LOVE THE COMING DEMOCRATIC SHUMER GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

[LafayetteBear]

well, I've been known to be wrong, but I just googled and all knowing ai said that there was a bill passed in the house and pulled in the Senate.

maybe someone else will have a better recollection and could add something

Ned: I don't recall seeing or reading any TV or printed media reports on the passage of a GOP-sponsored bill to replace the ACA. The GOP has passed legislation seeking to defund the ACA or eliminate penalties for folks who do not want to either sign up for ACA related health care insurance or provide proof that they have their own health care insurance (which essentially removes healthier Americans from the insurance pool and ultimately makes it non-viable), but I am not aware of the GOP positing any alternative to the ACA, much less passing legislation for such an alternative.

 

[LafayetteBear]

But I see that just about every Republican has voted to pass the bill and so far only 3, I believe, democrats have. So in my mind, if all republicans have voted for it, how can it be republicans who are "voting" to shut down the government?

The Republican Party controls the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. So if all Republicans voted for a continuing resolution on the debt ceiling, there would be no government shut down. This doesn't seem all that complicated. If you have effective control of the government, you own it.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Gavin Newsom is gonna have a field day with this ^^^^, if he hasn't already.

 

[dpic73]

Gavin Newsom is gonna have a field day with this ^^^^, if he hasn't already.

 

[baltimorened]

The Republican Party controls the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. So if all Republicans voted for a continuing resolution on the debt ceiling, there would be no government shut down. This doesn't seem all that complicated. If you have effective control of the government, you own it.

come on bear, surely you've heard of the filibuster. Under Senate rules before bringing a bill to the floor, you need 60 votes.
So, republicans have 53, can't get to a vote on the bill 'til you clear cloture vote. Therefore, all republicans can vote for it and you still need democrats.

The only way republicans got budget done was through reconciliation where you only need a majority vote.

Senate rules are somewhat arcane, Harry reid busted the filibuster to get federal judges approved. Then McConnell repaid the favor and set new rule for the supreme court justices. So, republicans owe Harry reid for the present conservative court

 

[baltimorened]

Ned: I don't recall seeing or reading any TV or printed media reports on the passage of a GOP-sponsored bill to replace the ACA. The GOP has passed legislation seeking to defund the ACA or eliminate penalties for folks who do not want to either sign up for ACA related health care insurance or provide proof that they have their own health care insurance (which essentially removes healthier Americans from the insurance pool and ultimately makes it non-viable), but I am not aware of the GOP positing any alternative to the ACA, much less passing legislation for such an alternative.

in 2017 the house passed the American healthcare act and sent it to the Senate. It was a bill to repeal and replace the ACA. It went to the Senate, and if I recall could not get sufficient votes to clear filibuster. Don't you remember John McCain, the last and deciding vote, strolling to the senate well, pausing and giving a thumbs down for his vote.

Once again bill needed to clear cloture - 60 votes to move to the floor for debate and final vote.

Google American healthcare act 2017.

I still think that the ACA is a stinker. It's a shame that our leaders can't get together and fix it

 

[UrHuckleberry]

want another opinion? Right now we are years behind in providing due process hearings for migrants waiting for asylum decisions. One of the reasons, in addition to the large number of people waiting, is the shortage of immigration judges. So trump brings in and trains members of the military Judge Advocate Corps to serve as immigration judges.. speeds the process. Isn't that good for both those awaiting hearings and the country at large.

Don't see a coup from a group of lawyers

One of the key parts of the bipartisan border bill Trump quashed was more immigration judges.

 

[LafayetteBear]

View attachment 940524

"Fees stay for Kid Rock." BWAHAHAHAHA!

Can you imagine going to (or wanting to go to) a Kid Rock concert?! (And I'm using the term "concert" very loosely in his case.)

 

[dpic73]

"Fees stay for Kid Rock." BWAHAHAHAHA!

Can you imagine going to (or wanting to go to) a Kid Rock concert?! (And I'm using the term "concert" very loosely in his case.)

Is what he does considered music?

 

[LafayetteBear]

in 2017 the house passed the American healthcare act and sent it to the Senate. It was a bill to repeal and replace the ACA. It went to the Senate, and if I recall could not get sufficient votes to clear filibuster. Don't you remember John McCain, the last and deciding vote, strolling to the senate well, pausing and giving a thumbs down for his vote.

