Democrats going to shutdown the government out of spite

Are you ok with giving ACA subsidies with no income limits? The crazy COVID ACA government spending needs to stop. The Democrats are disingenuous in saying that these emergency subsidies are healthcare being cut when they expire at year's end.

Individual coverage exchange plans created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a glaring problem: [B]nearly 12 million enrollees, or 35 percent of all exchange enrollees in 2024, do not use their benefits at all.[/B]*

Are you ok with 12 million enrollees who don't need benefits getting subsidies on the back of taxpayers and driving up health care costs?

* [url]https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/[/url]

LOL pretending to care about money all of a sudden, not like the turd president hasn't been spending like crazy on ICE, his new airplane and the white house upgrades all because of his ego.

and let's not even discuss the tremendous costs of elon's firings and then re-hiring :facepalm

[QUOTE=rmt;15036114]Are you ok with giving ACA subsidies with no income limits? The crazy COVID ACA government spending needs to stop. The Democrats are disingenuous in saying that these emergency subsidies are healthcare being cut when they expire at year's end.

Individual coverage exchange plans created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a glaring problem: [B]nearly 12 million enrollees, or 35 percent of all exchange enrollees in 2024, do not use their benefits at all.[/B]*

Are you ok with 12 million enrollees who don't need benefits getting subsidies on the back of taxpayers and driving up health care costs?

* [url]https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/[/url][/QUOTE]

I'll be honest, I don't know enough of about these ACA extensions to answer that. But, I think I have what I believe is a VERY FAIR and PRACTICAL response question:

As of October 1, 2025, DOGE claims to have saved the country $206B. According to Trump, his tariffs are projected to make "trillions" of dollars for the US government. Lastly, according to Trump, the GOP Senate and GOP House, the Big Beautiful Bill will significantly cut government costs and stimulate the economy. With these supposed wins ALREADY in place, do you think it is JUSTIFIED to shut the government down over these expenses? Will allowing these concessions TOTALLY UNDO the other savings? In the simplest version of my question: are these costs expected to cost the government multiples of trillions?

Middle School Civics classes teaches us that Congress controls the purse strings. Republicans control both branches of congress congress, as well as the White House.

If they can't get a budget through it reflects on their poor leadership.

When I said you MAGAS were poorly educated, I did not think it applied to your middle school education.

[QUOTE=rmt;15036114]Are you ok with giving ACA subsidies with no income limits? The crazy COVID ACA government spending needs to stop. The Democrats are disingenuous in saying that these emergency subsidies are healthcare being cut when they expire at year's end.

Individual coverage exchange plans created by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have a glaring problem: [B]nearly 12 million enrollees, or 35 percent of all exchange enrollees in 2024, do not use their benefits at all.[/B]*

[B]Are you ok with 12 million enrollees who don't need benefits getting subsidies on the back of taxpayers and driving up health care costs?[/B]

* [url]https://paragoninstitute.org/private-health/ghostbusting-aca-fraud-millions-who-dont-use-their-health-insurance-expose-abuse-in-the-program/[/url][/QUOTE]

Sure, this is an issue. But the problems extends off of the other arm because how to you qualify who needs or doesn't need benefits?

If one doesn't receive any healthcare delivery the previous year, should they only be eligible to receive affordable care at the time of car accident? Or are they, and/or their providers, just screwed?

Stripping this will also open up a can of worms as well. If we're essentially providing free healthcare for those that can't afford it then healthcare costs for the rest of us will sky-rocket too.

[QUOTE=beasted;15036119]I'll be honest, I don't know enough of about these ACA extensions to answer that. But, I think I have what I believe is a VERY FAIR and PRACTICAL response question:

As of October 1, 2025, DOGE claims to have saved the country $206B. According to Trump, his tariffs are projected to make "trillions" of dollars for the US government. Lastly, according to Trump, the GOP Senate and GOP House, the Big Beautiful Bill will significantly cut government costs and stimulate the economy. With these supposed wins ALREADY in place, do you think it is JUSTIFIED to shut the government down over these expenses? Will allowing these concessions TOTALLY UNDO the other savings? In the simplest version of my question: are these costs expected to cost the government multiples of trillions?[/QUOTE]

Well, maybe you should find out about [B][U]WHY[/U][/B] these ACA extensions were instituted (and phased out at the end of this year) to decide if they should be continued.

IMHO, all money from tariffs, government cost cuts and gains from stimulating the economy - should go to reducing our debt. I don't happen to take everything that Trump exaggerates as true. Why should anything go toward continuing something that was meant to be TEMPORARY because of COVID?

Our taxpayer dollars should not go toward paying for ACA subsidies for people with [B][U]NO regard to income limits[/U][/B]. This is exactly how government spending explodes. They continue a once-in-a-lifetime "help"/emergency and keep expanding forever.

AI Overview
ACA Income Thresholds 2025: Subsidies Explained
In 2014, the ACA's premium tax credits, or subsidies, were available to U.S. citizens and legal residents with household incomes between [B]100% and 400% of the federal poverty level[/B] (FPL), who did not have access to other affordable coverage. The exact income amounts varied by household size, with a [B]single person's income falling between approximately $11,500 and $46,000[/B], and a[B] family of four's between roughly $23,500 and $94,000[/B]. The subsidy amount was on a sliding scale, with people paying a maximum percentage of their income for a benchmark health plan, and the government covering the rest

POTUS: Republican
SCOTUS: Republican
House: Republican
Senate: Republican
Congress: Republican
All of the Government: Republican


"Democrats are shutting the Government down"

[QUOTE=rmt;15036144]Well, maybe you should find out about [B][U]WHY[/U][/B] these ACA extensions were instituted (and phased out at the end of this year) to decide if they should be continued.

