The key item for Thursday is a Republican proposal by Senators Cassidy and Crapo.
Trump Says Money Should Go to People, Not Health Insurers
Please note the irony. Trump says there is “virtually no inflation” and “affordability is a scam,” while complaining about huge jumps in health care premiums.
Of course it’s all Biden’s fault (or Obama’s fault), ignoring the inconvenient fact that Trump had 4 years to do something, the first two with full control of Congress.
And what has Trump done in 2025? But here’s the new solution ….
Money for the People!
Reuters reports Trump Says Money Should Go to People, Not Health Insurers
The subsidies, which help offset premium costs for the plans, also known as Obamacare, are set to expire at the end of the year, potentially impacting up to 24 million individuals reliant on the program.
A recent poll by health-research firm KFF found that about one-fourth of Obamacare enrollees would forgo coverage in 2026 if the subsidies expire and premiums double. Most beneficiaries want Congress to extend the subsidies, the poll found.
Republicans, under an agreement reached last month to end a record 43-day government shutdown, promised Democrats a vote on healthcare subsidies.
Late on Monday, Republican Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho, who chair two committees with oversight of healthcare, unveiled legislation they are seeking as an alternative to the Democrats’ three-year extension of the expiring Obamacare subsidies.It would direct up to $1,500 into health savings accounts for individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level. It also would bar the funds from being used for abortion or “gender transition services,” according to a summary released by the two senators.
They said the measure also would contain a provision to lower insurance premiums by 11% in 2027 and would reduce federal Medicaid funding to states that provide healthcare coverage to “illegal immigrants.”
Critics say the proposal could disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals while forcing lower-income Americans to shift toward short-term or high-deductible insurance plans.
They warn that many low-income consumers, who currently pay little to nothing for coverage, could face significant new out-of-pocket costs if the subsidies lapse. Currently, no Obamacare participant pays more than 8.5% of their income on premiums, but that limit will end if lawmakers do not extend the subsidies.
Vote Coming Up Thursday
The Hill reports Senate to Vote Thursday on GOP Health Care Plan
The Senate will vote Thursday on a Republican proposal to replace enhanced health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Act with health savings accounts that would receive federal contributions to pay out-of-pocket expenses, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced Tuesday.
The Senate was already set to vote Thursday on a Democratic plan to extend the expiring subsidies for three years, and Thune’s decision will give Republican colleagues the opportunity to vote for a GOP alternative. He was under heavy pressure from Senate Republicans who warned that failing to advance a Republican plan would be a catastrophe.
“We also will have a vote. Our members have decided that we’re going to vote on a Crapo-Cassidy proposal,” Thune announced after a Senate Republican conference lunch meeting Tuesday.
He said the plan from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has support from a majority of Senate Republicans and argued it would reduce health insurance premiums and save the federal government nearly $30 billion.
“It actually does make health insurance premiums more affordable. It drives down, according to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums by double-digit levels. It delivers the benefit directly to the patient, not to the insurance company. And it does it in a way that actually saves money — to the taxpayer,” he [Thune] said.
CBO Fact Check
There is no publicly available full Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate or detailed analysis of the Cassidy-Crapo bill as of December 9, 2025.
The proposal was only introduced yesterday (December 8), and CBO scoring for new legislation typically takes days to weeks, involving complex modeling of premium impacts, enrollment shifts, and fiscal effects.
The CBO has, however, has previously released an analysis of the Democratic proposal to permanently extend the enhanced premium tax credits, estimating it would increase deficits by nearly $350 billion over the 2026-2035 period but also increase the number of people with health insurance by approximately 3.8 million in 2035.
Finally, prior CBO analysis does indicate there would be a jump in the number of uninsured if subsidies stop. Confirming, the KFF foundation estimates 25 percent would drop insurance. That would be a jump of about 6.25 million in the number of uninsured.
Given there is no official CBO score, we can safely give Thune the “Lie of the Day” award.
