Reddit Posts
Interview of James A. Mai and Ben Hockett from Cornwall Capital
MBH CORPORATION ANNOUNCES NEW BOARD MEMBERS IAN ELSEY, KEVIN HANBURY, PETER LAWRENCE & SIMON MARTIN
HEALTH EMERGENCY EXECUTIVE ORDER AND AN AWAITED OPPORTUNITY FOR EVOFEM's PHEXXI THE ONLY NON-HORMONAL PREVENTIVE CONTRACEPTION DRUG IN THE ACA LIST-
Revolutionary, Hormone-free, 2-in-1 STD Prevention and Birth Control Gel With Top-line Results Expected In The Second Half of 2022.
EVFM bioscience has an opportunity to reach $5
$EVFM ready to take off - ACA soon and sales will raise fast☄️🖐💎🖐
Evofem just hit the bottom, read for analysis and why. As CEO said today change will happen suddenly. $EVFM debt problem solved. Expenses solved, revenue growth on track
$EVFM back to the essence: Women's health!
Why I'm strongly positive about Evofem $EVFM
You might not know this company , but you will use their product soon 😍 ✅ it's about $EVFM
You might not know this company , but you will use their product soon 😍 ✅
You might not know this company , but you will use their product soon 😍 ✅
Evofem catalysts before end of the year . 590% upside potential, big short squeeze is possible .
Evofem short squeeze possiblity and catalysts before end of the year . 590% upside potential
$CANO Big Way to Play Boomers Aging, Execs Recently Made Huge Open Market Purchases
Getting ahead in Hearing aid investing before law is enacted. Good idea?
EVFM. ACA pH modulator category looks approved for 2H:21. University segment should begin contributing for 21/22 plan year. Long calls, write 7.50 / 1.00 put vertical at least 30 days out.
Evofem the only non-hormonal birth control "pill"
Evofem the only non-hormonal birth control "pill"
SCOTUS just upheld the ACA a third time, which means BUY CLOV.
EVFM is the Sex Stock Play of the Summer
EVFM is the Sex Stock Play of the Summer
ACA.PA new operation - come explain to me
RETAIL INVESTORS + APES are Changing the Market Forever: CLOV SQueeze + What comes after the SQueeze? -----------> ANSWER: Huge Value Creation for CLOV
RETAIL INVESTORS + APES are Changing the Market Forever: CLOV SQueeze + What comes after the SQueeze? -----------> ANSWER: Huge Value Creation for CLOV
My Watchlist For 5/13/2021 - Can $SPY Like.... Fucking Stop?? Good God...
PART 2 – Understanding Washington: The Timeline and Calendar of Cannabis Legislation (2021)
How will changes in the ACA by the Democratic Congress and office affect healthcare stocks?
IntelGenx, Psilocybin, is a double from here, says Leede Jones Gable
Mentions
U.S. House Votes To Block Move To Consider ACA Healthcare Subsidy Extension Before End Of Year its like they are actively tryig to kill people
Many people never make it through college. Many people don't get any job offers after college. Also, I think a lot of people are getting very pissed off that a clinical psychiatrist is charging whatever they want to charge because the ACA got more people on health insurance. I actually want to see all health insurance go, and then maybe we'll get a single payer health care system when the people create a new political leadership that will change the housing policy, health care policy and do something about the accelerating extremes in economic inequality.
There is a real risk of a correction based on AI growth. The planned build outs require a lot of imaginary money and infrastructure. At least -0.75 fed rate reduction. This will likely increase inflation since we're barely at target now with historically low fuel prices. With weak hiring, enhanced ACA subsidies cut and more restrictions on Medicaid consumer spending power is going to drop further than it has already. That means retail investment should be focused on things that are either non discretionary or that target those with higher income. Or maybe it will be all sparkles and sunshine. Tariffs get cut, subsidies get renewed, infrastructure actually gets built.
