apple.news
Sorry, that is written very unclearly to me. Let me know if I am misunderstanding.
Senate bill will narrow income eligibility for $1,400 stimulus checks — CNN Politics
President Joe Biden has agreed to a compromise with moderate Democrats to narrow the income eligibility for the next round of $1,400 stimulus checks that are included in a bill the Senate is expected to take up this week, a Democratic source told CNN Wednesday.
Damnit
Well they've taken advantage of the best job market, best housing market, cheap college, and easy entry and wealth accumulation in the stock market, why not give them another break? It's not like Medicare and Social security will be more than a shell of a program by the time either of us starts drawing on it, so why not just let them deplete the trust funds and leave us holding the bags. But hey, we're the entitled brats in this scenario.
That's how I read it.
Before it was $100k. $112.5k is where the head of household taper begins.
I’m one of those who fell off the subsidy cliff. I haven’t had insurance since 2016. For me to have insurance for my family would run us over $2000 and a $6k deductible to then have 50% coinsurance. So $30k+ out of pocket before insurance pays a dime.Watching this very skeptically...
The biggest ACA-related item in the American Rescue Plan, which the House passed last week, would address one of the most persistent complaints about the law among customers and political opponents alike: sky-high premiums for people who don't qualify for federal tax credits to help pay them.
The tax credits can go a long way for those who qualify — in many cases, it's possible to find a plan with zero premiums. But everyone making more than 400 percent of the federal poverty line ($51,520 for an individual) falls off a "subsidy cliff" and has to pay full price. Premiums vary widely depending on local health care costs, and plans often are so expensive that customers forgo insurance.
For the next two years, the American Rescue Plan would expand the tax credits to higher earners and cap the maximum premium anyone is expected to pay at 8.5 percent of their income. It would boost tax credits at lower incomes, as well: People making less than 150 percent of the federal poverty line ($19,320 for an individual) would be expected to pay $0 in premiums for a benchmark plan, for example.
For those with lower incomes, the bill would boost incentives for states to expand Medicaid by having the federal government pick up the tab for new recipients. Twelvestates, including Florida, Georgia and Texas, have refused to accept Medicaid dollars through the ACA. It's unclear whether the bill would affect their calculations.
The changes, which would be temporary, closely mirror Joe Biden's health care agenda from the presidential campaign, and Democrats are expected to try to make them permanent down the line.
Obamacare would get a big (and quiet) overhaul in the Covid relief bill
Democrats are proposing big changes to the Affordable Care Act. Here's why the debate is less fierce this time.www.nbcnews.com
This legislation was largely given to the administration by health insurance lobbyists. They are doing everything they can to avoid a full public option for everyone. I don't see a huge amount of extra being done to make care affordable and this isn't going to do anything to change our current medical system. This is Biden going back to business as usual. Big pay offs for private insurance and it doesn't touch things like private equity in healthcare and surprise billing. How disappointing.
Yeah, it’s absurd politically, you are gonna give a portion of the population Less than what the GOP gave out which will surely fuck over some people. If they kept the cut off the same then yes, some who don’t need the money would end up with stimulus but by restricting further you are gonna have people that were relying on those funds not receive checks which will look way worse. Also, it’s not like the money they don’t give give out is being reallocated to the needy, it will probably just be used to build some more bombs and tanks and whatnot. I guess at least it higher than they were initially pushing for.
I thought I was painting with a pretty fine stroke there. I didn’t include the legions of government bureaucrats.
I could swear they said their counting was accurate with no irregularities except the the outcome wasn't to their liking...............I'm gonna refer back to @Chucktshoes now, because he's pushing a very compelling argument as of late, lol
You know I wish I could believe that this was put into place in order to fail and usher in a M4A system, but I think the reason we don't talk about M4A is because private insurance and large hospital systems don't want it--so it's not even a politically viable option. To me, ACA was meant to be a band aid on a gaping wound (so it was inadequate to start). I think a few progressives thought this would be how we would get to M4A, and honestly, so did I, but after dealing with ACA for 8 years, I think it was private business's answer to what should probably be a public service. We are dealing with a bunch of monopolies (our health insurance companies just keep getting bought out by a bigger guy). It's against their interests to see prices for medical services go down, so if you can't use your benefits because you don't have enough to pay the deductible, it's your problem. Their job was to give you "access" to healthcare, not healthcare. This is what happens when we allow unregulated monopolies to do whatever they want because they pay off our politicians.
And this is where our worldviews cause us to diverge. We recognize the the same problems, the incestuous relationship between corporate interests and politics, but our solutions are vastly different. I recognize that government intervention caused this issue so reject the idea that government intervention can fix it. It’s simply not in their interests to do so.
I can kind of get that but I think it's less a problem of "Government can't fix this" and more a problem of "this current government won't fix this."
Bingo.
Each would be varying degrees of awful.
Please don’t take this as a personal attack or insult. That idea is based upon as rose colored fantastical view of the nature and abilities of government and the people involved in it as Margret Mead’s view of the antebellum South.