I suspect Thune is using the logic about reducing expenses in 2027 from 2026. But his comments could be anything.
Regardless, we do not have a CBO score and may not for some time. With that lie out of the way, let’s return to The Hill.
Competing Plans
GOP senators were divided over what plan to put forward. While Cassidy and Crapo championed a plan to convert the enhanced insurance premium subsidies into health savings accounts for Americans who buy their insurance on the ACA marketplace, other GOP lawmakers had different ideas.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), for example, has a plan to let the enhanced premium subsidies to expire and allow states to replace the original ACA premium tax credits with contributions to Trump Health Freedom Accounts, according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy research group.
Scott’s Trump Health Freedom Accounts would be more widely available than the HSAs set up by Cassidy’s plan, which is targeted toward people who buy their insurance on the ACA marketplace.
Collins and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) on Monday unveiled a plan to extend the enhanced ACA premium tax credits another two years but end the subsidies for households with annual income of $200,000 or more. Their plan would also require that lower-income Americans pay a $25 minimum monthly premium payment to ensure “everyone has skin in the game,” according to a summary provided by Moreno’s office.
Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Jon Husted (R-Ohio) have each offered their own plans to address rising health insurance premium costs.
Given the divisions within his conference, Thune had not made a decision as of early Tuesday about whether to schedule on a Republican health care proposal.
He didn’t have many options, however, as the Cassidy-Crapo plan was the only one on the Senate calendar as of Tuesday morning, and therefore the only one that would be ready for a procedural vote on Thursday.
Politico also discusses Competing Health Care Plans
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has also proposed legislation on “Trump Freedom Accounts” which resemble an HSA but with several key differences. The accounts can be used to pay for plan premiums, which an HSA cannot.
Cassidy and Crapo’s legislation would give HSA funding to those earning less than 700 percent of the poverty level, $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65.
However, to get the HSA an individual must purchase a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange. The bronze plans offer lower premiums than other plan tiers but have higher out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles and co-pays.
The average deductible for a bronze plan was roughly $7,000 last year, according to data from the nonpartisan health policy research organization KFF.
The legislation would expand eligibility for catastrophic plans, which currently are limited to people under 30, those who are otherwise not eligible for an Obamacare subsidy or who get a hardship exemption.
How Much Will 4.5 Million Florida Residents Pay for Obamacare in 2026?
Yesterday, I addressed the question How Much Will 4.5 Million Florida Residents Pay for Obamacare in 2026?
Here’s some interesting health care math on Obamacare in Florida.
How a Couple Making $90,000 in Combined Income Fares
- 2025: $7,644
- 2026 as Exists Now: $38,112
- New Affordable Program: $38,112 – $1,500 = $36,612
You have to admit this new affordability idea is nothing short of brilliant (assuming you are wearing a TWS or MAGA hat, and are not on Obamacare).
This is brilliant as well: “They said the measure would contain a provision to lower insurance premiums by 11% in 2027”
Wait Till Next Year 2027
2027 is a “wait until next year” kind of promise, about three weeks early.
But if Obamacare premiums rise by an average of 114 percent in 2026 (as per KFF), do we really want to brag about lowering them by 11 percent in 2027?
I have commented many times on the wait till next year idea.
On October 5, 2025, I noted Trump Adopts Chicago Cubs’ Perpetual Message, “Wait Till Next Year”
President Trump’s advisers are counseling him to refine his economic message with a pitch to voters aimed at easing their anxiety about weak jobs growth and stubborn inflation.
Their new mantra: Just wait until next year.
But “Wait Till 2026” is a fundamental mistake. When 2026 is bad, the message will have to change.
The beauty of a more Cub-esque “Wait Till Next Year” is the slogan never has to change.
Next year is now only 21 days away. So it’s fitting wait till 2027 is already creeping into the discussion.
President Trump Promised a Manufacturing Boom. Where Is It?
On December 9, 2025, I asked President Trump Promised a Manufacturing Boom. Where Is It?