I think tomorrow’s address is 1 of 2 things: 1. We are invading Venezuela 2. An address related to healthcare. Currently, the ACA subsidies are set to expire in January and Congress have been fighting on what to do. If it’s #2, I could see the rescheduling announcement being rolled into the healthcare “improvements” he will announce in lieu of Congress extending the ACA subsidies
# Yes, a government shutdown in 2026 is a strong possibility, as a November 2025 stopgap measure (Continuing Resolution - CR) only funds most U.S. agencies until #January 30, 2026, setting up a potential renewed funding crisis for early 2026 unless Congress passes full-year appropriations or another short-term fix. The current situation is a temporary patch following a record 43-day shutdown in late 2025, with major disagreements over spending levels, policy riders (like ACA subsidies), and the budget for Fiscal Year 2026
Wow what a rough 24 hours that was back in 2013 when the site went down for 2 hours because it was so overwhelmingly popular. Based on that ACA was clearly useless. /s That you have no idea what I mean by gutting the exchanges speaks volumes. I mean he stopped offering subsidies to insurers operating on the exchanges, increasing their risks and leading to pullouts and lack of choice for consumers, while simultaneously using rulemaking to push lower quality plans providing insufficient coverage through employers.
Wow what a rough 24 hours that was back in 2013 when the site went down for 2 hours because it was so overwhelmingly popular. Based on that ACA was clearly useless. /s
It doesn't matter what the stated intention was. What happened was the largest government hand out to insurance companies ever. The growth in "health administration" has been nearly 500% since the ACA was passed, stock value through the roof, patient outcomes down, Doctor, nurse, and patient satisfaction down. The ACA has been a complete disaster from the day it was passed. Everything said about it at the time was a lie, everything done has been for the benefit of insurance companies.
>the Fox News story You are a partisan hack, not a serious person. No wonder you came to this thread to fellate the fucking Pelosis of all people. >The launch of the Obamacare website, HealthCare.gov, on October 1, 2013, was widely regarded as a disaster due to severe technical failures and mismanagement. >Within hours of its debut, the site crashed under the weight of user traffic, with only six people successfully enrolling in health insurance plans on the first day. Over the first three weeks, just 500,000 out of 20 million visitors managed to complete applications for coverage. >The root causes of the failure were multifaceted. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Obama administration lacked "effective planning or oversight practices" in developing the website, leading to significant cost overruns, schedule delays, and incomplete system functionality. >The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), responsible for overseeing the project, failed to follow proper procurement procedures, did not conduct thorough performance reviews of contractors, and neglected to create a written procurement strategy as required by federal regulations. It was so disastrous that Zack Galifanakis mocked it to Obama's face on his show. No idea what you mean by "gutting of the exchanges," but they still worked fine last time I checked. And the Dems had 4 years to reverse whatever you think he did and chose not to. The ACA has been a disaster for everyone except insurance companies and hospital administrators
So nothing on the gutting of the exchanges, which is really the main thing? And latching onto the Fox News story about the website from the first 24 hours of Obamacare’s launch (which itself was due to the popularity of ACA)? Laughable.
Nah, among other things he gutted the exchanges. He cut promotion of ACA options to citizens. Escape your echo chamber.
She was Speaker, she pushed ACA through and but for her it would not have happened. She isn’t the only person who has got rich in congress and there is no evidence she got rich because of congress, despite the popularity on Reddit of saying otherwise. There are actually established violators of congressional trading rules and Pelosi isn’t one of them, and others in Congress have made way more on trades than Pelosi during the same time.
I’ll take those kind of wins any day, but it’s not just Pelosi pushing for ACA, and it’s not just Pelosi getting rich serving in congress
Yeah, politics. Pelosi wanted more but in the end took what she could get for ACA, which as you note was way better than what existed before. It was trench warfare with that bill.
Utter nonsense. Everything about healthcare has gotten worse and more expensive continuously since the ACA was passed, and all Trump did was stop forcing people to get it. Her only goal in Congress is getting herself and her husband $200M in shady business dealings and insider stock trades.
