YIKES! MAGA FAFO? Is this potential outcome without the subsidies wanted by Dems worth a govt shutdown?

[DrPepper12]

DON'T CALL THEM RED STATES FOR NOTHING!

Insurers have increased rates significantly for next year — an average of about 30 percent for a typical plan in the 30 states where the federal government manages markets, and an average of 17 percent in states that run their own markets, according to a new analysis from KFF, the health research group.

If the funding expires, costs will go up for more than 20 million Americans who currently buy their own insurance in the marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act.

Since Congress first passed the extra subsidies in 2021, enrollment in the markets has doubled. Growth has been especially robust in the South, with sign-ups more than tripling in the Republican-controlled states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia and West Virginia.

Dems should hold fast. This will hurt millions.

MAGA should hold fast. Healthcare is a privilege, guns are a right!

[msc545]

Republicans are caught between their lust for cruelty and their need for votes. If they are too cruel by virtually eliminating healthcare for most people, they are going to lose a tremendous number of votes. On the other hand, if they let healthcare be reasonable, which of course it never is, but there's always a chance, then of course the votes that they get may increase substantially.

The Republican solution to all this is to eliminate the need for voting by eliminating elections, which is what Trump is preparing to do.

[OneViewpoint]

WOW, this private for profit health insurance thing is a genius solution. Americans are truly exceptional. Exceptionally stupid. Give them what they say they want. They can go bankrupt then die or just die. At least they will stick it to the "Woke" "Libs" in death.

[exitseven]

it turns out that during covid the government temporarily paid more into the premiums of people on Obamacare. Covid is over and those subsidies will expire. They will go back to what hey were before covid. Yes it will be more in most cases but Republicans are not taking anything away from anybody.

Democrats are not going to win this fight. They might as well try to save face, They can say that they are reopening the government to get SNAP payments for the poor impoverished people the Republicans do not care about. .

[DrPepper12]

Not taking away? So restoration to less is not taking away?

Let's restore your income to when you were 15 and then tell me that

[seeyounexttuesday]

Let’s restore the cost of my insurance premiums to 2019 and I’ll be totally happy.

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 look up the definition of subsidy in the dictionary.. A subsidy is when one group pays a portion of something for another group.
Obamacare was supposed to lower premiums for everyone at least $2400 a year. I am still waiting.

[DrPepper12]

Expansion of coverage was the guiding light, premium reduction a benefit. Do you really want to go back to insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions?

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 denying coverage for existing conditions is a different issue altogether.

[DrPepper12]

ACA prevents it. No ACA, you're screwed

[exitseven]

I had private insurance that covered pre existing conditions. It can be done without making the people with jobs pay for insurance for the ones that do not work.

[msc545]

What it doesn’t mean (and what to be cautious of)

It doesn’t mean that huge numbers of people are not contributing at all. Most workers in covered employment do pay Social Security taxes.

It doesn’t mean that all recipients are getting more than they paid in. Whether a given person “gets out more than they paid in” depends heavily on their earnings, lifespan, when they claim, marital status, etc.
freefacts. org

It’s not simply a matter of “fairness” in one dimension: the program is intentionally progressive (lower‐wage workers get relatively higher replacement rates).
Reddit
+1

🔍 Why you might feel like “more receiving than contributing”

If there are fewer workers supporting more retirees (lower contributor‐to‐beneficiary ratio), then each worker’s share (in effect) goes up or the system stresses.

If payroll tax revenue growth lags behind benefit growth and demographic pressures, there’s a sense that “we’re paying more” or “the system is strained.”

Government & media reporting about impending Trust Fund depletion and future benefit reduction creates worry—even if for now things are still being paid out.

📌 Bottom line

Yes — the system is increasingly under strain because the number of contributors (or contributor‐years) is not growing as fast as the number of beneficiaries and the amount of benefits paid. The gap is growing, and unless policy changes (higher taxes, benefit adjustments, raising eligibility age, etc.) are made, the imbalance will worsen.

[exitseven]

@msc545 millions of people who made less than the minimum required to have Social Security deducted from their pay received insurance for greatly reduced premiums.
When obama care first came into effect, premiums went up as well as copays. The quality of healthcare simultaneously suffered.