The answer is China.
But that’s OK. In three weeks, wait till next year will be the brilliantly convenient response.
Republicans Own Health Care Now, What Will They Do With It?
On December 7, I asked Republicans Own Health Care Now, What Will They Do With It?
Republicans are no doubt quietly (MGT not quietly) seething over health care.
Republicans now own health care and will get the blame no matter what happens. Those who are simmering right now will be extremely angry when the actual bills have to be paid.
That starts January 1 for most and February 1 for others.
Expect the Health Care issue to blow sky high in early 2026, with a big Republican scramble on what to do.
Even if Republicans extend subsidies, people will be angry with 26 percent average premium hikes.
Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible
I cannot overly stress the importance of Health Care on the PCE, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.
Please read and digest Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible
Let’s discuss 2026 health care premiums and what they mean to the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.
I expect a rise in the Health Care weight in the PCE. I also expect a net 1.5 percentage point increase in PCE inflation in 2026 due to health care.
These estimates stem from health care price hikes across the board (Medicare and corporate plans), not counting the huge ACA impacts.
The Fed’s PCE inflation target is 2.0 percent. If I am in the ballpark, health care alone rates to take up 1.5 percentage points of that target, again, not counting Obamacare!
Click above link for details and the math.
If my wife’s healthcare premiums rise to $38,000 I think that we will have to leave the country. It is already $18,000 for $6,000 deductible insurance. We never get past our deductible. It’s money down the drain.
At some point, enough people will become single issue voters, and the single issue will be healthcare. Till then, this is yelling at clouds.
What a mess. What is needed is a comprehensive plan that will reduce the incentives for births of children without two contributing parents, those parents, who have the desire and wherewithal to provide for those children and within a system that provides a reasonable national healthcare program akin to the educational program that western countries have had for the last 150 years. With AI providing evidenced-base care and solutions … for routine and end of life care … much better than the average physician and average scheming politician, the formula becomes, at least, less expensive …
giving people money directly for helathcare is a terrible idea. they will use it for other things, and we’ll still have the same issues as now.
if Americans were disciplined enough for this we wouldn’t have 40% obesity, diabetes and other lifestyle chronic diseases.
the government needs more price control over drugs and procedures. People can scream socialism all they want, but price limits aren’t socialism when you’re paying the bills. MAGA seems all in on socialism anyway so long as Trump proposes it and the Dems are on board obviously, so it can happen
All Obamacare subsidies need to end. Increase the amount eligible to put in HSA accounts. Healthcare is expensive. People need to budget for their priorities.
You and others would do well to read the below Perplexity query and answer. People do not have a clue how expensive insurance really is and this is caused by the fact the employers cover the majority of the cost.
If you want to end ACA subsidies, then you are also for ending the employer paid subsidy also?
You should be because employer paid health insurance is what has been and is corrupting the health insurance marketplace.
I worked in the insurance industry for health coverage for over 9 years. I know what insurance costs. My husband retired and I’m on COBRA. I pay almost $1100 per month in premium and have a $3200.00 deductible. We budgeted appropriately. People shouldn’t have children they can’t afford. If you want health insurance then get a job that offers this benefit.
You make the common mistake of applying your mindset and circumstances to everyone else.
Nearly 40% of people cannot afford a sudden $400 emergency expense. One in five have no savings whatsoever. A large number live paycheck to paycheck.
Cobra only last 18 months. How far in are you with this timeframe and what are you going to do when you have to go into insurance market raw?
And it is funny to me how bent out of shape so many people get about the ACA and its premium structure.
60% of non-elderly Americans voluntarily work at firms that have healthcare insurance through their employer like mine that covers hundreds of employees. Some of those peer employees are young and fit; others are heart attacks waiting to happen (or already have). My part of the health care insurance premiums is the same as both of these other people.
We share in the catastrophic coverage, the monthly costs, and the payments out to whoever is ‘sick’. How is that substantially any different than a one-payer government system where everyone is covered and required to pay into the system (like in so many other countries)?
