Fair enough.
So that was from 6 years ago, as a plan of what they would want. But are they asking for that in their demands for this budget?
if you ask republicans they will say yes and point to a provision in the democrat proposals that rescinds a provision in the BBB that would allow for healthcare payments for undocumented migrants.
I agree with you, if you measure the results of the ACA against the stated objectives it has been a failure. Sure there are some parts that did take effect, and that's good, but overall, what was promised has not been delivered. But, in government, we somehow never go back and measure achievement vs objective/goal. We just move the goalpost and highlight the things that did occur and overlook those that didn't.
| Political Stance | Republicans (and Senator Kennedy) | Democrats |
| Claim | "Democrats are trying to force us to fund this list of 'woke' foreign aid projects." | "We are fighting to ensure the President cannot illegally ignore the will of Congress and cut foreign aid we have already approved." |
| Actual Goal | To permanently eliminate these and other "wasteful" foreign aid programs by approving the rescission request. | To include a provision in the funding bill that prevents the executive branch from making these unilateral cuts (rescissions). |
Nobody is talking about a "budget" at this point. Democrats want Republicans to get rid of Medicaid work requirements that they already passed into law. They also want them to pass a new bill to renew covid era expansions for subsidies that expire at the end of this year.
In your opinion what were the good parts of the ACA other than that we made more people eligible for free Medicaid?
I think that's a half truth. In addition to taking away work requirements and wanting covid expansion renewed they also want republicans to reverse the $9 billion they saved by cutting funding for things like PBS & Planned Parenthood. This is just the kind of crap that gets attached to spending bills for that kind of stuff. I'm sure that dems would be happy to get $8 billion of the $9 billion restored and give up these things. They probably didn't even know that stuff was happening.
It's like forgiving $20,000 of student loans one time but not continuing to do it. Democrats will claim that republicans want to add $20,000 to students already burdened by debt.
Still think the difference between illegals and lawfully present is pretty huge. Made more sense.
Fair enough there. Don’t disagree with that.
here's the thing though, if you believe the interviews of migrants, when asked about receiving medical care they answer yes, for free under Medicaid. They said they were receiving free rent (hotels) free food, sheets changed every day , no work and free medical care.
Of course they do. It's also true that if we gave everybody food stamps it would be easier to afford food. Or if we gave everybody subsidies that would help them afford rent, utilities, college, etc. Of course we already do all of those things. It's just a matter of how much.
BREAKING: President Trump confirms FIRINGS ARE UNDERWAY in the executive branch as a result of the Democrat shutdown.
hey, I'm not for keeping the COVID emergency subsidies for ACA. They made them temporary for a reason and even Biden declared COVID emergency over. The Democrats attempt to keep the increased subsidies just reinforces the theme that nothing is as immortal as a government temporary program.
Lawfully present has a loose definition. ~15 million entered illegally over the past several years. They say they fear persecution in their home country and want amnesty. They're given a hearing date that could be years away but they're technically consider to be lawfully present even though only 15% are ultimately granted asylum.
That might be a legitimate legal claim made by democrats. The courts will decide. Either way dems should b embarrassed by what the DOGE team discovered.
Sure. Still not illegal. Still different.Lawfully present has a loose definition. ~15 million entered illegally over the past several years. They say they fear persecution in their home country and want amnesty. They're given a hearing date that could be years away but they're technically consider to be lawfully present even though only 15% are ultimately granted asylum.
Take this with a grain of salt because it's published by house Mike Johnson so it might not be the most objective:
hrm, well its not my manufactured consent. But of the two options, they both sound bad. The best option is to pay for judges, actual judges, to implement due process in the correct way. I look at this like: I have a toothache, I can't get in with my dentist due to a wait list, but heres a backalley dentist named Todd who saw a youtube video and has some pliers.
LOL, you mean the false characterization of those items that were passed in a bi-partisan manner? Do yourself a favor and take those allegations and google "Is it true that dems wanted $3.6 million for cooking and dance workshops for male sex workers in Haiti?" for example. I'll do the first one for you - feel free to do the rest.
so, here's a basic question. If ACA is a good program, why are we fighting the issue to return to pre COVID subsidy rates? We no longer have the reason (COVID) the subsidies were increased and the expiration date for the subsidies as in the ICA is here. Remember it was the Democrats who voted affirmatively for the Act in 2022. All democrats supported the bill, house and Senate. They set the expiration date
They're here illegally and have just been given a reprieve until after their hearing. Some don't show up. Only 15% of those who do show up are granted asylum. The question is should these people receive free healthcare while they wait for their hearing? And what if they aren't granted asylum but don't leave?