You think the consumer is weak now, just wait until *everyone* is paying way more for healthcare next year after the ACA subsidies expire. Millions will lose coverage altogether and companies will be forced to raise premiums to make up for the loss of billions. All this coming while unemployment rises, inflation continues unabated, defaults continue to rise, home prices fall, and tens of millions of student loan debt holders face liens on their income. 2026 is shaping up to be a rough year, even without the AI Bubble popping.
Not that the ACA isn't way better than having done nothing to improve our healthcare system it's really fucking sad that it's regarded as one of the more impressive achievements of our time. It's pretty fucking awful by any other standard.
Pelosi has a long list of accomplishments that helped Americans in general, and her constituents in particular. Passing ACA is probably the most important, though it has been greatly weakened by Trump and the GOP since it was passed. I’ve worked with her local office and seen the action firsthand. You haven’t seen squat, I imagine.
Got kind lazy with the counter points. Anyone else out there still waiting on infrastructure week, or the GOP healthcare plan from when they were trying to overturn the ACA? I will give you a hint. They never ever happened.
If dividend-focused investing makes you comfortable and helps you invest more money confidently, it's probably not unreasonable. With 30+ stocks, you're going to be "reasonably" diversified. I'd prefer someone to be **more** diversified (since high yield dividend stocks are often concentrated into commodity/manufacturing companies), but there are certainly worse habits to pick up. That's the biggest pro of dividend-focused investing - it tends to make people comfortable. Money shows up in their checking account regularly. That cash flow may prevent a person from even thinking of checking their portfolio. Most behavioral evidence shows that the biggest risk to most investor's future financial success has nothing to do with what they invest in, but rather their ability to be consistent in their investing approach. It's a simple approach, and inherently regulates spending because you will decrease spending when dividends go down. All of that is good for most investors for behavioral reasons. The cons are it doesn't actually help you from a financial perspective, and can possibly hurt you, especially in a taxable account. There's an implicit assumption in a lot of dividend investors that their stocks are more stable than the rest of the market. That tends to be true when viewed by itself, but not on a risk-adjusted basis. That assumption isn't backed by much evidence, and violates the notion that the market is efficient. Certainly **some** dividend stocks have been historically more stable than the rest of the market - particular "dividend aristocrats". However, that has varied over history. For instance, they performed well in the 2000s dot-com crash, but not so well in the 2008 great financial crisis, and not in the last 10 years or so. Further, it has only applied to some stocks - especially high yield dividend stocks (those that make 6%+ yield) have generally been less stable than the rest of the market. The actual spending you can get from a dividend-focused approach is inherently lower than a total returns based approach. This is straightforward - if you only focus on dividends, you will never sell shares and will only "spend" part of your portfolio. In a total returns approach, money is viewed as fungible and spending any sort of money is viewed as equivalent - this allows someone to spend down their portfolio, increasing their available spending in decumulation. Finally, tax drag is a thing. It's not huge if you just focus on the dividend tax (though it is non-zero). However, if you look at it from a government benefit perspective, it's quite high. ACA tax credits are a huge effective tax on income in decumulation - you will pay a bit in tax, but lose a lot in tax credits, especially as someone approaches the 4x FPL limit for credits. Further, IRMAA kicks in as another tax for increased income. I've met several people who end up "succeeding" at dividend investing, then realizing they have a massive tax bill for the rest of their lives that they have no way to avoid.
Obamacare was sold to the public as a needed reform to reduce medical costs What actually happened was costs skyrocketed, but the government was heavily subsidizing that cost, so to the end user it didn’t really go up all that much. The subsidies have ran out and costs have skyrocketed, because the ACA was and is horrible legislation that has done incredible damage to health care and costs in the last 15 years
None taken. This is an interesting chart. Scroll down. But if you have a family of 4, and unless make less then $50k a year to qualify for Medicaid, you can’t afford insurance. I know because I just looked on the ACA site (I can afford it, but just to see where the jump in costs are, I reduced the income to see where Medicaid kicks in) https://truthout.org/articles/top-5-us-health-insurers-annual-profits-jumped-230-percent-since-acas-passage/
Between my premium increasing and ACA cuts, I’ll be paying quadruple what I paid last year for insurance. I refuse. It’s a great time for an affordability and health crisis!
