Logos Stick said:

---

Apache said:

---

Quote:

---

This move screws the middle class

---

Yessir. What an absolute clusterf*ck.
Insurance for my family will triple.

---

Yep. About the same.

---

Ditto.

If I'm going to have the screws turned, I'd at least want the GOP to keep control of Congress.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

This thread feels very… botty… to me. Very certain declarations of doom on a topic that's multiple layers separated from general population visibility…

I'm an F16 junkie and would need to deep dive terms and implications, but several posters go back and forth every 3 minutes about the apparent midterm implications…

---

Long-time posters... botty? Uh, ok....

I'll freely admit that I have a penchant for being gloomy as of late. But, I'm also bouncing from conference call to conference call today and have time to kill, and got drawn in to the conversation :-)

Since when is $130 billion one year no big deal? We have to cut and cut drastically across the board to make America solvent again. Good for Republicans not continuing to spend. Now cut more and increase revenue through tariffs. We have to at a minimum get the annual deficit back below 3.0% of gdp and relatively quickly.

Also even if Republicans lose the house, the Senate should be safe so gridlock it is which is usually a best case scenario.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

This thread feels very… botty… to me. Very certain declarations of doom on a topic that's multiple layers separated from general population visibility…

I'm an F16 junkie and would need to deep dive terms and implications, but several posters go back and forth every 3 minutes about the apparent midterm implications…

---

I long ago informed this board I was a Russian bot...the first actually...according to my handlers.

Question....

How does this 'screw the middle class', more than those who will no longer have access to the freebies?

I ask, because ACA has ABSOLUTELY screwed me (middle class), and exponentially ballooned the healthcare costs we have to pay as a small company.

Everyone wants 'free market' until they think it'll cost them a few votes, then the tune changes apparently.

But this thing has been an albatross around many of our necks, since the day it was instituted. It's hard for me to understand how it screws me when it's gone, more than when it's here.

Quote:

---

Good for Republicans not continuing to spend.

---

Yeah I'm sure we can count on Republican fiscal responsibility from here on out.

They are ****ing over the people that voted for them and they could give 2 sh*ts.

Quote:

---

How does this 'screw the middle class', more than those who will no longer have access to the freebies?

---

I am middle class, pay out of pocket for insurance & will have to pay about 20k a year more for health insurance as a result of this.
This is definitely screwing me.

If they want subsidies, there is a solution. Agree to reinstate the tax penalties for anyone NOT taking the mandatory health insurance policy that the ACA required.

Then use those taxes to offset the costs for those in the ACA pool who do sign up.

Apache said:

---

Quote:

---

How does this 'screw the middle class', more than those who will no longer have access to the freebies?

---

I am middle class, pay out of pocket for insurance & will have to pay about 20k a year more for health insurance as a result of this.
This is definitely screwing me.

---

Well, because of the ACA, I've paid a LOT higher increases than that for our company's insurance....and have very very few options because of it, compared to what it used to be. "you like your plan, you can keep it"....absolute BS.

Again...everyone wants free market, until it costs them more. But manipulating the market is what created this. Not a free market. It'll need time to correct (though I doubt our elected officials will actually let it get to that point).

Mathguy64 said:

---

If they want subsidies, there is a solution. Agree to reinstate the tax penalties for anyone NOT taking the mandatory health insurance policy that the ACA required.

Then use those taxes to offset the costs for those in the ACA pool who do sign up.

---

Holy crap...please no.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Question....

How does this 'screw the middle class', more than those who will no longer have access to the freebies?

I ask, because ACA has ABSOLUTELY screwed me (middle class), and exponentially ballooned the healthcare costs we have to pay as a small company.

Everyone wants 'free market' until they think it'll cost them a few votes, then the tune changes apparently.

But this thing has been an albatross around many of our necks, since the day it was instituted. It's hard for me to understand how it screws me when it's gone, more than when it's here.

---

Because the subsidies that are getting cut are the premium tax credit portion of the subsides which includes the folks above 400% of the poverty line. Anyone below the 400% will not be nearly as impacted. And, unfortunately, a lot of Republicans above the 400% line make use of it considering most of the people that did are in red states.