Once again bill needed to clear cloture - 60 votes to move to the floor for debate and final vote.

Google American healthcare act 2017.

I still think that the ACA is a stinker. It's a shame that our leaders can't get together and fix it

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that legislation which McCain famously gave the thumbs down was long on ACA repeal/defunding provisions and short on details of what would replace it. Like many GOP politicians, Trump had severe problems even trying to articulate what his/the GOP's health care plan actually WAS.

As for the ACA, people could quite reasonably debate whether the ACA spends too much public money on health care. (It spends a lot, because health care has gotten expensive, and if you want to expand health care to include people who are not wealthy or who do not have employer sponsored health care benefits (plenty of working people do not get health care benefits), it is going to be a drain on the public fisc.

But with respect to things like the ACA ban on denials of health care coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions" or the ACA health care mandate (which was necessary if you are going to have viable health care insurance pools, and want to ensure that a broader cross section of the public has health care coverage), those provisions are wildly popular.

I'm a liberal, but I'm not necessarily ready to argue that health care is a right. Particularly not with respect to things like experimental or highly expensive, cutting edge healthcare. I believe that we could help keep a bit of a lid on health care costs if we had legislation that imposed some form of healthcare rationing. Basic preventative care (regular checkups, prenatal care, basic surgical procedures) could be covered, and other procedures not covered. That is a brutal choice to make when you are confronted with someone who needs cutting edge but very expensive life saving treatment he or she cannot afford. But we're talking about a health care policy that serves the American public as a whole, not just relatively few unfortunate individuals. As things stand, we are rationing health care by forcing people who cannot afford health insurance to go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment. Waits in emergency rooms are, to say the least, long. And that is a place where long waits are just what you DON'T want. Good luck getting emergency care if you need it, regardless of your means.

Finally, Trump has lately been ballyhooing that he has cut the cost of prescription drugs significantly, and immediately. I do not know the details, but his reference to "immediately" suggests that he signed some kind of EO on the subject. Time will tell as to whether Trump accomplishes much in this area but, if he does, he will deserve some credit for it.

 

[baltimorened]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that legislation which McCain famously gave the thumbs down was long on ACA repeal/defunding provisions and short on details of what would replace it. Like many GOP politicians, Trump had severe problems even trying to articulate what his/the GOP's health care plan actually WAS.

As for the ACA, people could quite reasonably debate whether the ACA spends too much public money on health care. (It spends a lot, because health care has gotten expensive, and if you want to expand health care to include people who are not wealthy or who do not have employer sponsored health care benefits (plenty of working people do not get health care benefits), it is going to be a drain on the public fisc.

But with respect to things like the ACA ban on denials of health care coverage to people with "pre-existing conditions" or the ACA health care mandate (which was necessary if you are going to have viable health care insurance pools, and want to ensure that a broader cross section of the public has health care coverage), those provisions are wildly popular.

I'm a liberal, but I'm not necessarily ready to argue that health care is a right. Particularly not with respect to things like experimental or highly expensive, cutting edge healthcare. I believe that we could help keep a bit of a lid on health care costs if we had legislation that imposed some form of healthcare rationing. Basic preventative care (regular checkups, prenatal care, basic surgical procedures) could be covered, and other procedures not covered. That is a brutal choice to make when you are confronted with someone who needs cutting edge but very expensive life saving treatment he or she cannot afford. But we're talking about a health care policy that serves the American public as a whole, not just relatively few unfortunate individuals. As things stand, we are rationing health care by forcing people who cannot afford health insurance to go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment. Waits in emergency rooms are, to say the least, long. And that is a place where long waits are just what you DON'T want. Good luck getting emergency care if you need it, regardless of your means.

Finally, Trump has lately been ballyhooing that he has cut the cost of prescription drugs significantly, and immediately. I do not know the details, but his reference to "immediately" suggests that he signed some kind of EO on the subject. Time will tell as to whether Trump accomplishes much in this area but, if he does, he will deserve some credit for it.

here's the thing - my opinion...if we measure the success of ACA against the objectives or the stated outcomes it is a failure.
add 41 million new people, better healthcare, cheaper healthcare, not a cent added to the debt, if you like your insurance/doctor you can keep your insurance /doctor, and the list goes on.