The only problem with ACA is that the insurance company profits have exploded ever since. Healthcare is not affordable.
I mean, blaming it on Obama sure, but Dems had a once in a generation opportunity and blew it. 2 Dem senators stopped universal healthcare, no one was held responsible for the financial crisis, RBG should have retired during her first cancer scare and saved her seat. Obama did a lot of good with the ACA, but Dems as a whole could've brought the systemic change that people were begging for after Bush. Instead it felt like the 4 years we got with Biden over Trump. Like, objectively way better and more stable, but there's a reason so many people turned to Bernie immediately after. They wanted more change.
I don't think a downgrade is on the table quite yet, unless the Republicans vite down extending the ACA tax credits.
What an obnoxious comment. Good on you to be lucky in life not to depend on the ACA. Too bad you aren’t rich enough for analytical thoughts.
ACA also prevented insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Do you consider this a negligible change?
The ACA has literally allowed millions more to be covered free, not to mention tax credits lowering costs for anyone under 400% of the poverty line. Biden's recently expired covid era credits did even more. You're being obtuse. Perhaps willingly.
ACA deadline approaches - prepare your anus
I want to be clear that I'm not a Democrat by any means, they share a lot of the blame for why we're in this situation in the first place. Biden personally deserves a lot of the blame for trying to run again despite clearly being physically and mentally incapable of doing so (the brain cancer diagnosis was really icing on the cake). That being said, Democrats are objectively the better party for the economy and for the country more generally: they're more competent and less corrupt (these are highly relative lmao), more consistent and predictable (to a fault), and less partisan. I mean, ffs, we've now had more than a decade of Republicans refusing to provide their own alternative to the ACA or to allow desperately needed fixes to be implemented. For decades now they've been preventing desperately needed reforms from being implemented for a variety of major issues facing the country as part of an explicit political strategy... and it fucking *works*! Republicans have been the biggest perpetrators of the culture wars nonsense because it keeps people distracted from the actual issues and it helps them win elections. Frankly what we need more than anything is to toss out the two party system altogether and rework the political system from the ground up. But the chances of that actually happening are slim to none, the megarich who actually own the government have no interest in letting this happen, they're perfectly content with running the country into the ground so that they can scavenge what's left.
New came out that DJT was backing down on the Obamacare subsidies (but we have to call them ACA).
Dems got a nonbinding pinky promise that there will be a pointless doa vote in January to extend ACA funding. Also a promise not to do RIF for federal agencies. Totally worth it
I have to disagree. There are huge benefits to a Roth, benefits that extend to the individual's non-qualified heirs 10 years past one's demise (and indefinitely for qualified heirs). I am a case in point. Because I have a big chunk of liquid assets in a Roth (and a big chunk in an inherited Roth), I have tax-free distributions that I not only pay no explicit taxes on, but also no implicit taxes on benefits that accrue to folks with a lower AGI, like ACA subsidies and taxing of Social Security benefits. I am most assuredly one of the few Individuals with multimillionaire wealth that is on the Medicaid ACA expansion (I will be transitioning to an ACA plan in 2026, only because of the BBB and its upcoming work requirements in 2027; of course, the Dems are going to sweep up the House & Senate in 2026, and we will get the Public Option to replace the ACA Medicaid expansion, among others), and will be a "low income" Social Security beneficiary (i.e., SS will not count towards AGI) when the times comes.
Your first part is dead wrong. Prices are going up for all plans, in the ACA and employer plans. Several reasons, but GLP-1s are playing an increasing role. Also, subsidies aren’t going away, extra pandemic era subsidies will go away at the end of the year, and probably temporarily. The people who go without health insurance will be relatively small.
The current admin has openly said they are not considering extending ACA subsidies specifically because they do not want to give money to these companies.
