No one is requesting eliminating the work requirement. No worries.
Now about your mistaken claim that no one is trying to end the work requirement for Medicaid . . .
I don't recall claiming that. Republicans need to keep it, agreed.
Yes, we do.
Democrats don't want us to use the nuclear option, that would mean we get our agenda passed via "blitzkrieg" style.
It would mean going by the principle of "majority rules." But it would also mean that they would have an endless whining point, and could claim they have no responsibility for anything the next two and a half year.
Mainly, they would see that as a "win" and they do not deserve a "win" for treating the American people the way they have treated us in this shutdown nonsense.
The Senate should get rid of the filibuster, in my opinion. But on principle and for all bills, not ad hoc when there is a controversy pending.
Democrats want to stop the Republican agenda, and this shutdown is doing it, rope-a-dope, tick-tock, nothing happening.
Since the Democrat agenda is spend, spend, spend, and the shutdown gives Donald Trump complete control of spending, their agenda is stopped.
Democrats can go nuclear any time they have the majority, and they will.
That's why we should do away with filibusters forever and for all topics.
We'll see. The democrats will give up a lot to stop the GOP agenda. We can't let them stop progress, tick-tock.
This is what makes me wonder if you are really one of "us." It is illogical. "Progress" for the GOP agenda means less government, not more. But it's okay. It's the internet, anyone can be anything.
We already got a large part of our agenda with the BBB, which passed. If the "shutdown" continues until Jan 1, the ACA subsidies for illegals and for COVID go away. COVID is gone, and since Trump still has ICE in full swing, so will a lot of the illegals. If you were a Republican, I would not have needed to put that last sentence in.
The agenda of reducing the number of useless fedemps (not saying all are useless) and participants in the recent lawfare has speeded up, not slowed down. There's a peace deal in the middle east, brokered by Trump in the middle of the "shutdown."
What parts of the agenda are at risk?
So you would waste months instead of pushing thru the agenda now so it has time to work, and lose the mid-terms because the democrats are happy messing things up? bad idea.
I don't see that happening. Why would the American people vote for the Democrats if they messed things up. Going nuclear or giving the Dems what they want would be seen as the Republicans messing things up.
What gift? The insurers get the same premium whether the voters get the subsidy or not.
Do you really not understand how the subsidies work? The consumers/voters do NOT get the subsidies. The health insurance providers do.
The advanced premium tax credit (APTC) option allows consumers to have 1/12 of their tax credit paid directly to their Marketplace plan insurer each month, reducing the monthly amount the consumer owes.
. . .
Alternatively, people can opt to pay their entire premium costs each month and wait to receive their tax credit until they file their annual income tax return the following year, although most Marketplace participants cannot afford this option.
This brief provides an overview of the financial assistance provided under the ACA for people purchasing coverage on their own through health insurance Marketplaces (also called exchanges).
www.kff.org
So, every month, billions of dollars go directly to health providers - NOT to voters.
The only difference is that millions of voters will know who offered them a reduced month premium, and who made them pay double a month or drop healthcare coverage. MTG is right, keep the subsidy, keep the voters.
Republicans do not believe in buying votes through federal spending. That is a Democratic Party strategy.
Premiums will go up next year, with or without extending the COVID Supplemental Subsidies. Question is how much will they go up. I say, they will go up to the point that consumers will feel it, but not feel it enough to drop their coverage and give up healthcare.
That's how much it goes up every year, if you believe in market forces and how they are affected by government policies.
If you believe that health insurance providers strive mightily on behalf of consumers' financial well being and would only raise premiums of forced to, then premiums will go up by the same amount as the expired COVID subsidies was paying them.
We already know the rates, google it, family of 4 pays $900 a month now. Without the subsidy next year its $1,600 a month.
It has nothing to do with insurance, its about how much families pay for coverage.
Those people vote.
Static reasoning, something Democrats are famous for. But you say you are "not a Democrat" and I believe you.
That math assume that the insurance companies will charge $1,600 per month regardless of whether people can afford to pay. People pay XXX.XX now with the COVID Supplemental Subsidies, so if those subsidies are YYY per month and that goes away, people will pay XXX.XX - YYY per month.
Insurance Companies, who have the best math majors from the best universities calculating exactly how much consumers would be willing and able to pay next year, are only going to go by that one equation? They are not going to take into account how many consumers they would lose by such a sudden hike?
How did people afford ACA Marketplace policies before the COVID subsidies? They must have been $1,600 per month (or the inflation adjusted equivalent) if what you say is true. So, how did they do it?
Key question: Do you think people who crossed the border illegally and were granted "legal status" should get ACA subsidies?