The magic word “work”
Is it OK to let people die for not working when we don’t have full employment?
WWJD?
I’d say the Republicans are very luck they are ‘dealing with’ this healthcare issue right now. Once the economy hits a recession, and lots more people lose their jobs and their employer-provided healthcare benefits, even more people/voters are going to be upset when they see how the other half lives day to day
have faith girls. elon and donald will get to the bottom of this mess with DOGE
What is especially bizarre is Trump has perfectly legal and politically popular options. The first is to start indicting every health care executive who refuses to publish prices and who charges different prices to different customers and takes kickbacks.
If Trump started indicting CEOs you would see an industry suddenly get the message that the good old days of profiteering are over.
Why does Trump not do this? Recall that Trump made a fuss about this once. But then he TACOed. Why would Trump TACO on applying the law against health care companies and their executives who are defrauding the public? Why would Trump give cover to CEOs and have politicians take the fall for something the politicians can do very little about, except arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?
[ROTFLOL] WHy does Trump not do this? Why didn’t Biden do this?
Because it is impossible to do! D’oh.
Trump can’t stay awake through a cabinet meeting. He can’t stay on topic for more than 30 seconds. The idea of him making some kind of sustained and coherent strategy and then sticking to it is profoundly comedic. And when has he EVER taken on big money to the benefit of “the little people?” He’s more occupied by pardoning white collar grifters and looking for a way to spring Ghislaine Maxwell.
He perks up for a tantrum when a reporter asks a question that showcases his failure.
Hospital costs must be cheap in the USA. I base this upon the lines I see at the hospital ER rooms with people that can barely speak English asking to see “the doctor.” Someone I would assume has to pay something for these services but I never have seen anyone tender any payment so are the visits free?
You tell us, if you have the time to sit in hospital ER rooms with an abacus counting the number of entrants, English speakers, and payers
Most of us avoid the ER.
Americans want unlimited health care at a reasonable cost (to themselves). Elections will be won by the politicians who are best at hiding or transferring the true cost.
Not unlimited – people want reasonable access to the care they need.
The old ones don’t want to die, and their definition of reasonable evolves as they get closer to dying.
The government has to control health care prices. Medicare already controls prices. But Medicare only covers 50 million people. We need a single payer system that covers everyone.
Agreed, we already did the step where we tried everything else. Now we can just copy systems that are working elsewhere.
Oh sure. Trump can wave his EO wand and immediately order the change, yes?
You may not have noticed, but the Trump presidency is done except for the wailing and gnashing of teeth. This guy is not going to get any more big legislative wins. The fight for healthcare will depend on 2026 and 2028 and beyond.
If the electorate doesn’t get smarter, things will stay bad & get worse from there.
Trump can still declare martial law and deploy the military. Be afraid, be very afraid.
You’re still in the same situation. Who pays what premium, deductible and copayments.
We need, we need, we need.. Sigh.
But how do you propose making that happen?
Voters want lower premiums.
They want to see a reasonable figure on their monthly insurance bill.
If the GOP is smart, they will extend the subsidies by at least a year, to make this happen.
Decoder ring says “GOP’s best path forward is socialism”
The GOP is falling apart – it’s happening quickly.
If they vote with the Dems on the subsidies, they can glue their party together for a year perhaps.
And a chicken in every pot!
Obamacare has failed and only a single payor system can bring healthcare costs under control. Insurance costs a d profit eats $43 out of every $100 spent on healthcare in the US and puts insurers as the gatekeepers of medicine.
Australia, NZ, Canada GB, Germany and a plethora of other nations have shown how to deliver excellent healthcare at reasonable costs.
It remains hard to believe that the insurance industry has so much power over our government that we can not have meaningful reform.
Outcome based healthcare works!
the people get what they want and deserve. the amerikan people are swindlers and war mongering grifters. so they get that. democracy works perfectly well. plato and socrates explained this very easy and simple profound truth in the pamphlet called “the republic”. the rest is eyewash.