That's why some Republicans were wanting to extend it. I don't want ACA around anymore than anyone else does but I'm looking at this in terms of the near-term political landscape.

Maybe it will work out and they get their plan passed on Wednesday without diluting it too much, but we shall see. The issue is the timing of it all. Costs are going to rise in 2026 with these subsidies expiring so any plan they pass on Wednesday may not be enough to offset the anger by their own constituents who vote them out in mid-terms.

I hear you, but it's always 'near term' with these officials. It's always decisions based on votes for re-election, and not what's best for the country...which most of us hate.

At some point, do we not rip off the band aid?

I get the arguments for and against. I just can't come to grips with the justification for continuing the engine that's causing all the issues to begin with.

But, I'm guessing these subsidy removals are temporary, and come back in some form or fashion.

AgGrad99 said:

---

I hear you, but it's always 'near term' with these officials. It's always decisions based on votes for re-election, and not what's best for the country...which most of us hate.

At some point, do we not rip off the band aid?

I get the arguments for and against. I just can't come to grips with the justification for continuing the engine that's causing all the issues to begin with.

But, I'm guessing these subsidy removals are temporary, and come back in some form or fashion.

---

Yeah, I get that too. As I launched with, this is probably the only spending item that I was ok extending but purely because of the near-term political implications.

If we had opted into ACA, we would be looking at a $400 per month increase with the expiration of these subsidies.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

If they want subsidies, there is a solution. Agree to reinstate the tax penalties for anyone NOT taking the mandatory health insurance policy that the ACA required.

Then use those taxes to offset the costs for those in the ACA pool who do sign up.

---

Holy crap...please no.

---

Why not? The whole idea was to use the tax penalty to force everyone who didn't have insurance to get it. Removing the tax penalty by having the IRS not collect it (which was done almost immediately, and let's not forget that Roberts used this argument to justify keeping the ACA in place).

By removing the tax penalty everyone got a free out to not take insurance.

Nobody likes taxes but this one was supposed to bite.

That's a big increase. I do feel for those affected.

But as a small employer, my healthcare costs jump every single year...astronomically compared to pre-ACA increases. It's my 2nd highest expense, behind payroll. It's murdered me the past 15 years, and we don't have any option to reduce the costs, like we used to...because the plans choices are almost non-existent (comparatively).

Not only that, but healthcare options have dwindled in the industry. Most practices have become doc-n-the-box type places. Hard to find an individual provider, who gives you personal attention anymore.

I guess this is all a matter of perspective. Some people are happy their pain might be reduced, and then there are those who are about to feel it.

I get the complaints. I think this is as good a time as any to make a move. (though like I said, I doubt it sticks)

It's the economy, stupid. And for many people, healthcare is a big part of where their money goes.

While I agree we need reform, killing it now without an alternative will achieve nothing but losing the majority at midterm.

Quote:

---

Why not? The whole idea was to use the tax penalty to force everyone who didn't have insurance to get it.

---

I know. I think that's terrible.

I remember a family member of mine who was laid off, having to go sign up for a qualified plan, just so they didn't get penalized. Nothing like being forced to add cost to your life, when you desperately need to reduce it.

(fwiw-there were inexpensive plans they could get, so the family had medical coverage. But they weren't 'qualified' plans, so he was forced to spend a lot more)

Apache said:

---

Quote:

---

Good for Republicans not continuing to spend.

---

Yeah I'm sure we can count on Republican fiscal responsibility from here on out.

They are ****ing over the people that voted for them and they could give 2 sh*ts.

---

It would definitely help if our country was back to relying on being self-sufficient instead of relying on other taxpayers to subsidize the cost of health insurance. There is very little difference in the two parties except that each party wants something different subsidized or paid for by someone else.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why not? The whole idea was to use the tax penalty to force everyone who didn't have insurance to get it.

---

I know. I think that's terrible.

---

But that was the whole point of it and the reason Roberts ruled the way he did. If it's not a tax it's not constitutional.

