Government Shutdown

[Huckleberry]

Look, you can call it what you want. tax relief, tax credit, subsidy, handout, charity, it doesn't change a thing. It is money, seized from the American taxpayer and given to the insurance shopper to try and offset the crazy cost of the Obamacare insurance policies because Obamacare has become a boondoggle like many of us predicted. And BTW, the credits aren't just for the middle class (whatever middle class means these days). Everyone qualifies except the rich (whatever rich means these days.

Sure, it’s taxpayer money — just like every mortgage deduction, farm payment, or corporate tax break. Funny how it’s only called a “handout” when it helps regular people instead of the rich.

People forget what it was like before Obamacare. Insurance companies could deny coverage for asthma, diabetes, or even a bad back. Lose your job, lose your coverage. Get cancer, hit your yearly limit, and you’re broke. That’s the system we’d go back to without the ACA.

The tax credits don’t “seize” anything. They help working Americans afford the same basic healthcare security that politicians and the wealthy already enjoy. And yes, they reach beyond just the middle class, because medical costs can crush nearly everyone except the top few percent.

If conservatives think the ACA is such a disaster, where’s their plan to make coverage affordable? They’ve had over a decade and haven’t produced one. Complaining about Obamacare is easy; replacing it with something better apparently isn’t. It seems like their plan is simply to let people go bankrupt or die.

If we’re going to spend taxpayer money, helping people stay insured beats another round of tax cuts for billionaires every single time.

 

[crimsonaudio]

People forget what it was like before Obamacare. Insurance companies could deny coverage for asthma, diabetes, or even a bad back. Lose your job, lose your coverage. Get cancer, hit your yearly limit, and you’re broke. That’s the system we’d go back to without the ACA.

The average total single premium per enrolled private-sector employee for health insurance in 2008 was $4,386.

The average cost of health insurance for a single adult on a Silver-tier plan through the ACA marketplace in 2025 is approximately $599 to $621 per month, which translates to an annual cost of about $7,188 to $7,452.

Instead of attacking the issue, the ACA simply forced the insurance companies to follow specific rules, only curtailing costs by increasing (by up to 122%) the cost of insurance by others.

SMH again.

 

[Huckleberry]

I find it incredible that you're defending a situation where the average taxpayer - who could never afford 'early retirement' - should be on the hook to subsidize the healthcare of those who are significantly more wealthy than they are.

SMH

I get where you’re coming from, but I think that framing oversimplifies what’s actually going on. The people we’re talking about aren’t rich; they’re often folks in their late 50s or early 60s who worked for decades, lost employer coverage, and aren’t yet old enough for Medicare. “Early retirement” sounds luxurious, but in reality it often just means someone who got laid off, took a buyout, or had to leave a physical job they can’t keep doing.

Without the ACA and these tax credits, a couple in that situation could face $15,000 to $20,000 a year in premiums, and that's before paying deductibles. That’s not sustainable for most middle-class households, and it’s why millions were uninsured before Obamacare.

We can debate how best to structure the system, but claiming that it's the “wealthy” that benefit simply isn't true. Affordable coverage helps keep people healthy, independent, and out of emergency rooms that taxpayers often end up funding anyway.

If the critics don’t like this approach, fair enough — but then where’s the alternative plan that actually makes insurance affordable for people who fall between employer plans and Medicare? That’s the part that never seems to get answered.

2024 Spending in Retirement Survey

• Among the 58 percent who retired earlier than expected, the most common reasons for retiring were having a health problem or disability (38 percent) and changes at their company, such as downsizing, closure, or reorganization (23 percent).

 

[crimsonaudio]

I get where you’re coming from, but I think that framing oversimplifies what’s actually going on. The people we’re talking about aren’t rich; they’re often folks in their late 50s or early 60s who worked for decades, lost employer coverage, and aren’t yet old enough for Medicare. “Early retirement” sounds luxurious, but in reality it often just means someone who got laid off, took a buyout, or had to leave a physical job they can’t keep doing.

Without the ACA and these tax credits, a couple in that situation could face $15,000 to $20,000 a year in premiums, and that's before paying deductibles. That’s not sustainable for most middle-class households, and it’s why millions were uninsured before Obamacare.

We can debate how best to structure the system, but claiming that it's the “wealthy” that benefit simply isn't true. Affordable coverage helps keep people healthy, independent, and out of emergency rooms that taxpayers often end up funding anyway.

If the critics don’t like this approach, fair enough — but then where’s the alternative plan that actually makes insurance affordable for people who fall between employer plans and Medicare? That’s the part that never seems to get answered.

