Government Shutdown - September, 2025 Editiion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

They are tax credits. It’s a benefit. Much like the carried interest loophole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

And as it turns out when inflation is rising, job market is stagnant and people are worried about buying groceries, the prospect of paying 30% more for health insurance is unpopular. Why does that surprise you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

Like the temporary tax cuts the Republicans just made permanent. I guess the rules are different for the wealthy than for the poor?

[Anonymous]

This ends next week, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

Yes yes. This is what the republicans were insisting on the whole time…lol! You maga types have no credibility. You did everything to stop or sabotage the ACA but did nothing and offered no alternatives.

Every republican I know over 50 is on ACA. Small businesses owners to consultant. They are getting hammered!

First, arguing that you can’t support the dissolution of a failed piece of policy because some republicans use it is just arguing in bad faith.

Second, democrats never allowed republicans into the room when they were writing Obamacare. It was passed on party lines, and as Pelosi herself said when pressed why Obamacare was being rammed down Americans’ throats with zero participation from the Republican Party, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” (https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2010/03/19/whats-in-the-bill-read-it-and-weep/). You can’t blame republicans for the failure that Obamacare has became.

Where's the Republican plan again? Please cite when it's been introduced into the House or Senate?

It's been 15 years and Republicans have never come up with any alternative to just turning back the clock. You have no credibility in this space.

Now now. We must be fair. Trump has a plan for a plan. It’s coming out in two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This ends next week, right?

If they can’t come to an agreement this week ahead, this thing lasts until December. Both sides are playing the waiting game with the ACA increases, SNP freeze, and no pay for the ATCs. My guess is both sides want to see how the aforementioned things affect public opinion in the days ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

Like the temporary tax cuts the Republicans just made permanent. I guess the rules are different for the wealthy than for the poor?

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

Yes yes. This is what the republicans were insisting on the whole time…lol! You maga types have no credibility. You did everything to stop or sabotage the ACA but did nothing and offered no alternatives.

Every republican I know over 50 is on ACA. Small businesses owners to consultant. They are getting hammered!

First, arguing that you can’t support the dissolution of a failed piece of policy because some republicans use it is just arguing in bad faith.

Second, democrats never allowed republicans into the room when they were writing Obamacare. It was passed on party lines, and as Pelosi herself said when pressed why Obamacare was being rammed down Americans’ throats with zero participation from the Republican Party, “We have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it.” (https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2010/03/19/whats-in-the-bill-read-it-and-weep/). You can’t blame republicans for the failure that Obamacare has became.

Where's the Republican plan again? Please cite when it's been introduced into the House or Senate?

It's been 15 years and Republicans have never come up with any alternative to just turning back the clock. You have no credibility in this space.

Now now. We must be fair. Trump has a plan for a plan. It’s coming out in two weeks.

And Johnson “has ideas”…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

Like the temporary tax cuts the Republicans just made permanent. I guess the rules are different for the wealthy than for the poor?

BINGO.

[Anonymous]

They keep focusing on Air Traffic Controllers and floating ideas to pay ATCs while the govt is shutdown, but how about the US Patent Office? Are they still getting paid? The longer this goes on, they should just all call out sick and paralyze the ability for businesses to file patents. They will sh!t bricks at the thought of not being able to file their patents and potentially lose billions of dollars if they're not able to be first to file.

If we are shutting down the govt, truly shut it all down. Close the US patent office and block companies from being able to file patents. I guarantee you the shutdown ends real quick if the entire US business community faces existential threats by potentially losing patents. ATCs arent the only flashpoint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They keep focusing on Air Traffic Controllers and floating ideas to pay ATCs while the govt is shutdown, but how about the US Patent Office? Are they still getting paid? The longer this goes on, they should just all call out sick and paralyze the ability for businesses to file patents. They will sh!t bricks at the thought of not being able to file their patents and potentially lose billions of dollars if they're not able to be first to file.