I'm not a fan of higher taxes but this one had a point. Get yourself insurance in the portal or pay an equivalent penalty for not doing it.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

This thread feels very… botty… to me. Very certain declarations of doom on a topic that's multiple layers separated from general population visibility…

I'm an F16 junkie and would need to deep dive terms and implications, but several posters go back and forth every 3 minutes about the apparent midterm implications…

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why not? The whole idea was to use the tax penalty to force everyone who didn't have insurance to get it.

---

I know. I think that's terrible.

---

But that was the whole point of it and the reason Roberts ruled the way he did. If it's not a tax it's not constitutional.

I'm not a fan of higher taxes but this one had a point. Get yourself insurance in the portal or pay an equivalent penalty for not doing it.

---

I know. I remember.

Just because the 'tax' (**penalty/fine**) had a function, didnt justify it's existence.

The goal was to force everyone into a single payer system. All the other stuff was fluff and nonesense.

AgGrad99 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why not? The whole idea was to use the tax penalty to force everyone who didn't have insurance to get it.

---

I know. I think that's terrible.

---

But that was the whole point of it and the reason Roberts ruled the way he did. If it's not a tax it's not constitutional.

I'm not a fan of higher taxes but this one had a point. Get yourself insurance in the portal or pay an equivalent penalty for not doing it.

---

I know. I remember.

Just because the 'tax' (**penalty/fine**) had a function, didnt justify it's existence.

.

---

Except the tax itself was the justification for the Law. Without the tax the law wouldn't have passed constitutional muster. And that could and should be a reason to argue to SCOTUS to invalidate the ACA. Except the Rs don't have the guts.

Everyone wants their cake and wants to eat it too. The RS don't have the balls to go at the ACA and the Ds don't have the guts to make the tax real.

Again. I know. I remember how it was pushed through.

None of that means it was a good idea.

Quote:

---

But as a small employer, my healthcare costs jump every single year...astronomically compared to pre-ACA increases. It's my 2nd highest expense, behind payroll. It's murdered me the past 15 years, and we don't have any option to reduce the costs, like we used to...because the plans choices are almost non-existent (comparatively).

---

This doesn't really track with the larger economic findings on the small business premiums in the wake of ACA.

Pre-ACA ,most small businesses were uninsured and the ACA greatly expanded coverage. The first five years of ACA really did bend the cost curve for small business plans as well.



HHS Research, Health Care Economics Research, and non-profit findings all show it having a beneficial effect on this part of the economy.

Not sure why your experience was different.

So basically we are going back to pre Covid Obama care ?

Quote:

---

This doesn't really track with the larger economic findings on the small business premiums in the wake of ACA.

---

I have no idea where that data comes from, or what metric they used to come up with it, but it's entirely inaccurate. If they're trying to convince you that adding a massive layer of government reduced costs...dig deeper.


Pre-ACA, you had a myriad of options to choose from. You could tailor a plan to meet your group's needs, and not pay for those services that weren't necessary.

That's no longer the case.

So I dont even know how they can compare something that doesn't exist anymore, to something that does.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The R's are playing checkers instead of chess.

There was an opportunity here to extend the enhanced subsidies for 3 to 5 years in exchange for structural reforms (HSAs, etc.) that would gradually shift the model from government-controlled healthcare to more of a free market solution, bending down the cost curve over time.

If they had put that on the table and the Dems rejected it, then the Dems would own the near term pain of no subsidies.

But once again, R's can't look past the end of their nose and play small ball instead of changing the game itself.

---

...they'll get slammed if they "play small ball" with a long game in sight because it's bending the knee to the socialists and that long game will never happen unless they play hard ball.

...but they'll also get slammed if they refuse to play ball (or play hardball) because they have to "own the near term pain".

I think there's some damned if you do, damned if you don't, no-win situation going on here.


at the end of the day, the more you can cut from or get rid of socialized government (i.e. tax payer) funded programs, the better for everyone, but there are always going to be a lot of brainwashed useful I's that will claim "i'm middle class and this really hurts me" because that's the messaging pravda will program into the masses.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The R's are playing checkers instead of chess.

There was an opportunity here to extend the enhanced subsidies for 3 to 5 years in exchange for structural reforms (HSAs, etc.) that would gradually shift the model from government-controlled healthcare to more of a free market solution, bending down the cost curve over time.