2024 Spending in Retirement Survey

• Among the 58 percent who retired earlier than expected, the most common reasons for retiring were having a health problem or disability (38 percent) and changes at their company, such as downsizing, closure, or reorganization (23 percent).

So your positions is that it's A Good Thing that the government is using tax dollars we don't have, either borrowed or taken from people who cannot afford the tax to subsidize other people's healthcare, instead of actually addressing the costs of insurance in the US.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people slightly older than me enjoying early retirement on my hard-earned tax dollars. THIS is the disconnect between libs and conservs that seems un-bridgeable.

 

[Huckleberry]

The average total single premium per enrolled private-sector employee for health insurance in 2008 was $4,386.

The average cost of health insurance for a single adult on a Silver-tier plan through the ACA marketplace in 2025 is approximately $599 to $621 per month, which translates to an annual cost of about $7,188 to $7,452.

Instead of attacking the issue, the ACA simply forced the insurance companies to follow specific rules, only curtailing costs by increasing (by up to 122%) the cost of insurance by others.

SMH again.

That’s an interesting comparison, but it’s really looking at two very different things. The $4,386 figure was for employer group plans in 2008, where companies paid most of the cost and coverage mainly went to healthy, full-time workers. The ACA market covers everyone else - people who are self-employed, laid off, retired early, or managing chronic conditions.

Adjusted for inflation, $4,400 in 2008 equals about $6,600 today, so costs were always rising. The ACA also added protections like preventive care, maternity coverage, and no lifetime caps, which old plans often didn’t include.

Premiums also seem higher partly because more people are finally included. Before the ACA, millions were denied coverage or priced out entirely. That insurance was cheaper because fewer people were being allowed in.

The ACA actually did attack the issue - just in a different way. Before it, insurers kept costs “low” by excluding people with preexisting conditions or pricing them out entirely. The law changed that by making coverage available to everyone, not just the healthy. Premiums rose partly because more people were finally covered, which is what real insurance is supposed to do.

That said, I’m open to better ideas. Maybe the real long-term solution isn’t patching the system one program at a time but recognizing that basic healthcare is something everyone should have access to, the way we do with public schools or clean water. It doesn’t have to mean a single government plan, but the goal should be the same: making sure people don’t lose everything just because they get sick. That’s the real issue worth attacking.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The ACA actually did attack the issue - just in a different way. Before it, insurers kept costs “low” by excluding people with preexisting conditions or pricing them out entirely. The law changed that by making coverage available to everyone, not just the healthy. Premiums rose partly because more people were finally covered, which is what real insurance is supposed to do.

That said, I’m open to better ideas. Maybe the real long-term solution isn’t patching the system one program at a time but recognizing that basic healthcare is something everyone should have access to, the way we do with public schools or clean water. It doesn’t have to mean a single government plan, but the goal should be the same: making sure people don’t lose everything just because they get sick. That’s the real issue worth attacking.

That was the wrong approach, imo - the correct approach is to charge those with preexisting conditions pay more, particularly if those conditions are not genetic, age-related, etc. IOW, the fatty that refuses to put down the fork and therefore is predisposed to far more diseases SHOULD pay more, as should the alcoholic, etc.

Forcing me to give my family less in order to support those who refuse to take their health seriously is insulting and morally bankrupt.

 

[Huckleberry]

So your positions is that it's A Good Thing that the government is using tax dollars we don't have, either borrowed or taken from people who cannot afford the tax to subsidize other people's healthcare, instead of actually addressing the costs of insurance in the US.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people slightly older than me enjoying early retirement on my hard-earned tax dollars. THIS is the disconnect between libs and conservs that seems un-bridgeable.

I’m not cheering for more government spending. I’m saying the costs already exist - we just hide them when uninsured people end up in ERs or skip care until it’s too late. Before the ACA, insurers could deny coverage outright, and some people literally died because of it.

The law wasn’t perfect, but it faced a problem we’d ignored for decades. And those “early retirees” aren’t freeloaders; they’re mostly middle-class folks in their 50s and 60s who lost jobs or can’t keep doing physical work.

If not the ACA, then what’s your plan for keeping people insured and alive?

 

[Huckleberry]

That was the wrong approach, imo - the correct approach is to charge those with preexisting conditions pay more, particularly if those conditions are not genetic, age-related, etc. IOW, the fatty that refuses to put down the fork and therefore is predisposed to far more diseases SHOULD pay more, as should the alcoholic, etc.

Forcing me to give my family less in order to support those who refuse to take their health seriously is insulting and morally bankrupt.