I see the need for a government sponsored insurance plan. But the ACA is not it.

 

[LafayetteBear]

here's the thing - my opinion...if we measure the success of ACA against the objectives or the stated outcomes it is a failure.
add 41 million new people, better healthcare, cheaper healthcare, not a cent added to the debt, if you like your insurance/doctor you can keep your insurance /doctor, and the list goes on.

I see the need for a government sponsored insurance plan. But the ACA is not it.

Where did you get the 41 million people figure? I have no idea how many people were added to the health care rolls subsequent to the enactment of the ACA.

I don't believe that Obama ever promised that the ACA would not "add a cent to the public debt." Health care is ginormously expensive, so expanding the pool of people with health care coverage to include people who cannot afford to pay for it on their own is necessarily gonna involve considerable public expense. That's obvious. And it's a negative. But conversely, having more people with health insurance coverage is an unambiguous positive.

Your criticisms of the ACA are noted, but they will be a little more persuasive if and when you can posit a viable alternative.

 

[baltimorened]

Where did you get the 41 million people figure? I have no idea how many people were added to the health care rolls subsequent to the enactment of the ACA.

I don't believe that Obama ever promised that the ACA would not "add a cent to the public debt." Health care is ginormously expensive, so expanding the pool of people with health care coverage to include people who cannot afford to pay for it on their own is necessarily gonna involve considerable public expense. That's obvious. And it's a negative. But conversely, having more people with health insurance coverage is an unambiguous positive.

Your criticisms of the ACA are noted, but they will be a little more persuasive if and when you can posit a viable alternative.

bear, go back and look. The goal was to insure the 41 million uninsured (at the time). We've done 1/2 of that.

Obama stated that the ACA would not add a cent to the debt, and for topping on the cake, each family was going to save $2500/year on their healthcare bills.

I don't have an alternative. That's our leader's job. But as i've posted many times, our leaders seem to be more interested in bashing each other than in solving america's problems.

But, I'll repeat, the ACA is not a good plan. And as I've pointed out every single democrat presidential candidate said they would change it (2020 election).

 

[LafayetteBear]

I don't have an alternative.

You sound like every GOP politician I know.

 

[baltimorened]

You sound like every GOP politician I know.

well, being somewhat snarky, there was an alternative in 2017 and passed the house and democrats didn't vote for it in the senate. so there was your alternative If democrats had voted for it we likely would be living in healthcare utopia.

So, I guess from the tenor of your posts you are all in on the ACA

 

[dpic73]

well, being somewhat snarky, there was an alternative in 2017 and passed the house and democrats didn't vote for it in the senate. so there was your alternative If democrats had voted for it we likely would be living in healthcare utopia.

Why would you want to replace the ACA with a bill that was infinitely worse and would cause tens of millions to lose healthcare?

Why opponents criticized the AHCA
Opponents of the AHCA, which included many medical and patient advocacy groups, pointed to several projected negative effects:

• Projected coverage losses: A CBO analysis estimated that the House-passed version of the AHCA would have resulted in 23 million more people being uninsured by 2026, primarily due to cuts to Medicaid and insurance subsidies.
• Weakening of pre-existing condition protections: While the bill stated that insurers could not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, critics argued that waivers and the continuous coverage provision would effectively make coverage unaffordable for many with health issues.
• Increased costs for older and sicker individuals: By moving from income-based to age-based tax credits and changing other regulations, the bill would have led to much higher costs for older and less healthy Americans.
• Significant cuts to Medicaid: The legislation proposed federal spending cuts to Medicaid of over $800 billion over a decade, which analysts said would have a "devastating impact" on vulnerable populations.

CBO Releases AHCA Score, Bill Remains Catastrophic in Terms of Coverage Loss

The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) today highlighted the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) newly released score on the American Health Care Act (AHCA), pointing to its finding that 23 million Americans would lose coverage by 2026.

www.floridapolicy.org

 

[TigerGrowls]

Gavin Newsom is gonna have a field day with this ^^^^, if he hasn't already.

Newscum sux. If he's the dem champion yall are SOL.

