Sure glad Trump permitted Johnson to give the GOP a couple month vacation so they could work on that Republican replacement plan for the ACA they've had what, about 15 years to do better on.

  Cuse we know, the Repubs were just itching and demanding they could get back to work, get the 218th Epstein vote in, so they could all vote to release those pesky Epstein files.  

As if it hasn't been obvious for decades now, Republican politicians don't actually care about the American people.

I don't believe any politician cares about the American people. They may mouth the words but their first and only allegiance is to their party as the party has too much money and power and the first "duty" for a politician is to be re-elected. This is just as true for Democrats as it is for Republicans.

just as true for Democrats as it is for Republicans

... more both sides bullshit. are both sides attacking our constitution and violating international law too?

Refusing the truth and remaining locked in an echo chamber only contributes to the divide this country is experiencing. 

Refusing the truth and remaining locked in an echo chamber

how about avoiding inconvenient truths and replying with standard deflections?

the divide this country is experiencing. 

I want separation from those that think this president represents the best interests of all americans and is honoring his oath of duty.

a separation of 8K miles or 6 feet ...

maga wants people to lose their healthcare, so they can help their pals in the healthcare insurance industry bring back the pre-existing condition bullshit. it may take a couple more years of healthcare executives and corporate board members getting clipped on the streets to actually get a workable healthcare system in this exceptional country ... /s

it may take a couple more years of healthcare executives and corporate board members getting clipped

I certainly hope not. That is never the way to win a debate. Democrats need to protest peacefully and continue to back the will of ALL Americans when fighting for comprehensive affordable heath insurance. The insurance companies aren't charities, they need to make a profit. and that is the real problem, how much profit should they be allowed to make off dying children and sick Americans? Of course, that brings us back to the debate about socialized medicine like many other western nations use which, while not perfect, does provide at least base health care for the country's citizens and isn't bankrupting those nations. But, at the moment there are a bunch of poor, poorly educated conservative Americans who don't really give a fuck about their health care until they need it, and they've been brainwashed to protect the insurance company profits in the name of defending capitalism. So here we are.

no worries, it'll be some misinformed rwnj taking out a CEO, another example of maga on maga crime, just like last time ... boo hoo hoo, bummer ...

what probably needs to happen is to take the original ACA, strip out all the amendments protecting the healthcare insurance corps that were written for republicans by that industry to include in the bill as amendments, only for them to vote against it in a show of racist and plutocratic solidarity with the corporate owners of the republican party. only then will that industry start looking at their executive payroll to trim their operating costs.

maga wants people to lose their healthcare, so they can help their pals in the healthcare insurance industry bring back the pre-existing condition bullshit.

Can you provide solid evidence that " bringing back pre-existing condition bullshit" is part of any real Republican plan? 

Follow the money and you will clearly see that after 2014 the party with pals in the healthcare industry (including major insurance companies like Kaiser, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and pharmaceuticals like Pfizer) has been the Democratic party by a significant margin based on campaign contributions.  Do you really think that they give so much more to the Democrats because Obamacare and their other policies don't help them raise prices and profits?

The healthcare industry has been lobbying politicians from both sides of the aisle for decades, but most recently after the ACA kicked in,  starting with the 2016 campaign they have focused more heavily on Democrats.  You will find a similar trend in the Pharmaceutical/Health Products Industry , and in the Health Services/HMOs sector .

Interesting article here if you are interested in knowing the truth:

Data reveals health insurers overwhelmingly donated to Harris, Democrats in 2024

Well, the reality is that insurers have fared exceedingly well when Democrats have been in charge of things in D.C. over the past decade and a half, and, as you’ll see below, executives and employees of the biggest insurance companies spent heavily during the past election cycle to try to keep them in charge. You may be surprised to see just how much Big Insurance favored Democrats, especially in the presidential race.  It wasn’t even close.

The seven biggest for-profit health insurers  have seen their profits skyrocket since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, and a good argument could be made that, despite the consumer protections and coverage gains under the law, some of its provisions actually enabled and incentivized big insurers to get even bigger by buying physician practices, clinics and pharmacy benefit managers. If you read this newsletter regularly, you know we’ve written quite a bit about how those seven companies have largely taken over both the  Medicare Advantage  and   Medicaid  programs and how just  three of them  control 80% of the pharmacy supply chain, determining which drugs your health plan covers, where you can get them and how much you’ll have to pay out of your own pocket before your coverage kicks in.

Collectively, the executives and employees of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Centene, Cigna, CVS/Aetna, Humana, Molina and UnitedHealth Group donated nearly $3 million to Harris and Trump, but an astounding  83% ($2.5 million) went to Harris, while just a little more than $500,000 went to Trump.  They also favored Democratic congressional candidates by a wide margin. Of the nearly $10 million they donated to House and Senate races,  57% ($5.5 million) went to Democrats, while $4.2 million went to Republicans. 

The conventional wisdom that Big Insurance would prefer to have Republicans calling the shots in Washington is no longer true – and hasn’t been for years.