I absolutely understand why it feels unfair to pay for other people’s choices, but health isn’t that simple. Many so-called “lifestyle” conditions have genetic or environmental roots, and not everyone has equal access to healthy food, time to exercise, or affordable care. Even people who do most things right can end up sick. And do those who make bad choices (for whatever reason) really deserve to perish because they can’t afford coverage?

If we start charging people for their choices, where does it end? Should a truck driver pay more for a bad back, or a factory worker for lung problems from years of dust exposure?

Insurance only works for all Americans when everyone’s in the same pool. Once we start deciding whose illness is “deserved,” the term morally bankrupt certainly comes to mind. Maybe the real disconnect isn’t political at all - it’s between those willing to let people needlessly suffer and those who still believe everyone deserves the chance to be cared for.

 

[some_al_fan]

In case participants in this discussion don't know, but multiple studies have shown that healthy people cost more to the healthcare system than unhealthy.
It is not intuitive at first, but the reason for that is that healthy - conscious people live longer and pickup bunch of age related diseases that are paid for by Medicare
OTOH, fatties die young

 

[92tide]

It’s easy to roll your eyes at the political spin, but Klobuchar’s point is fair. The enhanced ACA tax credits weren’t giveaways; they were real middle-class tax relief. They helped people who’ve worked their whole lives, retired a few years before Medicare, and no longer have job-based coverage keep their insurance without draining their savings.

If those credits expire, premiums for many early retirees could jump from around $400 a month to over $1,500. That isn’t an exaggeration; it’s what happens when the tax credit formula reverts to the old version.

What’s frustrating is how differently people treat tax breaks depending on who benefits. Some conservatives are fine with tax cuts that mainly help corporations or the wealthy, but see middle-class tax relief as too expensive. It’s a double standard that says a lot about whose struggles get taken seriously.

This isn’t about handouts; it’s about basic fairness. Early retirees shouldn’t be priced out of coverage just because their version of a tax break helps ordinary families instead of the top one percent.

remember, these same folks lost their ever loving minds when egg prices spiked because of avian influenza

 

[Bamaro]

Look, you can call it what you want. tax relief, tax credit, subsidy, handout, charity, it doesn't change a thing. It is money, seized from the American taxpayer and given to the insurance shopper to try and offset the crazy cost of the Obamacare insurance policies because Obamacare has become a boondoggle like many of us predicted. And BTW, the credits aren't just for the middle class (whatever middle class means these days). Everyone qualifies except the rich (whatever rich means these days.

AKA, more affordable health care for those that need it.

 

[JDCrimson]

We are sitting here arguing over cutting healthcare benefits to people who desperately need them while we have a boomer generation worth collectively $90T and we dont have the courage in our country to fix our broken and unequitable tax system.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Not to sound snarky, I assure you.

We are sitting here arguing over cutting healthcare benefits to people who desperately need them while we have a boomer generation

The ones whose healthcare we're cutting, right?
The Boomers are 61 to 79 years old, meaning most of them are on Medicare.
And Social Security.

worth collectively $90T

You realize the "oldest generation" that is significant in size anyway - this is always true.
They ALWAYS have more because they've been accumulating longer.

and we dont have the courage in our country to fix our broken and unequitable tax system.

OK - but what do you mean by this?

Do you mean, "We created social programs that have grown beyond the original intent that are now benefiting one particular group of people and since we cannot cut those, we need to raise taxes ON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY PAYING THE MOST?"

See, I'm not a Republican officeholder, so I don't have to pretend that taxing the rich is some sort of sacred command that I cannot violate. I have no problem with it. Raise taxes ten percent or whatever some survey shows won't damage the economy, I'm good with it.

But I have a serious problem with the assertion a tax system where a small portion of people pay the vast majority of the bill for everyone else being told, "You need to pay more," too.

And you know what honestly keeps me from being a Democrat? Seriously - it's because federal money to them is like cocaine to a junkie. Consider the musings of the next President of the US:

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed taxing the wealthy as high as 70% to fund a climate change plan she’s pushing called the “Green New Deal.”

OK so.....not all the crap that's being talked about right now like healthcare. Not Social Security. Not Medicare. But - "ooh boy, let's go get this money and spend it on some other problem INSTEAD OF the one we're saying will kill people TODAY."

And she told me it was only ten people.

The gall of ANYONE to tell the "ten people" (her word, she was lying, it's more), "We know you paid for 40.4% of our party, but you need to pay more money" is pretty elitist and arrogant. And as we learned when John "Who Wants To Marry A Billionaire" Kerry shot his mouth off for an entire campaign about how "people like me should pay more" and then had the hypocritical audacity to park his yacht in another state so he could save on.....wait for it.......taxes!!!