 

[ANEW]

Newscum sux. If he's the dem champion yall are SOL.

Yes but he can run on his record as governor of California. He did a good job with the weather. It's really nice there.

 

[LafayetteBear]

Newscum sux. If he's the dem champion yall are SOL.

Does he walk around sporting a diaper, a Foley catheter, and a urine bag strapped to his leg? Your guy does.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

well, being somewhat snarky, there was an alternative in 2017 and passed the house and democrats didn't vote for it in the senate. so there was your alternative If democrats had voted for it we likely would be living in healthcare utopia.

So, I guess from the tenor of your posts you are all in on the ACA

Even when I was a Republican, I was never a huge fan of McCain. But I gained a lot of respect for him that day. Showed incredible courage to go against his party there to do what he believed was the right thing. That bill wasn’t a plan to rebuild, it was just a plan to destroy. And what’s humorous to me, is I think Trump hates Obamacare so much bc it has his name. When it was the GOP that gave it that name.

 

[baltimorened]

Even when I was a Republican, I was never a huge fan of McCain. But I gained a lot of respect for him that day. Showed incredible courage to go against his party there to do what he believed was the right thing. That bill wasn’t a plan to rebuild, it was just a plan to destroy. And what’s humorous to me, is I think Trump hates Obamacare so much bc it has his name. When it was the GOP that gave it that name.

yeah, and the name was not meant as a tribute.

 

[bdgan]

Why would you want to replace the ACA with a bill that was infinitely worse and would cause tens of millions to lose healthcare?

Why opponents criticized the AHCA
Opponents of the AHCA, which included many medical and patient advocacy groups, pointed to several projected negative effects:

• Projected coverage losses: A CBO analysis estimated that the House-passed version of the AHCA would have resulted in 23 million more people being uninsured by 2026, primarily due to cuts to Medicaid and insurance subsidies.
• Weakening of pre-existing condition protections: While the bill stated that insurers could not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, critics argued that waivers and the continuous coverage provision would effectively make coverage unaffordable for many with health issues.
• Increased costs for older and sicker individuals: By moving from income-based to age-based tax credits and changing other regulations, the bill would have led to much higher costs for older and less healthy Americans.
• Significant cuts to Medicaid: The legislation proposed federal spending cuts to Medicaid of over $800 billion over a decade, which analysts said would have a "devastating impact" on vulnerable populations.

CBO Releases AHCA Score, Bill Remains Catastrophic in Terms of Coverage Loss

The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) today highlighted the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) newly released score on the American Health Care Act (AHCA), pointing to its finding that 23 million Americans would lose coverage by 2026.

www.floridapolicy.org

Nobody wants to replace the ACA with a program that's worse.

The truth about the ACA:

• Obama promised that the average family would save $2,500 per year and nothing like that ever happened (just like government takeover of student loans was supposed to save taxpayers $68 billion and instead cost taxpayers well over $200 billion and counting).
• The savings were supposed to come from competition from non profit government subsidized co-ops. Every single one of them failed because they couldn't compete.
• Obama promised that the ACA wouldn't add one dime to the deficit. It was going to be paid for by reducing reimbursements to providers but that never happened. It was also going to be paid for by taxing insurance companies, medical devices, and Cadillac plans which are generally provided to union/government employees and none of that ever happened. By most accounts the ACA is adding ~$200 billion per year to the deficit. More people are covered under this program but at substantial cost to taxpayers/deficit.

By almost any measure the ACA has been a failure. The debate should be about what can we do that's better.

Wrt the government shutdown:

• Democrats want several things but the two biggest are a reversal of parts of the BBB that have been passed into law and renewal of Covid era enhancements to ACA subsidies.
• The biggest one is a 20 hr/week work requirement for able bodied Americans without dependents in order to receive taxpayer funded Medicaid. I personally find it amazing that people think that's an unreasonable expectation. Absolutely nobody loses their benefits if they agree to work, volunteer, or go to school.
• The other is an expansion of ACA subsidies for people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Biden passed this because it was difficult for some people to work during Covid. That's why democrats schedule them to expire at the end of this year. Republicans aren't cutting anything. Did democrats lie when they said this had to do with Covid?