It would be better if they were required to wait out of the country for their asylum hearing.
It really is economically advantageous to provide health care, though I agree with the take that we should charge higher rates for obesity. Right now there is little to no incentive to be healthy.
What pay your own way mandate?
I appreciate you concern for others but I disagree with your math.
That's what I'm calling the mandate which allowed it to have a wider risk pool. I'm not really into going back and forth about this besides the point I've already made and since I'm busy, I'll let AI and copy/paste answer it for me, but he destabilized it and undermined it in many ways.
I'm gonna go ahead and honk the Bullshiat Horn on Kennedy's little speech. He's so full of crap that his irises have turned brown.
Nice try, but false. The Democrats never denied hearings on Supreme Court nominations because they were made in an election year. The Republicans DID, when Garland was nominated in February of an election year. Barrett was nominated in September of an election year but received both hearings and confirmation.
Agreed. Sometimes it could potentially be a somewhat even distribution across the state, but almost always some level of fvckery by one side or the other.
I'm familiar with all that but I think your conclusions are not based in reality. It reminds me of Pelosi saying that the best way to stimulate the economy was to pay people more not to work (enhanced unemployment).That's what I'm calling the mandate which allowed it to have a wider risk pool. I'm not really into going back and forth about this besides the point I've already made and since I'm busy, I'll let AI and copy/paste answer it for me, but he destabilized it and undermined it in many ways.
Although former President Donald Trump and Republican-controlled Congress failed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) legislatively in 2017, the Trump administration took numerous actions to weaken it. These efforts included administrative changes, regulatory rollbacks, and legal challenges intended to undermine key ACA provisions and reduce enrollment.
Executive actions and regulatory changes
Expansion of non-ACA plans: The Trump administration expanded access to short-term, limited-duration insurance plans and association health plans. These plans offered cheaper alternatives but were not required to cover essential health benefits or protect people with pre-existing conditions, which siphoned healthier people out of the ACA's risk pool and destabilized the market.
Cuts to subsidies and enforcement: An early executive order from the Trump administration directed agencies to waive, delay, or grant exemptions from ACA provisions that imposed perceived "burdens". The administration also ended payments to insurers that helped reduce cost-sharing for low-income enrollees, though some state regulators intervened to prevent a market collapse.
Reduced enrollment outreach: The administration significantly cut funding for advertising, outreach, and "navigator" programs that helped people enroll in ACA coverage. This reduced awareness of deadlines and enrollment assistance, contributing to lower sign-ups.
Shorter enrollment periods: The open enrollment period on the federal HealthCare.gov marketplace was shortened from the standard 90 days to 45 days in 2017.
Relaxed state waiver requirements: The administration gave states more flexibility to alter their ACA requirements through waivers. Some states were encouraged to implement new rules that made it harder to enroll in Medicaid, such as work requirements and premiums for low-income individuals.
Congressional and judicial efforts
Removal of the individual mandate penalty: The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act eliminated the tax penalty for not having health insurance. This was seen as a key step in undermining the ACA, which was initially structured to have a broad risk pool of both healthy and sick individuals.
Support for legal challenges: The Trump administration backed a multi-state lawsuit, California v. Texas, that challenged the constitutionality of the entire ACA. In 2021, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case, preserving the law.
Outcomes of these actions
While Trump's actions did not eliminate the ACA entirely, they did weaken some of its key pillars and reversed some of its coverage gains:
Rise in uninsured rates: The number of uninsured Americans began to increase under the Trump administration, reversing a trend of coverage gains under the ACA.
Higher premiums in some areas: The expansion of cheaper, non-compliant plans pulled healthier people out of the ACA marketplaces, causing premiums to rise for many who remained, particularly those without subsidies.
Uncertainty and destabilization: The ongoing attempts at repeal and the administrative sabotage created an environment of uncertainty that destabilized individual insurance markets in some states.
It was literally his first executive order:
On January 20, just hours after his swearing in ceremony, President Donald Trump issued his first executive order. The order directs his agencies to “waive, defer, or grant exemptions to any provision of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] to the maximum extent permitted by law.” Though the order does not contain specific or detailed instructions about which provisions of the law should be addressed, it is a strong statement against the law that remained highlighted throughout the presidential campaign. The executive order directs and authorizes agencies to roll back regulations, cease to enforce provisions, and otherwise nullify provisions set through the regulatory, rather than the legislative, process.