You think waiting for a procedure for 6 months is good healthcare. I have a friend whose family is from Chile. They won’t schedule a serious surgery because they don’t have a back up supply of blood. These are not considered good healthcare. Also, we don’t have enough medical staff now. Getting an appointment with a specialist can take 6-9 months. That is a major hurdle to overcome.
Not an issue on Medicare.
US wait times are bad already. This is not the talking point you think it is. The reality is our spending dwarfs that of other western democracies with universal health care, yet our life expectancy is falling further and further behind.
Denninger has said so many times that enforcing existing antitrust law will bring down costs up to 80%. No so-called single payer system needed. Denninger says that the Supreme Court has ruled twice on this issue and yet antitrust law is still not enforced.
But that kills political campaign contributions and PAC’s.
I don’t know about the 80% but I recently shopped around for some extensive dental work, paid out of pocket, all the dentists in my city charged the same within 5%. No discount for cash just a 3% up-charge if I used a credit card.
Then get money out of politics!
But this would require barring most contributions to politicians except for those with a very small cap, say $500. Banning PAC’s. Limiting the campaign season to maybe 3 months. And using public money to fund political campaigns with the same amount of money allocated to each politician.
Would you be ready to embrace these practical limits?
This Supreme Court is headed in the opposite direction
The constitution does not allow the federal government to engage in the insurance business. This federal healthcare mess is a poster child for the consequences of departing from the founding principles and guidance of our constitution.
One might recall our chief justice reworded Obamacare funding from premium to tax so he could cast an affirming vote when challenged.
Where in the Constitution or Amendments is Federal insurance prohibited? The Federal government has provided Flood Insurance, FDIC Insurance, and, of course, Medicare/Medicaid for nearly 100 years.
Amendment 10
– Undelegated Powers Kept by the States and the People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Burden is now on you to show me where doing insurance business is delegated to the federal government.
Insurance is not a power, it’s a service
Insurance is state regulated Dave is right
Every state to my knowledge regulates insurance.
It doesn’t seem like he’s right
I am pretty sure the intent is where power is the authority to enter the business of insurance. If not, then the amendment has little or no meaning over anything the federal government did.
“Burden is now on you”; first tell us where your Constitutional law degree is from LOL
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .
You are taking a narrow Madison view of Congressional powers vs. a broader Hamilton view of the Constitution giving Congress the power to make laws later for the “general Welfare”.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but you’re in the minority – including by previous related Supreme Court opinions.
Don’t like it? You can always move to Uzbekistan as I’ve heard they don’t have such insurance required and provided
the us constitution is a non binding resolution. please get a reality check. we have codified torture and much more. all legal and stuff.
SS and medicare are insurance.
So true. My beef is what government is doing to our great country, namely destroying it from within fiscally by spending much more than revenue to the point that now we cannot raise taxes to cover spending, nor can we cut spending to revenue levels. However, if we do not balance spending and revenue, the government proceeds ever more rapidly toward bankruptcy where few if any of the government services it now provides will be continued. The federal reserve buying government debt is a sure sign we are in a death spiral of debt that needs attention now, the longer it is delayed, the more difficult to solve. This discussion points to the fact that the fiscal resolution is very difficult at this juncture.
That is pretty lazy thinking. The Constitution authorizes Congressional action to include many actions that are not SPECIFICALLY expressly enumerated in the Constitution.
The Constitution grants expressed powers (like taxation and spending for the general welfare) and implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18). These allow Congress to create laws and programs that help carry out its enumerated duties.
The crux of the matter, whether permitted by the constitution or not, is the exorbitant spending above revenue over time that has now burdened the federal government with $37 trillion debt that is saddling the current population with a $trillion annual service cost. Job one for our political representatives must be addressing the problem. Fiscal year 2025 spending was about $7 trillion, 2019, the year before covid, spending was $4.4 trillion. The country cannot survive if we increase spending at these rates. We are not going to tax or tariff ourselves into fiscal sanity. Arguing the constitution is a side show compared to the gravity of the fiscal problem.