The U.S. has a $37 trillion debt and they just reported a $2.2 trillion deficit for fiscal 2025. Unfunded liabilities are going to make the deficit go much higher. Can we really afford to keep spending $7 trillion + while collecting $5 trillion? We're in a pickle and IMO the problem can't be solved without some sort of balanced budget amendment. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff and lose elections by promising to be fiscally responsible.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Nobody wants to replace the ACA with a program that's worse.

The truth about the ACA:

• Obama promised that the average family would save $2,500 per year and nothing like that ever happened (just like government takeover of student loans was supposed to save taxpayers $68 billion and instead cost taxpayers well over $200 billion and counting).
• The savings were supposed to come from competition from non profit government subsidized co-ops. Every single one of them failed because they couldn't compete.
• Obama promised that the ACA wouldn't add one dime to the deficit. It was going to be paid for by reducing reimbursements to providers but that never happened. It was also going to be paid for by taxing insurance companies, medical devices, and Cadillac plans which are generally provided to union/government employees and none of that ever happened. By most accounts the ACA is adding ~$200 billion per year to the deficit. More people are covered under this program but at substantial cost to taxpayers/deficit.

By almost any measure the ACA has been a failure. The debate should be about what can we do that's better.

Wrt the government shutdown:

• Democrats want several things but the two biggest are a reversal of parts of the BBB that have been passed into law and renewal of Covid era enhancements to ACA subsidies.
• The biggest one is a 20 hr/week work requirement for able bodied Americans without dependents in order to receive taxpayer funded Medicaid. I personally find it amazing that people think that's an unreasonable expectation. Absolutely nobody loses their benefits if they agree to work, volunteer, or go to school.
• The other is an expansion of ACA subsidies for people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Biden passed this because it was difficult for some people to work during Covid. That's why democrats schedule them to expire at the end of this year. Republicans aren't cutting anything. Did democrats lie when they said this had to do with Covid?

The U.S. has a $37 trillion debt and they just reported a $2.2 trillion deficit for fiscal 2025. Unfunded liabilities are going to make the deficit go much higher. Can we really afford to keep spending $7 trillion + while collecting $5 trillion? We're in a pickle and IMO the problem can't be solved without some sort of balanced budget amendment. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff and lose elections by promising to be fiscally responsible.

I don’t generally disagree with that. But have yet to see a true Republican plan.

 

[bdgan]

well, being somewhat snarky, there was an alternative in 2017 and passed the house and democrats didn't vote for it in the senate. so there was your alternative If democrats had voted for it we likely would be living in healthcare utopia.

There is no healthcare utopia.

A lot of people say they want western European style government healthcare. The truth is they want American style healthcare for free and that's not possible. People look at the "free" stuff but they don't look at the whole package. People living in those countries earn less than Americans and pay much higher taxes. They live in homes half the size and drive small cars because gas is $8/gal. Some have shortages of doctors and nurses because of low pay. Some costly late life procedures have long wait times.

I'm not crapping on those countries or building up the USA. I'm just saying a lot of things are different.

 

[bdgan]

Why would you want to replace the ACA with a bill that was infinitely worse and would cause tens of millions to lose healthcare?

Why opponents criticized the AHCA
Opponents of the AHCA, which included many medical and patient advocacy groups, pointed to several projected negative effects:

• Projected coverage losses: A CBO analysis estimated that the House-passed version of the AHCA would have resulted in 23 million more people being uninsured by 2026, primarily due to cuts to Medicaid and insurance subsidies.
• Weakening of pre-existing condition protections: While the bill stated that insurers could not deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, critics argued that waivers and the continuous coverage provision would effectively make coverage unaffordable for many with health issues.
• Increased costs for older and sicker individuals: By moving from income-based to age-based tax credits and changing other regulations, the bill would have led to much higher costs for older and less healthy Americans.
• Significant cuts to Medicaid: The legislation proposed federal spending cuts to Medicaid of over $800 billion over a decade, which analysts said would have a "devastating impact" on vulnerable populations.

CBO Releases AHCA Score, Bill Remains Catastrophic in Terms of Coverage Loss

The Florida Policy Institute (FPI) today highlighted the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) newly released score on the American Health Care Act (AHCA), pointing to its finding that 23 million Americans would lose coverage by 2026.

www.floridapolicy.org

Your article says:

"All of the coverage gains expected under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be eliminated and the uninsured rate among the non-elderly would revert back to the 2010 level, before the ACA took effect."