This is exactly what’s happen and corporate entities want the ACA to die, so they will not fund anything they don’t have to.
I hope they keep tariffs and let the ACA subsidies expire. That party needs to lose every single election next November.
Dude has almost $2M in assets and is gaming ACA subsidies... yeah that's definitely not what those programs were designed for
There are a whole lot of under-65 ACA subscribers who have figured out that their pre-golden years should have a low AGI so as to maximize ACA subsidies. I suppose you consider them to be "takers". How about we have Medicare-For-All paid for by VAT with a portion of that rebated back to everyone as a form of Guaranteed Income? I support that.
OK, so change the rules so that there is an asset test - and I suppose some way of enforcing an asset test on a Trust if the ACA applicant-in-question is a Beneficiary - in addition to income?
Exhibit 1 why we need to end ACA subsidies.....
I started back in 1989 with my employer's 401K. I didn't last that long there, but with another employer shortly thereafter. I had a really good couple of years of maxxing out the 401K, and then by the year 2000, I had over $100K. Not too long thereafter, I retired very early, taken advantage of Roth laddering, and now am sitting on a nice Roth balance, while I am able to take full advantage of the ACA subsidies since I have such a low income because the Roth distributions are non-taxable. :)
The allocations don't seem unreasonable. Without knowing the amount in each account and your intended annual withdrawals I can't really give any detailed advice. I would not be inclined to sell equities in Account 1 to reduce equity allocation and build cash/bond allocation because it will trigger capital gains. Just make sure your overall asset allocation is reasonable across all accounts, then turn off dividend reinvestment in Account 1 so that dividends go to cash, and modify your cost basis option for asset sales to "lowest tax basis" so that when you sell equities the lots with lowest tax will be sold first. This will minimize your capital gains and maximize any potential ACA insurance subsidies.
Trump healthcare plan (probably): 1. Pardon Luigi 2. Extend ACA enhanced subsidies 3. Rename ACA to Trumpcare
When the recucklicans deny the ACA credit extension, like they always planned to do, XLV will crater. Already started selling off today from all the insiders lmao. Imagine being stupid enough to end the shutdown for a promised "vote" on extensions. 🤦♂️
1 and 3. You’re talking about politics, which is a different animal than ideas, which is what I’m talking about. It’s extremely difficult to get cosponsors for radical ideas, and that’s exactly what we need. I argued the same point with a republican friend of mine at the time - he lost. But the political machine _spent so much money to make sure he lost._ I really, really don’t want to get into the politics of 2016 because it really and truly doesn’t fucking matter. He’s allowed to be slightly bitter after the fact because he lost. He doesn’t talk about it unless he’s asked today. 2. You being slightly disingenuous or are miseries about what a demagogue is. If a specific group (billionaires/oligarchs) are committing specific acts (lobbying, campaign financing, etc) to affect a specific outcome (increased influence, lower taxes, monopolistic control, etc), and there’s well documented evidence for it, then calling out that group of people is not demagoguery, it’s an elected representative holding the system accountable. Something I put extremely high on my value list. 4. Again, radical ideas require radical mobilization, and congress isn’t there. Yet. But that doesn’t mean you have to give up believing in a good idea for the sake of pragmatism. Pragmatism is what got us to where we are today during the fallout of WWII. Bernie has cosponsored plenty of bills and lobbied in favor of plenty more that have done and/or would have done a lot of good for the average person. He voted for the ACA, despite having so many reservations about the insurance system and the siphoning of money out of the health care system by greedy middlemen. It was the _pragmatic_ vote, because it would have (and did for a time) have so many positive effects on the average person. It wasn’t perfect, and obstructionism and lobbying have made it even worse, which, for the record, is exactly what he warned about. Our problem is that we’re focusing too much on politics and not enough on the utility and ethical validity of ideas. The one thing you can’t argue about Bernie is that he literally wants everyone to succeed. Everyone. Even billionaires. Yes, as absurd as that sounds even billionaires should exist and succeed in our society, BUT, they have an moral responsibility to invest in the continuation and success of the structures that provided them the means to capture that wealth.