If they had put that on the table and the Dems rejected it, then the Dems would own the near term pain of no subsidies.

But once again, R's can't look past the end of their nose and play small ball instead of changing the game itself.

---

This is the EXACT kind of thinking that, 10, 20+ years later that causes conservatives to CORRECTLY end up saying Republicans are no different than democrats.

There is NEVER a FAVORABLE quid pro quo. EVER. Even if one is put into place initially, it ALWAYS ends up expanding government.

(That's not a game of checkers or chess. It is getting outmatched by someone who is constantly using your good intentions and "fair play" -- for lack of a better term -- against you. As bad as that is, what's worse is when you don't even realize it then criticize others who HAVE realized it for not going along).

Apache said:

---

Quote:

---

Good for Republicans not continuing to spend.

---

Yeah I'm sure we can count on Republican fiscal responsibility from here on out.

They are ****ing over the people that voted for them and they could give 2 sh*ts.

---

If you need a government handout then vote Democrat

I not sure "Yes we took away your healthcare but it's all Obama's fault" will resonate well with voters in 2026.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

I not sure "Yes we took away your healthcare but it's all Obama's fault" will resonate well with voters in 2026.

---

Who cares. Once we gut the VRA we can redistrict the hell out of the south and win by default.

Quote:

---

I have no idea where that data comes from, or what metric they used to come up with it, but it's entirely inaccurate. If you believe adding a massive layer of government reduced costs...dig deeper.

---

You are literally the only small businessperson I have ever heard say coverage was better pre-ACA.

Data comes from the Commonwealth Fund, which has always had a great rep for health care research. It is not inaccurate.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2018/oct/affordable-care-act-impact-small-business

And they are just one of many groups from Health and Human Services to Health Care Economist to reach similar conclusions after looking at all the state level data.

And pre-ACA nearly 60% of uninsured were either sole proprietors or small business employees. Coverage has really grown for this segment.

It is not just Commonwealth.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30280862/

Quote:

---

Findings and conclusions: Because of the creation of the individual marketplaces and the expansion of Medicaid, more entrepreneurs and small-business employees have health coverage than before the ACA was implemented. Indeed, the uninsured rate for small-business employees fell by almost 10 percentage points post-ACA. The ACA also has helped stabilize health costs for many small businesses that provide coverage, with the rate of small-business premium increases falling by half following implementation of the law.

---

Some others

https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/5-million-small-business-owners-and-self-employed-workers-likely-enrolled-in-aca

https://nihcm.org/publications/small-business-health-insurance-coverage-under-the-aca

https://smallbusinessmajority.org/es/node/986

I do agree fiscally it has to improved but most every data point shows it to be beneficial to small businesses both in terms of coverage expansion and slowing the pace of premium growth.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

I not sure "Yes we took away your healthcare but it's all Obama's fault" will resonate well with voters in 2026.

---

why are sooo many millions entitled to free healthcare and free everything while anyone who works has to pay the government and pay for everything else for themselves? the answer to socialism steamrolling through can't always be to demand more socialism. where is the motivation to earn or innovate or produce or work hard for anything? the democrat fantasy is china, but the reality is going to be like venezuela unless hard decisions get made.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

But as a small employer, my healthcare costs jump every single year...astronomically compared to pre-ACA increases. It's my 2nd highest expense, behind payroll. It's murdered me the past 15 years, and we don't have any option to reduce the costs, like we used to...because the plans choices are almost non-existent (comparatively).

---

This doesn't really track with the larger economic findings on the small business premiums in the wake of ACA.

Pre-ACA ,most small businesses were uninsured and the ACA greatly expanded coverage. The first five years of ACA really did bend the cost curve for small business plans as well.



HHS Research, Health Care Economics Research, and non-profit findings all show it having a beneficial effect on this part of the economy.

Not sure why your experience was different.

---

Shocking that the partisan Commonwealth fund put out a study showing the ACA in a favorable light

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

I not sure "Yes we took away your healthcare but it's all Obama's fault" will resonate well with voters in 2026.

---

Nobody's healthcare was taken away