This is factually incorrect. All of the subsidies offered under the ACA would remain in full effect. The government passed enhanced subsidies/premium credits in 2021 because of Covid. That's why they were set to expire at the end of 2025. If these supposedly temporary enhancements were allowed to expire we would revert to the original AHA subsidies.

 

[bdgan]

I don’t generally disagree with that. But have yet to see a true Republican plan.

They don't have a plan because any plan would require tradeoffs of higher taxes or reduced benefits. The public doesn't want either and politicians don't want to lose votes.

 

[dpic73]

Nobody wants to replace the ACA with a program that's worse.

The truth about the ACA:

• Obama promised that the average family would save $2,500 per year and nothing like that ever happened (just like government takeover of student loans was supposed to save taxpayers $68 billion and instead cost taxpayers well over $200 billion and counting).
• The savings were supposed to come from competition from non profit government subsidized co-ops. Every single one of them failed because they couldn't compete.
• Obama promised that the ACA wouldn't add one dime to the deficit. It was going to be paid for by reducing reimbursements to providers but that never happened. It was also going to be paid for by taxing insurance companies, medical devices, and Cadillac plans which are generally provided to union/government employees and none of that ever happened. By most accounts the ACA is adding ~$200 billion per year to the deficit. More people are covered under this program but at substantial cost to taxpayers/deficit.

By almost any measure the ACA has been a failure. The debate should be about what can we do that's better.

Wrt the government shutdown:

• Democrats want several things but the two biggest are a reversal of parts of the BBB that have been passed into law and renewal of Covid era enhancements to ACA subsidies.
• The biggest one is a 20 hr/week work requirement for able bodied Americans without dependents in order to receive taxpayer funded Medicaid. I personally find it amazing that people think that's an unreasonable expectation. Absolutely nobody loses their benefits if they agree to work, volunteer, or go to school.
• The other is an expansion of ACA subsidies for people who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. Biden passed this because it was difficult for some people to work during Covid. That's why democrats schedule them to expire at the end of this year. Republicans aren't cutting anything. Did democrats lie when they said this had to do with Covid?

The U.S. has a $37 trillion debt and they just reported a $2.2 trillion deficit for fiscal 2025. Unfunded liabilities are going to make the deficit go much higher. Can we really afford to keep spending $7 trillion + while collecting $5 trillion? We're in a pickle and IMO the problem can't be solved without some sort of balanced budget amendment. Politicians get elected by promising free stuff and lose elections by promising to be fiscally responsible.

I didn't say the ACA was perfect and it didn't work as planned for many reasons but it did result in tens of millions of people getting healthcare that previously couldn't because of the requirement for insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. But when there's no mandate, the younger and healthier dropped out of the pool which increased costs for everybody.

We also can't afford 20B to Argentina because their leader is a right-wing friend of Trump's, 150B for ICE and a tax cut for the rich that will add trillions more to the deficit. I believe healthcare should come before those misplaced priorities.

 

[dpic73]

Your article says:

"All of the coverage gains expected under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) would be eliminated and the uninsured rate among the non-elderly would revert back to the 2010 level, before the ACA took effect."

This is factually incorrect. All of the subsidies offered under the ACA would remain in full effect. The government passed enhanced subsidies/premium credits in 2021 because of Covid. That's why they were set to expire at the end of 2025. If these supposedly temporary enhancements were allowed to expire we would revert to the original AHA subsidies.

This article was from 2017 when Trump was trying to push through the unpopular AHCA.

 

[bdgan]

I didn't say the ACA was perfect and it didn't work as planned for many reasons but it did result in tens of millions of people getting healthcare that previously couldn't because of the requirement for insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. But when there's no mandate, the younger and healthier dropped out of the pool which increased costs for everybody.

We also can't afford 20B to Argentina because their leader is a right-wing friend of Trump's, 150B for ICE and a tax cut for the rich that will add trillions more to the deficit. I believe healthcare should come before those misplaced priorities.