If we are shutting down the govt, truly shut it all down. Close the US patent office and block companies from being able to file patents. I guarantee you the shutdown ends real quick if the entire US business community faces existential threats by potentially losing patents. ATCs arent the only flashpoint.

A number of Patent Office professionals and examiners were laid-off as soon as the shutdown began on October 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They keep focusing on Air Traffic Controllers and floating ideas to pay ATCs while the govt is shutdown, but how about the US Patent Office? Are they still getting paid? The longer this goes on, they should just all call out sick and paralyze the ability for businesses to file patents. They will sh!t bricks at the thought of not being able to file their patents and potentially lose billions of dollars if they're not able to be first to file.

If we are shutting down the govt, truly shut it all down. Close the US patent office and block companies from being able to file patents. I guarantee you the shutdown ends real quick if the entire US business community faces existential threats by potentially losing patents. ATCs arent the only flashpoint.

I thought they were funded by user fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

And as it turns out when inflation is rising, job market is stagnant and people are worried about buying groceries, the prospect of paying 30% more for health insurance is unpopular. Why does that surprise you?

I don't know how much premiums are rising and how the subsidies handle this, but the expiring COVID subsidies mainly cover people making six figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

And as it turns out when inflation is rising, job market is stagnant and people are worried about buying groceries, the prospect of paying 30% more for health insurance is unpopular. Why does that surprise you?

I don't know how much premiums are rising and how the subsidies handle this, but the expiring COVID subsidies mainly cover people making six figures.

No they don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the government needs to subsidize Obamacare premiums for eternity for it to be viable, maybe we need to scrap it and go back to the private system.

It’s no excuse to hold the government hostage. If the dems want to address the subsidy crisis, they are more than welcome to introduce a bill repealing Obamacare and see where the dominoes fall.

I guess you don't remember the projections for price increases for all private insurance before Obamacare?

Obamacare didn't show up as nice thing to do. We had a crisis, and Obamacare helped ameliorate the pain.

Acting like Obamacare “fixed” a crisis is laughable.

Much of Obamacare was designed specifically to increase costs on consumers, not address spiraling premiums.

Forcing insurers to cover pre-existing medical conditions guaranteed spiraling costs. If the insurer has to cover the 550lb chain smoking alcoholic, then everyone pays. Forcing insurers to cover adult children under their parents’ policy means that you are forcing increased costs on the older generation to cover the costs of younger adults at prime working age.

This means Obamacare was always bound to require subsidy. Because it was never designed to achieve the goals it supposedly was intended to address.

The biggest problem is that there were proven, well established paths towards achieving these goals and lowering costs, which democrats refused to consider.

Focusing on the underlying cause of rising prices would have meant making moral compromises. It would have required acceptance that the biggest issue was not private enterprise, but rather an increasing unhealthy, sedentary population and over regulation.

Had they required deregulation, personalized medical consultations prior to approval of policies, and sliding prices depending on health and lifestyle would have drastically cut costs for most Americans, while encouraging smart choices. But it would mean that said 550lb chain smoking alcoholic would be paying an astronomical rate, and in the liberal mythos that would be considered ‘unfair’ despite the clear choices that led to such a predicament.

This is complete insanity. It's also what insurance companies did to deny care for pre-existing conditions - if you will recall they denied care for congenital conditions, auto-immune issues, and they'd also tie any prior medical care you sought to your current condition in order to not pay for your care.

They would have dropped my kid because of food allergies as a pre-existing condition. That is not fair.

Again that's not changing it's the temporary covid subsidies that are set to expire as they should have years ago

Like the temporary tax cuts the Republicans just made permanent. I guess the rules are different for the wealthy than for the poor?

BINGO.

Exactly. Republican leadership is fine with middle class to lower middle class government workers going without pay while sometimes being forced to work and fine with the working poor starving, but you can't let those corporations and billionaires go without aid.