The solution to the deficit and debt problem is to make government more cost-efficient in how it operates and delivers its services and mandates, while having pro-growth policies that lead to the economy growing faster than the cost of government.
Agree, but remember, the difference between spending and revenue is the deficit. If there is a deficit, the country is moving backward with respect to debt increasing. We will not nor cannot make progress on our fiscal mess without making a step change to eliminate the annual deficit. Without eliminating the deficit, all we do is change the pace of moving backward.
They used the Commerce Clause to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Fascinating.
I remember that
These bills are just the opportunity to vote to give them cover. Everyone gets to vote yes to at least one bill but no bill from either side will pass. Enhanced credits will expire.
A simplistic analysis that giving money directly to people rather than health insurers could work if almost all people’s health was similar. In reality, unless coverage was mandated, or heavily subsidized, healthy people will avoid expensive coverage, leaving the insured pool sicker than the average population. The resulting rise in premium will then drive out the moderately sick, and can continue to a death spiral of the insurance pool. This phenomenon has been known for centuries in the insurance industry, but can easily be ignored by those who value ideology over practical knowledge. Of course, addressing funding does not address the overly expensive cost of US medical care.
amerikan are swindlers. from bottom to top of the heap in white house. only wealthy nation on earth that feess poison disguised as food, and makes people go bankrupt due to being too sick. the answer is in the mirror of 98% of the people in the empire. the 2% that vote green or libertarian have some brains and hearts.
Why is it that every time I hear politicians and pundits debating this issue, the GOP-aligned bash the ACA (Obamacare) as not bringing down costs without acknowledging that from 2010-2014 Republicans in Congress and through the courts did everything in their power to kill or sabotage the ACA, including overturning the individual mandate through the courts? Even the ACA proponents in today’s debate fail to raise this point. The individual mandate was integral to the legislation aimed at controlling costs.
If everyone were forced to buy health insurance right now the economy would likely be in a global depression. There are too many old people needing healthcare and not enough young people to spread the cost. It’s that simple.
Healthcare wasn’t an issue in the 60s, 70s, 80s or early 90s, 2000s but around the 2010’s premiums skyrocketed. Do you want to know what happened in the 2010s?
That’s when the oldest baby boomers started hitting 65, getting on medicare and needing larger and larger amounts of healthcare.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-changed-time/#Total%20national%20health%20expenditures,%20by%20source%20of%20funds,%201970%20and%202023
on the link above there is a chart labeled, “Cumulative growth in per enrollee spending, by private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, 2008-2023”
It illustrates exactly what I’m talking about and the growth won’t stop until the whole system breaks in about 7 years or sooner. What happens after that who knows but I don’t want to be around for an Americanized Detroit.
crumbling dying evil empire 101. i eyewitnessed the demise of USSR and had oligarch clients. what a great experience, now that i ponder the 90s.
You might get to see it again….
my russian pals living in USA i call two time losers. i have fully expected to see it play out again, in my life. have no fear, it’s worse than you think for the common moron out there, when an empire unwinds. i saw women lined up to try out for snuff film parts. to feed their families. hoping they’d get the part without the bullet in the head after the porno.
I am old enough to remember when health insurance was provided by most employers, except for the very smallest businesses, at negligible cost to the employee. I am also old enough to remember that health care costs and insurance premiums were rising at an average of 7-8% annually in the 10 years leading up to the ACA’s passage. 7-8% means those costs doubled every 10 years. The European nations have a similar age demographic issue that we have, and health insurance is very affordable, and care is very good with everyone in the insurance pool. Insurance is a pretty simple concept; the larger and more diverse the pool of participants, the lower the cost for the participants.