[msc545]

What the hell insurance are you on about here? How do you know the quality of healthcare suffered?

[exitseven]

@msc545 I know the quality of healthcare suffered because I saw it first hand because I was working at a hospital.

[msc545]

I don't think you are qualified enough to tell the difference between good and bad healthcare.

[loveslongnails]

Here's the cost savings answer: Eliminate ALL Obamacare coverage, all federal food assistance benefits, and ALL things Representatives of red states voted against, for ALL the recipients in their own states.

Wipe it ALL out. If you live in a red state and your reps voted against funding these programs, you don't get shit. Too bad. But the blue states keep on getting it, and more, because there's more to go around now.

Oh sorry, does that sound cold hearted? Nothing as cold as maga-nation would support though, right?

[goaded]

I had some interesting conversations, ages ago, on this question: Do you think the US should start proposing bills where the benefits only go to states whose Senators vote to pass it? ↗

Basically, you vote against a bill that gives your state benefits, you don't get the benefits. Most people said it wouldn't work or wouldn't be legal, but I don't think anyone came up with an explanation why.

"The funding for this bridge is contingent on a yes vote by at least one Senator from Iowa.", for example.

[loveslongnails]

@goaded I've seen even more radical suggestions. You get blue cards or red cards depending on who you voted for by state and for the Presidency. If you need a service in your state, you present your card in person, or electronically if on line. If you voted for candidate "X" and you want to sign up for a benefit your person voted against, you're not eligible.

This way, it no longer matters which party controls the House or the Senate. Everything depends on who YOU voted for, and what the candidate who got elected voted for. YOU get what you voted for, and so does everybody else. In addition, recall elections are LEGAL in all states and counties with a minimal number of signatures, and they must happen within 30 days of being filed.

Imagine what THAT would do to politicians who don't vote for what their constituency wants or needs?

[AyChingao]

@loveslongnails sounds good on the surface, and to be sure I'm sick and tired of MAGAt bullshit. However, you will be holding millions of people accountable that actually despise it as well. Consider the margins of victory state by state. In Texas for example, and for the record Texas is so full of voter suppression measures that lots of people have a very hard time getting it together and jumping all the hoops, so Texas is always one of the states with lowest turnout. Texas has something like 31 million people. tRump got 6.4 M votes, Harris 4.8 M, another 150 k voted for other candidates. This means only 36% voted. And at the very least you'd be punishing 5 M people that DID vote Harris. MAN I wish solutions were easier to come by, and of course you are correct. MAGA would actually do something like it.

[loveslongnails]

@AyChingao It's more complicated than that, of course, because the policies you voted for have to be offered and in place regardless if the majority wanted it or not. That would be tricky, but it is doable. Each candidate would have to file an official position on every proposed or in effect program.

For example; Let's say you voted for O'Rourke in Texas and he's for abortions up to 16 weeks with whatever caveats are listed. You get an "O'Rourke" card. Similarly, if you voted for Cruz whose stated policy is no abortion for any reason after 6 weeks, you get a Cruz card. If a woman is pregnant and voted for Cruz, then ends up having a complication after 6 weeks, or decides on week 7 she wants an abortion, she's shit outa luck. The same would hold true for all federal and state programs.

[AyChingao]

yep, very complex, but definitely fairer... and I should get Bernie's policies

[loveslongnails]

@AyChingao I don't think that could work. It would be yea or nay. So either you get a subsidized premium rate, like Harris wanted, or no subsidized rate, like Trump wanted. You couldn't get a free policy altogether, like Bernie wanted, because he wasn't the party's candidate. If he were to run as independent, he'd have to finish 2nd, in which case Harris's policies would not be available.

[AyChingao]

I'm actually in favor of medicare for all, but we really shouldn't essentially strip healthcare from 13-15M people. Kicker is there's a provision for funding SNAP that is supposed to kick in at times like these. tRump overrode that to put pressure on Dems. Let us cut healthcare or we will make people go hungry. Fortunately the courts are trying to override tRump's cruelty and force resumption of SNAP benefits as should be. By the way, ICE officers continue to get paid... fun fact

[seeyounexttuesday]

Ah, this is so fucking hilarious. The left’s self own on this is amazing.