Additional informative reading here:

Top 5 US Health Insurers’ Annual Profits Jumped 230 Percent Since ACA’s Passage

Insurer Stock Prices Soaring After Giant ACA Subsidies

When you are presented with a huge increase in your health insurance premiums will that be called a Big, Beautiful Bill?

No. it's called Obamacare. 

No. It's called REPUBLICANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DIE.

Of course, it is mostly going to affect Trump supporters, so good for them.  They're getting what they voted for.

It's called REPUBLICANS DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU DIE.

[deleted] [✘] that if they did not pass a bill under the false pretenses that it would bring down costs, then maybe they will not be trying to blame everyone but themselves today.

Obamacare was flawed....and the left knew it.

Sure. Democrats voted for temporary pandemic credits to expire in 2025.  The calendar made it to 2025. Therefore it's Republicans fault what democrats voted to have happen is happeing.

Well, to be fair the Democrats did not have the votes to make those credits permanent so they passed the Inflation Reduction Act as a reconciliation bill and that caused the temporary status. But they did ignore the simple issue that Obamacare was never a good law and was always going to be a cost issue. But hey, they could buy some votes with it and that's all they need.

be fair the Democrats did not have the votes to make those credits permanent so they passed the Inflation Reduction Act as a reconciliation bill

Not a single Republican voted for "Inflation Reduction Act".  They did not need a single Republican vote to make the credits  permanent when they passed the IRA.  

No, those credits are not permanent. The Inflation Reduction Act was passed as a reconciliation bill so it passed with a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate, which the Democrats held the majority at the time. The Senate vote was 51-50 with VP Harris making the tie-breaking vote. The House also passed it along party lines. 

As it's a reconciliation bill, it has timelines built in. That's why there's such a push by the Democrats to extend the subsidies that were passed for Covid as they expire this month. Also in there is another little issue that's gonna bite all of us on Medicare, that $2000 (going to $2100 next year) out of pocket limit for prescriptions also has an end date running thru FY2031.

Part 2--Prescription Drug Inflation Rebates

(Sec. 11101) In addition, the act requires drug manufacturers to issue rebates to the CMS for brand-name drugs without generic equivalents under Medicare medical services that cost $100 or more per year per individual and for which prices increase faster than inflation. Manufacturers that fail to comply are subject to civil penalties.

The act provides funds through FY2031 for the CMS to implement this rebate program.

Part 3--Part D Improvements and Maximum Out-of-Pocket Cap for Medicare Beneficiaries

(Sec. 11201) The act eliminates beneficiary cost-sharing above the annual out-of-pocket spending threshold under the Medicare prescription drug benefit beginning in 2024 and caps annual out-of-pocket spending at $2,000 in 2025 (with annual adjustments thereafter). It also establishes a program under which drug manufacturers provide discounts to beneficiaries who have incurred costs above the annual deductible beginning in 2025.

The act also limits base premiums under the Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2024 through 2030 to a 6% annual increase or the amount that would otherwise apply under the prior methodology, whichever is less.

The act provides funds through FY2031 for the CMS to implement these changes and requirements.

Subtitle C--Affordable Care Act Subsidies

(Sec. 12001) The act extends through 2025 certain adjustments and expansions of the premium tax credit, including to allow taxpayers with income above 400% of the federal poverty line to qualify for the credit.

H.R.5376 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

I didn't go through the entire bill as that would take a lot of space. It was a rather large bill with a lot thrown in. 

If you remember back to Trump's first term, his tax bill was also passed as a reconciliation act which is why the decreased tax rates were time limited. 

Perhaps a Quintin Tarentino  sequel from the Kill Bill trilogy

I wouldn't mind seeing some japanese artistry performed on maga while the 5,6,7,8's played in the background ...

"for those of you left alive that have lost arms and legs, leave them, they belong to me now ..."

In a rational world this would provide an opportunity for structural reforms to address unforeseen flaws in the Affordable Care Act.  Democrats don't want to admit that giving Pres. Obama unilateral authority over implementing ACA wasn't a good idea.  Democrats want to hide the fact that the original subsidy structure was regressive and the expanded subsidies were even more regressive.  One such structural reform would be eliminating Gold and Platinum level plans while allowing enrollees to seek supplemental coverage in the private market (similar to Medigap).

The biggest advantage of replacing the expanded portion of ACA subsidies with Federally subsidized HSAs is that the subsidy can rollover and accumulate in the HSA account.  The pre-pandemic ACA coverage hedges against catastrophic losses while the HSAs can be used tax and penalty free for qualified medical expenses.  And unused HSA funds can serve as supplemental retirement income after age 65.  (A Federally subsidized HSA could be loosely considered a form of universal income.)  The HSA proposal may sound like a gimmick but there are very real advantages.  

The biggest advantage of replacing the expanded portion of ACA subsidies with Federally subsidized HSAs is that the subsidy can rollover and accumulate in the HSA account.

Don't get me wrong, the HSA accounts are a very useful tool. They're just not a replacement for comprehensive health insurance. Especially not at the $4300 current individual annual deposit cap. I also think it's odd that while it's a protected tax-free account meant only to be used for medical expenses, many HSA accounts allow you to essentially gamble by using the funds to invest similar to a 401k which of course has inherent risk of losing your money.