Saying the ACA wasn't perfect is a huge understatement. Yes more people are covered because more people got Medicaid for free. It's not a surprise that if you offer something for free people will take it. I don't see how that makes it a successful program. that's like saying the California High Speed Rail project will be less than perfect when it takes 20 years instead of 10 years and the cost is $150 billion instead of $33 billion. After all, we'll have a train.



Here's what we got from Obamacare:

• 30 million more people on Medicaid/CHIP but that doesn't mean all would be uncovered without the ACA
• Higher taxes on people earning over $250k (0.9% + 3.8%)
• $200 billion per year added to the deficit

But none of this has anything to do with the government shutdown. Biden eliminated work requirements and provided enhanced subsidies on top of what was in the ACA. The BBB reinstates work requirements and the temporary covid related enhanced subsidies are expiring as scheduled. That's what the democrats are fighting. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. We can debate healthcare but we shouldn't be debating facts.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Saying the ACA wasn't perfect is a huge understatement. Yes more people are covered because more people got Medicaid for free. It's not a surprise that if you offer something for free people will take it. I don't see how that makes it a successful program. that's like saying the California High Speed Rail project will be less than perfect when it takes 20 years instead of 10 years and the cost is $150 billion instead of $33 billion. After all, we'll have a train.



Here's what we got from Obamacare:

• 30 million more people on Medicaid/CHIP but that doesn't mean all would be uncovered without the ACA
• Higher taxes on people earning over $250k (0.9% + 3.8%)
• $200 billion per year added to the deficit

But none of this has anything to do with the government shutdown. Biden eliminated work requirements and provided enhanced subsidies on top of what was in the ACA. The BBB reinstates work requirements and the temporary covid related enhanced subsidies are expiring as scheduled. That's what the democrats are fighting. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. We can debate healthcare but we shouldn't be debating facts.

"That's what the democrats are fighting. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. We can debate healthcare but we shouldn't be debating facts."

Can you tell the current administration this?

 

[baltimorened]

"That's what the democrats are fighting. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. We can debate healthcare but we shouldn't be debating facts."

Can you tell the current administration this?

so are you saying that we should just extend the temporary COVID increased to ACA? Why were they originally determined to be temporary with a 2025 end date?

 

[bdgan]

so are you saying that we should just extend the temporary COVID increased to ACA? Why were they originally determined to be temporary with a 2025 end date?

I can't answer for UrHuck but I'll give you my answer. By having it expire after 3 years they can claim it "only" costs $30 million. If they said costs $100 million it probably wouldn't have passed. They fully expected to demand renewal when the time came. It has nothing to do with Covid. Remember, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. Just look at what we went through to cut subsidies for PBS. The justification for that was we only had 3 network channels with limited educational content. Now we have 100 channels, streaming, etc. with all kinds of educational content.

Now ask why it's too much of a lift for able bodied people without dependents to work, volunteer, or go to school 20 hrs per week.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

so are you saying that we should just extend the temporary COVID increased to ACA? Why were they originally determined to be temporary with a 2025 end date?

I am saying that what @bdgan is saying is not what the administration is saying.

They are saying the Democrats are fighting to get healthcare for illegals. Not that they are trying to extend covid subsidies.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I can't answer for UrHuck but I'll give you my answer. By having it expire after 3 years they can claim it "only" costs $30 million. If they said costs $100 million it probably wouldn't have passed. They fully expected to demand renewal when the time came. It has nothing to do with Covid. Remember, the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. Just look at what we went through to cut subsidies for PBS. The justification for that was we only had 3 network channels with limited educational content. Now we have 100 channels, streaming, etc. with all kinds of educational content.

Now ask why it's too much of a lift for able bodied people without dependents to work, volunteer, or go to school 20 hrs per week.

I honestly don't have any issues with the discussion, as it is an honest one, and people can have differing opinions. My point was that is that is not what the administration is saying they are opposed to, or what the Democrats are trying to extend.

 

[baltimorened]

I honestly don't have any issues with the discussion, as it is an honest one, and people can have differing opinions. My point was that is that is not what the administration is saying they are opposed to, or what the Democrats are trying to extend.

to be fair, both sides are saying what they think the public wants to hear. Neither party has brought up all the other things the Dems have put into their demand for opening the government. But, like I've posted before I think most of them are "throwaways" I.e, something they're willing to give up to get what they really want.