1) The “subsidies” were put in with an expiration date of 2025 by the democrats in the “inflation reduction act”. If they were absolutely necessary, why the expiration date?

2) these “INSANE HIKES IN HEALTHCARE!!!” Would raise premiums back to their 2019 level. Seemed ok to pay them back then.

3) if these subsidies are must-haves…then the “affordable” care act really isn’t all that affordable.

[DrPepper12]

So expiring tax cuts for the apartchiks just get renewed but no complaints about that? Kicking the can down the road is a bipartisan affair.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Tax cuts aren’t subsidies.

[FunkyMonkee]

WHATEVER the dems want isn't worth it!! They should grow the fuck up and vote to open the government, already. What we SHOULD do is stop paying the dems!! Let's see how THEY like living with no income!

[DrPepper12]

Uh huh. Oooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy

[FunkyMonkee]

If I have to do it, they should, too!! What makes them so special?

[Ariesman81]

Who knew letting the government get involved in healthcare was going to cause issues...🤔 We tried to tell you then too.

[DrPepper12]

Single payer solves this

[Ariesman81]

Yeah... double down on stupidity 👍🏻

[msc545]

Single pair makes a lot more sense than multiple insurance companies trying to out scam The government and consumers.

[msc545]

I hate autopay. That should be single-payer obviously

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Maybe if the government didn't get involved with it the people would still run the show.

[msc545]

The government is involved now but the government is not now the source of the problem - Benefit managers are. With single payer, there would only be a single problem source regualte and focus on.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Oh yeah... like insolvent social security

[msc545]

Social Security isn't insolvent.

[DrPepper12]

Wrong again

[msc545]

I'm wrong ?

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

He ain't talking to me.

What the data says about Social Security Pew Research Center https://share.google/vsMjBE6NvPP8iTR9g

[msc545]

I don't think he's talking to me either, but I'll ask him.

[msc545]

The research that you found says that social security might run out of funds in 2033. That indeed might happen if Republicans have their way, but bring regard to social security. I don't think they will assuming we still have a country at that point and the Republicans aren't running it again.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

It is a corrupted entitlement. It is a ponzi scheme. The intent of it may have been good, but the application of it is flawed. The only ways social security stays solvent is through raising taxes, decreasing payouts, more babies, or import more taxpayers. This will be the exact same problem with socialized healthcare.

[msc545]

The only way that social security will ever be a Ponzi scheme is when you pay into it and then later on it doesn't pay out. I don't think you can compare healthcare and social security to each other in any rational way at this point.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Ponzi schemes always fail when new money doesn't enter the system because ponzi schemes are not self sustaining. Which is where the U. S. currently finds itself.

Sure, the original social security system may have been functional as an "Individual" retirement account (as stated in the research) but that is not what we currently have. And it is the fault of government policy that brought it to this point.

[msc545]

New money. Interesting social security system. Every time someone gets a paycheck and part of that paycheck goes into social security. If you were talking about Congress allocating money to social security, that is a whole other problem and mostly a political one.

[msc545]

Boy that's a messed up post I just did. I have a habit of talking into my phone with an app in order to do speech to text since the keyboard on my phone is about the right size for a bug to use it but not me. Anyway. My point is that every time someone gets a paycheck and part of the money goes into social security and that is new money going in and therefore there's no Ponzi scheme according to your definition of a Ponzi scheme.

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

That's all fine and dandy, but the reality of social security as it stands today, is that population decline and other factors are causing solvency issues. Meaning, there are people collecting that are not contributing. If it were a 1:1 system, then solvency would never be an issue.

[msc545]

I'm not aware of any solvency issues. Can you please document those a bit for me? I'm also unclear about what you mean about people collecting but not contributing. People collecting what precisely?

[Ariesman81]

@msc545

Look at the pew research again. It shows the trend line of solvency.
More people are collecting social security benefits than who are contributing. That is the only logical reason why the funds are depleting.