IMHO, all money from tariffs, government cost cuts and gains from stimulating the economy - should go to reducing our debt. I don't happen to take everything that Trump exaggerates as true. Why should anything go toward continuing something that was meant to be TEMPORARY because of COVID?

Our taxpayer dollars should not go toward paying for ACA subsidies for people with [B][U]NO regard to income limits[/U][/B]. This is exactly how government spending explodes. They continue a once-in-a-lifetime "help"/emergency and keep expanding forever.

AI Overview
ACA Income Thresholds 2025: Subsidies Explained
In 2014, the ACA's premium tax credits, or subsidies, were available to U.S. citizens and legal residents with household incomes between [B]100% and 400% of the federal poverty level[/B] (FPL), who did not have access to other affordable coverage. The exact income amounts varied by household size, with a [B]single person's income falling between approximately $11,500 and $46,000[/B], and a[B] family of four's between roughly $23,500 and $94,000[/B]. The subsidy amount was on a sliding scale, with people paying a maximum percentage of their income for a benchmark health plan, and the government covering the rest[/QUOTE]

How can politicians not believe people will lose healthcare with this change

I pay a lot of money for all types of insurance which I never file a claim for. Not using it doesn't mean I shouldn't have it.

All of my life I had insurance coverage. But, one single time I had just started a new job that had a 90-day waiting period, and I decided to chance it. That one 3 month span without insurance is when I fell and broke my arm costing me thousands out of pocket. Lucky for me I am financially capable of paying that, but I can imagine someone within percentages of the FPL might be bankrupted and/or credit ruined for years by that same accident. Is that what we want for fellow Americans?

If this is only temporary, it seems like even more reason for Republicans to negotiate and get a deal done. Again, they only have a handful to convince.

[QUOTE=Bill Gates;15036146]POTUS: Republican
SCOTUS: Republican
House: Republican
Senate: Republican
Congress: Republican
All of the Government: Republican


"Democrats are shutting the Government down"[/QUOTE]

:oldlol:

If I understand the dispute here, this is about Republicans demanding that someone making between $11k and $46k buy their own insurance?

I could not imagine trying to make it in this life on $46k. I could never think "Look at those people mooching off my tax dollars so they can see a doctor".

My employer-covered insurance would be almost 10% of that person's salary.

[QUOTE=beasted;15036147]How can politicians not believe people will lose healthcare with [B]this change[/B]

I pay a lot of money for all types of insurance which I never file a claim for. Not using it doesn't mean I shouldn't have it.

All of my life I had insurance coverage. But, one single time I had just started a new job that had a 90-day waiting period, and I decided to chance it. That one 3 month span without insurance is when I fell and broke my arm costing me thousands out of pocket. Lucky for me I am financially capable of paying that, but I can imagine someone within percentages of the FPL might be bankrupted and/or credit ruined for years by that same accident. Is that what we want for fellow Americans?


If this is only temporary, it seems like even more reason for Republicans to negotiate and get a deal done. Again, they only have a handful to convince.[/QUOTE]

There is no change. If things stay as is (meaning passing a clean, continuing resolution), the extended subsidies WILL expire at the end of the year (as they were originally intended to) - they were brought into existence because of the once-in-a-lifetime event (COVID).

Why not just say one is for universal healthcare? Or that we shouldn't have ANY insurance - that SOMEONE (meaning the taxpayer) will be responsible/pay up should any disaster happen? Can we afford that? That's UTOPIA.

[QUOTE=beasted;15036149]If I understand the dispute here, this is about Republicans demanding that someone making between $11k and $46k buy their own insurance?

I could not imagine trying to make it in this life on $46k. I could never think "Look at those people mooching off my tax dollars so they can see a doctor".

My employer-covered insurance would be almost 10% of that person's salary.[/QUOTE]

No, you don't understand the dispute here - someone who makes between $11K and $46K is exactly who the original ACA subsidies were meant for - not someone with unlimited income.

IMO, the republicans will get that handful to vote for continuing resolution. The longer this shutdown goes on, the more government workers (mostly democrats) will get ansty and pressure Democrats and the more reason Trump has to say - see we really don't need so many government workers and fire/lay them off.

[QUOTE=rmt;15036156]There is no change. If things stay as is (meaning passing a clean, continuing resolution), the extended subsidies WILL expire at the end of the year (as they were originally intended to) - they were brought into existence because of the once-in-a-lifetime event (COVID).

Why not just say one is for universal healthcare? Or that we shouldn't have ANY insurance - that SOMEONE (meaning the taxpayer) will be responsible/pay up should any disaster happen? Can we afford that? That's UTOPIA.[/QUOTE]

How is it universal healthcare when the total ACA enrollees are 24 million of our 340 million population? Have we solved the healthcare affordability problem or do you think that's not an important consideration to resolve first?

For 15 years Trump has claimed he has a plan.
[video]https://youtube.com/shorts/o_x8DVhmR9o?si=oHC4ZEJrtGb_w6GT[/video]

I pay almost $4k a year ($328 per month) in health insurance, which would murder someone making between $12k and $46k.

Do you believe we should get rid of Medicare and Medicaid too since government-sponsored healthcare costs money?

[QUOTE=rmt;15036157]No, you don't understand the dispute here - someone who makes between $11K and $46K is exactly who the original ACA subsidies were meant for - not someone with unlimited income.[/QUOTE]

This makes zero sense since there is an income limit to qualify for health insurance marketplace plans subsidies. I don't understand anything of what you've tried explaining