Don’t overestimate the collective intelligence of the American electorate
One reason is it required everyone to purchase healthcare. If government can force you to buy health insurance, then what is to stop them from forcing you to buy anything or everything, say Trump meme coins? I agree it may be a noble idea, but it is drawing near to a slippery slope.
Government is going about reducing healthcare prices all wrong by subsidizing it. Just like education or green energy, subsidizing something guarentees the price will rise. Government needs to get out of the business entirely and incentivize pricing transparency and competition. Another problem is health insurance covering everything to include routine medical checkups to pre-existing conditions. Doing that has morphed it from insurance to a payment transfer system.
The theory that competition can work within the realm of healthcare is just that, a theory. There are two real-world examples to point to in order to justify that theory. On the other hand, Europe and Australia have healthcare/health insurance systems that work very well and are much more cost-efficient than our extremely expensive system.
Correction: The second sentence should state THERE ARE NO REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES.
You are correct. The individual mandate is/was essential to all of the following related non-single-payer healthcare insurance systems to control funding costs:
How exactly is giving people money in an HSA and allowing people to use those funds to pay for health insurance premiums going to lower health insurance premiums?
If the theory is that people will “shop around” they can do that already and it all sucks.
The elephant in the room is that health insurance premiums will continue to sky rocket for three reasons:
The population is aging rapidly and the older you are the more healthcare you consume.The young population is shrinking so there are less people to spread the health insurance and FICA burden for social security and medicare and worse wages haven’t kept up. These young people can’t carry the health ins and tax burden for the elderly, themselves and their offspring, it won’t work mathematically in any form.The system never made any sense, it has worse outcomes at the highest prices when compared to other systems around the world but no politician wants to change anything.https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
Absolutely nothing will get done so plan for your misery accordingly. If you have an exit strategy, congrats, enjoy your superior quality of life and don’t look back. Let the fools turn into pillars of salt.
Your lead question gets right to the heart of the matter. The government subsidized education with grants, scholarships, loans, research contracts, and who knows what else and tuition is now out of line any semblance of being reasonable. Supports the adage; if you want more of something, subsidize it, and less, tax it.
The new Republican options are highly complex pieces of legislation, made up on the fly (in Trump‘s case literally). There is no serious study, no serious debate, no costing. This is how banana republics operate.
Trump will be happy to show your 14 year old daughter his banana.
But he will tariff yours…
He will ban you from exporting your banana to other “lands”
Yes, we have no bananas!
My first thought was – how much money will setting up these accounts cost? Seems like they may have to hire some federal workers to take care of this- another bureaucracy. They can call it the Bureau of UBI….
Americans voted for a Banana Republic. Amazing that the right did this, ain’t it?
Wait. What? I thought the President said he didn’t want to give money to the insurance companies, he wanted it to go to the people. But the proposal requires people to use the money to pay for insurance from the insurance companies? It seems like Senate Republicans are expressly going against the President here.
trump lied? oh no. that never happens.
Would love to se someone in the press gaggle, who is on the cusp of retiring because they would likely get fired, yell “President Trump, you are an EFFen LIAR!”.
he’s pinochio. a fucking liar. be funny for sure. i loved when the guy threw the shoe at W the dumber.
He didn’t lie, he is mentally ill and has no f—ing idea what he is saying or has said. He is manipulated by those around him from minute to minute, that is why he Taco’s so much.
86/47 in an effort to save our nation although that’s probably a waste of time with ASI on the way.
So 86/47 cause he’s a pedophile.
stagflation. insurance costs and many others soaring. while Farmers in usa are SCREWED. They are begging China to buy. China has found new and getting much much bigger markets, especially Brazil……….whiich is bringing on new farmland bigger than Iowa and Nebraska size per year. TRUMP SMOOT HAWLEY
Medical care and education are ridiculously expensive in the US. Both have terrible results. Bring on the robots.
Did someone say robots?
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1991735383974113655?s=46
“Bring on the robots” no need for medical care then….no need for humans at all.