Shutdown Fight Reopens Debate in G.O.P. Over Health Care

[Ikari]

Obamacare was a gift to providers and turned health insurance companies into cost-plus operators. All it did was make a bad situation worse.

I don't think it made it worse, I don't think it made the healthcare industry overall better either. It never addressed the fundamentals of American healthcare costs and how we can bring that down.

Now people do need insurance, and it did make insurance affordable. Overall, we save money if more people are covered and going to the doctor routinely. It's cheaper for us to catch disease early and treat it early than it is to wait until the ER. So it behooves us aggregately to find a way to maximize healthcare coverage. But there have been a lot of rules and "oversight" which have allowed providers and insurance to overinflate the costs of healthcare in America. If you look at other advanced nations, they don't have this problem. This is uniquely an American problem and we're going to have to find a way to figure it out.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This comment is worthy of it's own thread. There's a lot of problem with subsidies, not just heath subsidies... All subsidies.
1. It's nothing more than a social acceptable way to Rob Peter to pay Paul. If Peter can't cover it the goverment simply goes into debt.
2. It's inherently inflationary, it injects money into the system which raises overall demand. This starts a cycle: prices goes up, goverment injects more money, prices continue to go up. If you look at goverment subsidies such as housing, medical care, education, food, etc ... All the prices keep going up.
3. Its demotivating, and prevents society from attacking and solving the real problem. Which is people need to improve their employment situation and purchase what they need instead of depending on subsidies.

Since there are far more Pauls than Peters, the idea of income/wealth redistribution is bound to be popular.

 

[Ikari]

Still waiting on the last cheaper and better plan that was going to be ready in two weeks.

The MAGA healthcare system is; If rich, see doctor; if poor, die.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Two weeks.

Two weeks (or so) after the ‘shutdown’ ends.

 

[gbg3]

I pay for my healthcare ... everyone should who can. Its a system that's abused along with welfare and giving some 1.4 million non-citizens healthcare .... asking people to pay for their own, work if they can, and not giving free healthcare to non-US citizens is reasonable

Yes, they should pay if they can.

Because of the covid expansion of ACA subsidies, we have working taxpayers heavily subsidizing the healthcare of early retirees (who retired early by their own choice and are not yet old enough for Medicare), while those working taxpayers funding subsidized ACA often make far less than the early retiree getting over $100,000 a year from their pensions. And remember, that early retiree receiving covid ACA subsidies will also very likely receive a heck of a lot more than their hefty pension when they are soon eligible to start drawing SS and from their likely healthy 401ks one could assume people with hefty pensions also have waiting for them to draw upon. Many of these early retirees getting subsidized are actually soon to be very rich retirees - and likely have plenty in their 401k/IRA which they could tap to cover their own healthcare costs for the time before they go on Medicare and SS.

As someone who has already retired, every working person nearing retirement is well aware of how expensive those gap years between work and Medicare age will be for healthcare, should one decide to retire before SS and Medicare age. It comes as NO surprise. Every financial advisor and retirement article discusses the issue of healthcare and those gap years people will face as they choose how long to work and when to retire - if they decide to retire early.

I read this very recent article last night. It discusses what group of people will be far and away most heavily impacted by the expiration of covid era ACA expansion. It's the well to do early retirees! They are far better equipped to handle paying for their own healthcare than the young low income workers who are the taxpayers currently paying for the subsidies for this early retirement group!

This little tidbit from the link is eye opening and 8.5% part explains why we are hearing reports where families earning even $500,000 or so are getting ACA subsidized due to Covid subsidy expansion!

"These “enhanced” subsidies became available to households with incomes exceeding 400% of the federal poverty line. A household’s financial obligation for premiums was also capped at 8.5% of its income."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html

 

[hecatmoggie]

I love reading the endless blather from the uninformed.
Every civilized nation on Earth has some form of universal health care ............... except the US.
Meanwhile...................

I don't care about other countries and their debt etc etc and how they tax their peoples heavy and the quality of their healthcare etc etc

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, they should pay if they can.

Because of the covid expansion of ACA subsidies, we have working taxpayers heavily subsidizing the healthcare of early retirees (who retired early by their own choice and are not yet old enough for Medicare), while those working taxpayers funding subsidized ACA often make far less than the early retiree getting over $100,000 a year from their pensions. And remember, that early retiree receiving covid ACA subsidies will also very likely receive a heck of a lot more than their hefty pension when they are soon eligible to start drawing SS and from their likely healthy 401ks one could assume people with hefty pensions also have waiting for them to draw upon. Many of these early retirees getting subsidized are actually soon to be very rich retirees - and likely have plenty in their 401k/IRA which they could tap to cover their own healthcare costs for the time before they go on Medicare and SS.

