-fifth of residents, or just slightly less than the national average, rely on Medicaid.
The substantial number of Republicans representing big Medicaid populations largely reflects the shift in the party’s center of gravity from suburban seats in earlier decades toward predominantly white, mostly lower-income and lower-education districts outside of major metropolitan areas — the kind of small-town and rural seats once held by centrist Democratic House “blue dogs.” Medicaid has become more important to the health care system in such areas as Congress has expanded the populations eligible for it, most dramatically when the Affordable Care Act extended eligibility for Medicaid to working adults making up to 138% of the federal poverty level, which works out to about $22,000 for an individual this year. Rural hospitals and health care providers are especially reliant on Medicaid because fewer people in those areas receive health insurance through their jobs.
“There’s this conventional wisdom that Medicaid is a welfare program for the urban poor, and it’s just not the case anymore,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a nonpartisan health care thinktank. “Given how Medicaid has been expanded over time, and how political bases have realigned, there are a lot of people in Republican districts who rely on Medicaid.”
The number of Republican districts with large Medicaid populations is smaller than it would be otherwise because the 10 states that have refused to expand Medicaid eligibility under the ACA are generally red states that mostly send GOP legislators to Congress.
Eighty-four House Republicans represent districts in the states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion, and only Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina among them represents a district where the share of residents receiving care through the program exceeds the average for districts nationwide. By contrast, in the expansion states, nearly half of all House Republicans represent seats where more people receive care through Medicaid than in the average district. Those are the GOP members feeling the tightest squeeze as the spending and tax debate proceeds.
The shifting class basis of the two parties’ electoral coalitions has also produced a clear pattern in the health outcomes tracked by the NYU dashboard. Across nearly every significant measure, more Republicans than Democrats represent districts facing onerous burdens from chronic disease and diminished access to health care, CNN’s analysis found.
Most House Republicans now represent districts where the death rate from cardiovascular disease exceeds the average for districts nationwide. Most of them also represent seats where the death rate from breast and colorectal cancer is higher than in the typical district — as is the incidence of obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure.
Most House Democrats represent seats where fewer people than in the average district suffer from those health problems. On many of these measures, the two parties present almost precisely mirror images.
So Senate Republicans will cut Medicare instead, because the recipients are due to croak soon anyway? Will that be the outcome from both Republican Houses of Congress? Or is some other trick in the works between both GOP Houses?