And before anyone says it, I feel the same way about the GOP flushing trillions into the Pentagon potty, too.

 

[dtgreg]

Sure, it’s taxpayer money — just like every mortgage deduction, farm payment, or corporate tax break. Funny how it’s only called a “handout” when it helps regular people instead of the rich.

People forget what it was like before Obamacare. Insurance companies could deny coverage for asthma, diabetes, or even a bad back. Lose your job, lose your coverage. Get cancer, hit your yearly limit, and you’re broke. That’s the system we’d go back to without the ACA.

The tax credits don’t “seize” anything. They help working Americans afford the same basic healthcare security that politicians and the wealthy already enjoy. And yes, they reach beyond just the middle class, because medical costs can crush nearly everyone except the top few percent.

If conservatives think the ACA is such a disaster, where’s their plan to make coverage affordable? They’ve had over a decade and haven’t produced one. Complaining about Obamacare is easy; replacing it with something better apparently isn’t. It seems like their plan is simply to let people go bankrupt or die.

If we’re going to spend taxpayer money, helping people stay insured beats another round of tax cuts for billionaires every single time.

Obamacare is Romneycare. It IS the "Republican Plan". Obama called their bluff.

Truth is, they were never negotiating in good faith. They don't care about Americans, only their masters, those that sign their checks.

 

[dtgreg]

So your positions is that it's A Good Thing that the government is using tax dollars we don't have, either borrowed or taken from people who cannot afford the tax to subsidize other people's healthcare, instead of actually addressing the costs of insurance in the US.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people slightly older than me enjoying early retirement on my hard-earned tax dollars. THIS is the disconnect between libs and conservs that seems un-bridgeable.

"Conservatives" have borrowed trillions of dollars to give it all to billionaires.

 

[Its On A Slab]

Obamacare is Romneycare. It IS the "Republican Plan". Obama called their bluff.

Truth is, they were never negotiating in good faith. They don't care about Americans, only their masters, those that sign their checks.

If you want to shut up a MAGA supporter when they are bashing the ACA, ask them where is the MAGA/Republican plan they have been promising ever since the ACA was enacted?

They don't have one. It has been a political tool of theirs to bash the ACA because they knew it would probably not be repealed. Easier to call it "Obamacare" so they can continue to bash a president who left office nearly 10 years ago.

Was it a perfect bill? Hell, no. And I even agree with CA about it. It's way more expensive than private insurance. But what other option does one have if he/she is a farmer, independent contractor or otherwise working for an entity that doesn't provide health insurance?


The 500 lb gorilla in the room has always been universal coverage, Medicare-for-all. I am not going to go into the arguments. I acknowledge that it would be an expensive proposition. Perhaps make it available only to those who cannot get private insurance in any other way.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

I believe that healthcare for all Americans is a noble cause to invest in with tax dollars. IMO, more of our tax dollars should go towards healthcare and less should go towards corporate/billionaire bailouts, the American Gestapo (ICE), and the ever-ballooning military budget.

Tax breaks/subsidies that help the majority of Americans should be praised, and subsidies that only benefit the top 1% should be scrutinized.

 

[crimsonaudio]

"Conservatives" have borrowed trillions of dollars to give it all to billionaires.

Both sides? That’s the argument here?

I’ve never once supported big government, so…

 

[jthomas666]

remember, these same folks lost their ever loving minds when egg prices spiked because of avian influenza

Man, those people are in for a shock:

Bird Flu Is Back

After a quiet summer, the virus is hitting poultry flocks hard in the run-up to the holidays — and in the midst of a federal government shutdown.

www.nytimes.com

Likely to impact not just the price of eggs, but also chicken and...gulp...turkeys.

 

[jthomas666]

So your positions is that it's A Good Thing that the government is using tax dollars we don't have, either borrowed or taken from people who cannot afford the tax to subsidize other people's healthcare, instead of actually addressing the costs of insurance in the US.

Makes me feel warm and fuzzy knowing that there are people slightly older than me enjoying early retirement on my hard-earned tax dollars. THIS is the disconnect between libs and conservs that seems un-bridgeable.

No one denies that there are probably people who are, in fact, enjoying early retirement. Guess what? No system is perfect. Many of those people "enjoying early retirement" are people who:

1. Got laid off and can't find a new job. Finding a job when you're past 60 is hell.
2. Can't work because of medical issues, many caused by their profession. Anyone with chronic back pain isn't enjoying much of anything.

Would it make you feel warm and fuzzy to know instead that those people are destitute and about to lose their house because of unpaid medical bills?