As someone who has already retired, every working person nearing retirement is well aware of how expensive those gap years between work and Medicare age will be for healthcare, should one decide to retire before SS and Medicare age. It comes as NO surprise. Every financial advisor and retirement article discusses the issue of healthcare and those gap years people will face as they choose how long to work and when to retire - if they decide to retire early.

I read this very recent article last night. It discusses what group of people will be far and away most heavily impacted by the expiration of covid era ACA expansion. It's the well to do early retirees! They are far better equipped to handle paying for their own healthcare than the young low income workers who are the taxpayers currently paying for the subsidies for this early retirement group!

This little tidbit from the link is eye opening and 8.5% part explains why we are hearing reports where families earning even $500,000 or so are getting ACA subsidized due to Covid subsidy expansion!

"These “enhanced” subsidies became available to households with incomes exceeding 400% of the federal poverty line. A household’s financial obligation for premiums was also capped at 8.5% of its income."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html

WTF? Where is someone making $500K paying over 8.5% ($42.5K) in ACA plan premiums?

 

[hooligan]

without raising federal taxes

Too late, Trump has already raised taxes.

 

[Allan]

I don't care about other countries and their debt etc etc and how they tax their peoples heavy and the quality of their healthcare etc etc

What you mean to say is that you know nothing about other country's healthcare systems specifically or their economics generally.

Not. One. Thing.

 

[element94]

Obamacare was a gift to providers and turned health insurance companies into cost-plus operators. All it did was make a bad situation worse.

Technically, no! But don't let that stop you, as usual.

 

[gbg3]

The Republicans better be careful on this one. The ACA is incredibly popular including in red states. Does it need improvement, of course it does, but it is so entrenched the solutions need bipartisan input. None of that can be done quickly. Best idea is a temporary extension with some modest changes and then a written commitment to address long term.

The bolded part is new from you.

Good, maybe you are realizing these Covid subsidizes aren't really about the truly needy, after all. Very few who actually need subsidies will fill Medicaid or fill emergency rooms if the Covid subsidies expire. They won't qualify for Medicaid and they have funds such that emergency rooms will be both billing and collecting from them. So, the huge majority of them won't "lose" healthcare. They'll pay for their own healthcare instead of receiving it heavily subsidized. That actual "needy" group of people (if not illegals) will continue to qualify for ACA subsidies, just as they did before the Covid expansion.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Yes, they should pay if they can.

why can't they ? what's stopping them ?

Because of the covid expansion of ACA subsidies, we have working taxpayers heavily subsidizing the healthcare of early retirees (who retired early by their own choice and are not yet old enough for Medicare), while those working taxpayers funding subsidized ACA often make far less than the early retiree getting over $100,000 a year from their pensions. And remember, that early retiree receiving covid ACA subsidies will also very likely receive a heck of a lot more than their hefty pension when they are soon eligible to start drawing SS and from their likely healthy 401ks one could assume people with hefty pensions also have waiting for them to draw upon. Many of these early retirees getting subsidized are actually soon to be very rich retirees - and likely have plenty in their 401k/IRA which they could tap to cover their own healthcare costs for the time before they go on Medicare and SS.

As someone who has already retired, every working person nearing retirement is well aware of how expensive those gap years between work and Medicare age will be for healthcare, should one decide to retire before SS and Medicare age. It comes as NO surprise. Every financial advisor and retirement article discusses the issue of healthcare and those gap years people will face as they choose how long to work and when to retire - if they decide to retire early.

true and its looming for me

I read this very recent article last night. It discusses what group of people will be far and away most heavily impacted by the expiration of covid era ACA expansion. It's the well to do early retirees! They are far better equipped to handle paying for their own healthcare than the young low income workers who are the taxpayers currently paying for the subsidies for this early retirement group!

This little tidbit from the link is eye opening and 8.5% part explains why we are hearing reports where families earning even $500,000 or so are getting ACA subsidized due to Covid subsidy expansion!

"These “enhanced” subsidies became available to households with incomes exceeding 400% of the federal poverty line. A household’s financial obligation for premiums was also capped at 8.5% of its income."

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html

that's a good article

I see the issue - I do ............... but the solution isn't the Fed Govt spending $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ of taxpayer dollars to subsidize

that doesn't solve the core problem which is soaring costs

take that article ... "Bill Gall has what he calls “old eyes”: He’s had more than 10 eye surgeries over the past decade and is now blind in one eye, he said. Shelly has had two spinal fusion surgeries and suffers from chronic pain, which has prevented her from working full-time since 2015, the couple said."

how much do you think all that costs?10 eye surgeries, spinal fusions ... $750,000 ? $1,000,000 ?? how much did all that cost insurance companies? where does that money come from ?

nothing is free

 

[Callen]

The bolded part is new from you.

