One now wonders if the shut down was necessary - if the POTUS would have offered this at the beginning - or if not for the shut down this would never have been offered.
Of course, this still must be passed in the House and Senate but I don’t see either chamber fighting him on his own bill.
:chuckle:
Looks like that was a little premature.
Trump was expected to unveil a plan aimed at halting ACA premium spikes on Monday, as first reported by MS NOW. But the reveal has been delayed, the White House officials who were granted anonymity to speak about internal strategy said, with sources indicating Trump’s plan is facing strong backlash from congressional Republicans.
…
“I wasn’t expecting the proposal to be Obamacare-lite,” a conservative House Republican, who requested anonymity to discuss the yet-to-be-released plan. “Absolutely not supportive of extending ACA subsidies.”
“I’ve talked to enough [Republicans] to know that people weren’t expecting this and aren’t happy about it,” this lawmaker added. “I don’t see how a proposal like this has any chance of getting majority Republican support. We need to be focused on health care, but extending Obamacare isn’t even serious.”
An enterprising opposition party might see this as an opportunity to immediately launch a discharge petition to get his bill passed.
An enterprising party might do nothing so the inflated bills go out, thus smacking the dumb donkey in the head with a 2x4 to get their attention.
THEN, do something about it.
(What I would do, were I a Democrat, is paint “You voted for this” in skywriting over every city in America, and perhaps try to find a way to laser etch it on the moon.
The canary in the coalmine?
I was prepared to say he won’t default on the debt. Then the canary died again.
This all reminds of, “Hold me back”!
Agreed. People don’t learn by almost touching a hot stove, or almost sticking a fork in an outlet. Pain is a great teacher.
Looks like those who will get hit hardest, are the same people who most need the painful lesson.
They already got the bills - weeks ago in some cases. Doing nothing in the hope that causing more pain and financial hardship will lead to political advantage is only SLIGHTLY less repugnant than those that are fighting against it.
I don’t think there’s anything repugnant about accepting the fact that people suffer the consequences of their poor choices. I don’t cheer it on, I don’t hope for it, it’s reality. Hopefully people learn and move on for the better.
It’s not about political advantage, it’s about our collective need for citizens to realize when they’re voting against their own interests. It’s less about punishment, and more about the importance of being informed voters. How can we expect people to be more responsible with their votes if we’re saving them from the negative consequences?
Even if you’re right and it’s the opposition’s moral responsibility to do something…there’s little that can be done without majority support. We were told that when the government was opened, they would negotiate…how’s that working out?
Good golly, Project 2025 was clear in its goals. The ACA is on the chopping block, yet TFG won in the states that had increased enrollment the most…weird.
Looking at the big picture, we’re bombing civilians in international waters, harassing citizens, locking up immigrants, threatening the opposition with death, siding with Putin, and celebrating an American journalist-killing thug in the White House. Then there’s the corruption. Lots to be concerned about, extending the temporary ACA subsidies is low on my priority list.
You have a faulty premise. People that DID NOT vote for this will still suffer the consequences. It isn’t as if only Trump voters get ACA subsidies.
Very true. Those voters on the other side often get hurt - that’s always true in a “representative democracy.”
With ACA, maybe it will also cause the more than a 1/3 of eligible voters who DID NOT VOTE to reconsider their inaction and lack of participation. Also, the non-T voters effected typically have friends or relatives of those who did vote for T and maybe they will try to exert a little influence.
Your Silver Lining Advocate,
Pete
Even when I was a Libertarian, then an elected Republican, I was never in favor of causing people pain as a means to teach them a lesson or to get them to behave in a different manner. It is an abuse of power and authority.
I really hope the Democrats do not adopt that posture. It makes pawns of citizens to be used in a game for political advantage - and citizens only get one vote so it isn’t as if that poor mom in East Boston that is living pay to pay check can do anything to change things - and in trying to motivate those that did not vote, you will ABSOLUTELY hurt those that did vote the way you want.
I will NEVER support collective and arbitrary punishment. If that becomes the stance of the Dems, they will lose my vote in the process.
Sounds like a stretch to think the Dems have your vote in the first place.