In my opinion, if HSA's were used correctly as a supplemental tool to Americans over-all health insurance picture they're great. We just can't rely on only a weakly funded HSA and unfettered health insurers once the ACA is completely gutted for most Americans and say the health insurance crisis has been solved.

Don't get me wrong, the HSA accounts are a very useful tool.

They are and I'd be happier with them if they weren't attached to High Deductible Health Plans. I think everyone that wants one should be able to get one. 

The particular issue I have with Congress trying to put $1000 into one for someone is that it doesn't even cover the deductible on these plans and it limits the plans to bronze and catastrophic plans. They put no thought at all into this at all. It's worse than stupid.

Don't get me wrong, the HSA accounts are a very useful tool. They're just not a replacement for comprehensive health insurance. Especially not at the $4300 current individual annual deposit cap. I also think it's odd that while it's a protected tax-free account meant only to be used for medical expenses, many HSA accounts allow you to essentially gamble by using the funds to invest similar to a 401k which of course has inherent risk of losing your money.

In my opinion, if HSA's were used correctly as a supplemental tool to Americans over-all health insurance picture they're great. We just can't rely on only a weakly funded HSA and unfettered health insurers once the ACA is completely gutted for most Americans and say the health insurance crisis has been solved.

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the Republican proposal was to replace the expanded portion of the ACA subsidies with subsidizes HSAs.  What I understood was that Republicans were proposing that the ACA return back to pre-pandemic subsidies and the Federally subsidized HSAs would be added to the pre-pandemic ACA.  I didn't see anything that suggested Republicans are proposing to gut ACA.

Your concerns over HSAs are valid.  The money will ultimately be managed by financial institutions with associated risk of loss.  But under the expanded ACA subsidies the insurance companies do not roll over any unused subsidy to the next coverage year.  The current ACA system with and without expanded subsidies ensures nothing will be saved.  So, I don't see the risks associated with HSAs to be a strong contravening argument.  

A stronger argument is that adding HSAs could allow gaps in coverage, especially for those affected by the subsidy cliff at 400% FPL.  

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the Republican proposal was to replace the expanded portion of the ACA subsidies with subsidizes HSAs.

You're not wrong, but what they're proposing is around $1000 annual to those who qualify into their HSA accounts while the subsidies they're losing were paying around $1000 a month in insurance premium for low- and middle-income Americans to afford actual comprehensive coverage, albeit with some fairly high deductibles.

So the exchange is, to keep the same coverage you have now, your premiums go up by $1000 a month, but don't worry! We just deposited a $1000 into your HSA! So you pay $12,000 more for your coverage this year and we'll give you $1000 get well soon gift You're welcome!

You're not wrong, but what they're proposing is around $1000 annual to those who qualify into their HSA accounts while the subsidies they're losing were paying around $1000 a month in insurance premium for low- and middle-income Americans to afford actual comprehensive coverage, albeit with some fairly high deductibles.

Well, back of envelope math shows that letting the expanded subsidies expire would 'save' $35 billion for 24.2 million enrollees.  That amounts to $1,420 per year for each enrollee.  So, returning the baseline Silver plan subsidies to pre-pandemic levels combined with $1,000 HSA subsidies provides a similar level of Federal support for healthcare.  That leaves room for negotiation.  

So the exchange is, to keep the same coverage you have now, your premiums go up by $1000 a month, but don't worry! We just deposited a $1000 into your HSA! So you pay $12,000 more for your coverage this year and we'll give you $1000 get well soon gift You're welcome!

A lot of the numbers being floated around are skewed by those affected by the subsidy cliff (which was a deliberate feature included in ACA) and who took advantage of expanded subsidies to obtain Gold level plans.  Those with income above 400% FPL received the most benefit from the expanded ACA subsidies because their Gold level copays and out-of-pocket costs were nearly zero.  That made the expansion even more regressive than the original pre-pandemic ACA subsidies.  

That's why I believe reforms are necessary.  ACA should only offer Bronze and baseline Silver plans.  Gold and Platinum level plans should not be subsidized by ACA.  And prohibitions on seeking supplemental insurance should be removed.  That allows all enrollees access to Silver level plans and those wishing more comprehensive coverage can acquire supplemental insurance at their cost.  The subsidy cliff could be modified but those more affluent enrollees would still be limited to Silver level plans with the option to seek their own supplemental insurance.  

To all low income sycophantic Trump slaves - your white national existence isn’t going to prevent DJT from ruining your current insurance affordability.  That life saving dialyses, or heart monitoring, or ozempic treatment, or treatment of any myriad of health conditions and emergencies - it’s about to be entirely on you.

Republicans have had every day since John McCain gave his vote to pass ACA and come up with an alternative better healthcare plan.

Republicans have no plan, they never intended to solve the issue when they can toy with their voting base shouting "Obamacare" milking gullible voters who never make a Republican pay at the ballot box for their lack of solutions.

I don't understand the politics, here. All the polls show Americans blame the Republicans fascists for the crapper we're falling into. So why are they so determined to make things even worse?

I realize that it is against their dogma to help people in need, but here they're also trashing their own situation. Why?