Good, maybe you are realizing these Covid subsidizes aren't really about the truly needy, after all. Very few who actually need subsidies will fill Medicaid or fill emergency rooms if the Covid subsidies expire. They won't qualify for Medicaid and they have funds such that emergency rooms will be both billing and collecting from them. So, the huge majority of them won't "lose" healthcare. They'll pay for their own healthcare instead of receiving it heavily subsidized. That actual "needy" group of people (if not illegals) will continue to qualify for ACA subsidies, just as they did before the Covid expansion.

Actually it's not new. I have said all along this problem needs to be resolved collaboratively and that means you win some ...you lose some.

As for the bolded...... I don't know how you can say that without understanding what the premium increases will be. Have you data to back that up or is it simply your opinion and/or the opinion of someones you heard or read?Opinions are fine, I have lots too but opinions are not facts.

 

[Mycroft]

I disagree with Johnson. Go ahead and rip it out by the roots. Get the government OUT of healthcare except for taking care of the elderly, the poor and the disabled.

Everyone else...work for your healthcare just like you do for your food, housing, etc.

 

[gbg3]

WTF? Where is someone making $500K paying over 8.5% ($42.5K) in ACA plan premiums?

Maybe that is unreasonable so let's look at a family of 4 making $400,000 per year. 8.5% of that annual income per year would equate to $2833/month. You bet there are ample "warnings" that the expiration of this subsidy would generate payments of $2833 or higher for a family of 4.

Below is an example (from PolitiFact) of an expected premium of $1593 for one average ACA subsidized person only! So yes, if a family making $400,000 per year faced unsubsidized premiums over $2833 per month without subsidies, they would indeed currently qualify for subsidies. I will strongly argue no family of 4 earning $400,000 should receive any subsidies from the federal government for their healthcare premiums.

"Using 2024 federal data, KFF calculated the average annual premiums for enrollees who received enhanced subsidies. The government paid $5,727 of the total premium under the original Affordable Care Act subsidy rules. Another $888 came from the beneficiary’s pocket.

The enhanced subsidy provision covered the final portion, $705. If the enhanced subsidy disappeared and the enrollee had to pay both the $888 and the $705 amounts, that would total $1,593. That’s about 79% more than the same person was paying with the enhanced subsidies in place — which is close to the 75% figure that Clark and Murphy cited.

 

[Captain Mars]

 

[Callen]

I will strongly argue no family of 4 earning $400,000 should receive any subsidies from the federal government for their healthcare premiums.

Including Medicare recipients? Should they bear the full cost?

 

[ttwtt78640]

View attachment 67594151

Exactly. Why worry about the cost of continuing a federal subsidy which requires no ‘pay for’?

 

[Greenbeard]

3. Its demotivating, and prevents society from attacking and solving the real problem. Which is people need to improve their employment situation and purchase what they need instead of depending on subsidies.

The public subsidy for employer-sponsored coverage costs more than $350 billion/year.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes, they should pay if they can.

Because of the covid expansion of ACA subsidies, we have working taxpayers heavily subsidizing the healthcare of early retirees (who retired early by their own choice and are not yet old enough for Medicare), while those working taxpayers funding subsidized ACA often make far less than the early retiree getting over $100,000 a year from their pensions. And remember, that early retiree receiving covid ACA subsidies will also very likely receive a heck of a lot more than their hefty pension when they are soon eligible to start drawing SS and from their likely healthy 401ks one could assume people with hefty pensions also have waiting for them to draw upon. Many of these early retirees getting subsidized are actually soon to be very rich retirees - and likely have plenty in their 401k/IRA which they could tap to cover their own healthcare costs for the time before they go on Medicare and SS.

I like that, I think the GOP should run on instituting an age limit for Obamacare.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The public subsidy for employer-sponsored coverage costs more than $350 billion/year.

The proper thing to do would be to tax that ‘fringe benefit’ as employee income.

 

[Greenbeard]

Thus far this thread is a microcosm of the current political dynamic: some half-hearted, often somewhat confused griping about the ACA from the right, zero signs of a GOP alternative.

 

[Callen]

It's time to stop whining about subsidies and realize that the price of healthcare in the States is so ridiculous that EVERYONE other than the wealthy require help to pay the full price of their premiums and everyone is getting that help one way or another except maybe the self employed with policies outside of the ACA. Tha5t includes Medicare, Medicaid, VA care, the ACA and employer paid systems.

Stop worrying about the subsidies and focus on why the hell the costs are so high that you need them.

 

[Greenbeard]

The proper thing to do would be to tax that ‘fringe benefit’ as employee income.

I was fine with the approach of simply taxing employer health benefits above a certain dollar value threshold at 40%, I don’t think repealing that provision was wise.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thus far this thread is a microcosm of the current political dynamic: some half-hearted, often somewhat confused griping about the ACA from the right, zero signs of a GOP alternative.

Who needs an alternative to placing the cost of more federal subsidies on the national credit card?