As I posted before (to beat that dead horse) republicans say they don't want health benefits going to undocumented folks, democrats say their demand doesn't allow health benefits for undocumented migrants. So they are on the page. Seems like an easy discussion.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

to be fair, both sides are saying what they think the public wants to hear. Neither party has brought up all the other things the Dems have put into their demand for opening the government. But, like I've posted before I think most of them are "throwaways" I.e, something they're willing to give up to get what they really want.

Yeah, sort of how negotiation works. With you there.

 

[dpic73]

Saying the ACA wasn't perfect is a huge understatement. Yes more people are covered because more people got Medicaid for free. It's not a surprise that if you offer something for free people will take it. I don't see how that makes it a successful program. that's like saying the California High Speed Rail project will be less than perfect when it takes 20 years instead of 10 years and the cost is $150 billion instead of $33 billion. After all, we'll have a train.



Here's what we got from Obamacare:

• 30 million more people on Medicaid/CHIP but that doesn't mean all would be uncovered without the ACA
• Higher taxes on people earning over $250k (0.9% + 3.8%)
• $200 billion per year added to the deficit

But none of this has anything to do with the government shutdown. Biden eliminated work requirements and provided enhanced subsidies on top of what was in the ACA. The BBB reinstates work requirements and the temporary covid related enhanced subsidies are expiring as scheduled. That's what the democrats are fighting. That's not just my opinion, it's a fact. We can debate healthcare but we shouldn't be debating facts.

Millions were also covered by private plans and don't forget benefits like prohibiting lifetime limits on the dollar amount of coverage, prevents denying people coverage, restricting the amount of out of pocket costs for individuals and families for in-network care, the ability to keep young adult children on their parents plan until they're 26, among other benefits.

We now have more people covered by healthcare than ever before but if the Republicans can do better , I'm open to it but they've never come close to proposing anything that would help those who couldn't get healthcare before the ACA.

 

[bdgan]

I am saying that what @bdgan is saying is not what the administration is saying.

They are saying the Democrats are fighting to get healthcare for illegals. Not that they are trying to extend covid subsidies.

It's like when Trump says illegal immigrants are prisoners and criminals. There's some truth to that but I'm confident that the majority of illegal immigrants are just coming here for a better life.

Do democrats want healthcare for illegals? I think the answer is clearly yes but I also suspect that it's less than 20% of the spending democrats want extended. That's the way politics works on both sides.

All Democrats Say Their Health Plan Would Cover Undocumented Immigrants

 

[bdgan]

Millions were also covered by private plans and don't forget benefits like prohibiting lifetime limits on the dollar amount of coverage, prevents denying people coverage, restricting the amount of out of pocket costs for individuals and families for in-network care, the ability to keep young adult children on their parents plan until they're 26, among other benefits.

We now have more people covered by healthcare than ever before but if the Republicans can do better , I'm open to it but they've never come close to proposing anything that would help those who couldn't get healthcare before the ACA.

You're totally missing the point. I said that by any objective measure Obamacare failed to live up to the promises. It didn't lower costs and it added a huge amount to the deficit. It didn't miss by a little, it missed massively.

You come back with statements like more people got covered, preexisting conditions are covered, and out of pocket maximums are in place. You obviously think those are good things which is fine but the cost wasn't even in the ballpark. Furthermore this has absolutely zero to do with why democrats shut down the government.

 

[dpic73]

You're totally missing the point. I said that by any objective measure Obamacare failed to live up to the promises. It didn't lower costs and it added a huge amount to the deficit. It didn't miss by a little, it missed massively.

You come back with statements like more people got covered, preexisting conditions are covered, and out of pocket maximums are in place. You obviously think those are good things which is fine but the cost wasn't even in the ballpark. Furthermore this has absolutely zero to do with why democrats shut down the government.

I don't even know what we're arguing about because I agree that it didn't live up to it's promises - my only point is that it also had many benefits that no Republican plan has come close to realizing and that was my original point. The AHCA was a much worse plan with less benefits that would have caused tens of millions to lose their healthcare. So cry about the ACA all you want but unless the Pubs come up with a better plan, it's all we've got.