Fair enough. Here’s my edit -
I understand that many people who did not vote for this will be hit hard by rising healthcare prices.
Many people who didn’t vote for our current cluster are having family members rounded up and shipped off to countries they’ve never been to. There are women dying because they can’t get healthcare when they experience pregnancy complications. Many of them didn’t vote for it. Let’s ask victims of crime perpetrated by pardoned J6ers if they voted for it.
Point is, none of this changes unless the majority changes. The opposition party certainly has a role in making things better, but going along to get along will only make things worse.
LOL. You’re funny. Here I am arguing in favor extending ACA subsidies and people are questioning my authenticity.
Democrats are their own worse enemy.
I agree. That’s why I’m furious about things like…oh, I dunno…revenge suing news organizations / schools / companies, prosecuting political enemies and roughing up protesters.
Me too, rest assured…they’re nowhere close to adopting that posture.
Pointing out how people are negatively impacted by policies in an effort to motivate them to vote differently doesn’t hurt anyone. It’s not relishing in people’s misery. It’s not collective or arbitrary punishment.
I think you’re confused. When the ACA temporary subsidies were passed, nobody pushed to withhold them from people who didn’t vote for them. That would be an example of the punishment you’re talking about.
It appears that in your view, Democrats shouldn’t point out how bad policies hurt people. Geesh, Democrats are held to a ridiculously high standard as compared to the ludicrously low standard of the GOP.
Often true.
As a side note, this should probably be labeled “OT” since we’re not discussing the economy to any extent.
It is probably a moot point. Johnson has already told the White House that Republicans don’t want to extend the tax credits. Some do, but I doubt enough to pass a bill (that he clearly doesn’t/wouldn’t support).
What’s interesting to me is that he is going against the White House, which has said it may be necessary to extend them. I think that’s the first time Johnson has gone against the WH.
The confusion is that people are advocating pain (i.e. the loss of the subsidy) as a means to get people to vote or vote differently - while in the process causing pain to people that voted for the party or person that would have extended those subsidies.
No idea where you are getting that inference. Like, no where in this thread do I come even close to suggesting that anyone should keep quiet.
In the last election the majority of American voters voted for candidates who advocated smaller government, a whiter America, and tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy to be partially paid for by smaller safety nets for those in need.
Furthermore, the majority of Americans who most benefit from the ACA (workers with lower income) voted for candidates who want to eliminate the ACA. I might be more sympathetic to your POV if the wealthy voted red and working class voted blue, but that wasn’t the case.
If the American working class want to sacrifice their health care benefits that is their choice. They made that choice, they won, and they should reap the consequences.
I am not sympathetic.
Yes, it’s like rewarding bad choices.
You catch your kid smoking and say “Bad choice. Here’s $10 for another pack.”
If it were up to me, the only people who would suffer the consequences of their vote would be the voters who elected the most corrupt, amoral administration in the history of our nation. But that’s not how democratic republics work. That’s not reality.
If it were up to me, the opposition would have refused to open the government, not because of the ACA subsidy fight, but rather because they should have refused to continue funding the most corrupt, amoral government in the history of our nation.
Would that have caused pain to a lot of people, including myself? Yes. Sometimes we need to make short-term sacrifices for long-term change.
I think it’s fair to say that many who voted for the current shenanigans didn’t fully understand the consequences of their vote. Maybe they should have voted their conscience -
“After a lifetime of studying politics, I have finally, thanks to the electoral annus horribilis of 2016, arrived at an ethic of voting that I can defend against all rival ethics. It is simply this: Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever—except the shape of your own character. Vote as if the public consequences of your action weigh nothing next to the private consequences. The country will go whither it will go, when all the votes are counted. What should matter the most to you is whither you will go, on and after this November’s election day.”
I don’t agree with that either. That’s not how democracy works. There is a vote, the majority gets to enact its policies, and the minority gets to criticize. The minority should not be able to sabotage the will of the majority (or supermajority on matters of great importance). I understand the republicans have perfected the art of obstruction, but then the republicans have stopped being interested in democracy for a couple of decades now. If democrats follow suit, democracy in America is dead.
This is not simply about the ACA. This is about the existence of the American democratic process. Currently only the democrats are defending that process.