Bolstering ACA coupled with universal basic coverage would be a more effective start. When I say basic, I’m talking about going to the ER because of some reason like a car accident and the end result is that you don’t go bankrupt.
But Obama signed ACA. Failure or not but I’d say that was the biggest legislation passed in my lifetime.
🥭 Will be forced to approve ACA credits in 1-2 weeks. UNH will go up. This is not trading advice. Thank you for attention to this matter.
We are literally delaying GDP reports, delaying jobs reports, delaying economic data during a time the fed isbalso saying we need rate cuts because inflation is getting out of control, half the country is in a recession, unemployment rate is rising. And the solutions presented will only exacerbate the problems (letting ACA subsidies lapse, giving a "stimulus check" that causes massive inflation). And they want to make the fed less independent, not more.
Wait after the longest shutdown battle in US history over ACA…they reinstated ACA??? That can’t be accurate
Trump's new stance on ACA subsidies will definitely benefit UNH a lot.
You can't make this shit up. Trump is going to extend ACA subsidies, making the entire shutdown a manufactured mini crisis with no point lmao. https://apnews.com/article/trump-affordable-care-act-proposal-subsidies-democrats-dcbd606d8c35f403136b9547d88e0449 It goes without saying but this is mega bullish.
You can't make this shit up. Trump is going to extend ACA subsidies, making the entire shutdown a manufactured mini crisis with no point lmao.
They need more of a plan than cutting a check to everyone on the ACA?
Yes. He is signing an EO that says crypto must go way up and SPX is required to follow. He will also request that congress gets a bill that will extend the ACA subsidies with some modifications so they can turn that into a MAGA win and a dem loss.
Funny how people think health insurance will change much in any shape or form. Trump just now wants to extend ACA subsidies. Centene +8%
Burry maybe a notorious gey bear, but his bull picks are always money. MOH back on the rebound with ACA subsidies extension 🤙🏻
OSCR to $30 if ACA gets extended lets gooo
I feel the same sentiment, probably not by the end of the year, but sometime in the next year or so. These things often don’t hit the market right away Tariffs, federal layoffs, private sector layoffs hitting like 160k in October, daycare costs, mortgage rates, all the people that are losing their healthcare subsidies for the ACA, all the farmers who don’t have foreign orders, the people who will lose snap and Medicaid when those cuts go into affect. There is zero protections now for the poor and middle class. AI is completely holding up the market. I do think AI will be a big technology jump at some point, but right now there are so many massive deals around AI infrastructure, will AI provide an ROI on that huge investment initially?
yeah, that in addition to ACA subsidies waning.. that would substantially change their revenues. I am not gambling on that.
ACA going away is going to drive a lot of people off health insurance, the smaller pool of people means those still in the pool are going to have to pay more for the same pool, thus increasing the cycle. Repeat until everyone is dead / $UNH is bankrupt cause they dont actually do anything.
They will. I can't see what Dems come up with now that ACA has passed. This was 8 whole Dems that moved to the other side. Trump is playing well with Mamdani, he's an economic socialist. Just socially conservative.
No definitely I agree with you, and I totally vote with the harm mitigation mindset. There is one party that is objectively worse. But it's also true that both parties have ignored debt. Ignored inflation. Have allowed our enormously corrupt and wasteful healthcare system to flourish. That's all. When healthcare is totally absent of course ACA is better. But we're also fooling ourselves that ACA is sustainable when inflation is 7%-9% a year in healthcare. We have this weird broken combination of both the worst aspects of a public system and a private system.
Our healthcare insurance industry bribes politicians. That's why we never get meaningful reform. Paying Lieberman something like 450k to completely gut the public option out of the ACA was the best bribe ever spent.
The government has their hands in the insurance companies back pockets. Our government is made up of a bunch of corrupt worthless individuals who are not good at anything. Both dems and repubs. I’m not out of line I’m telling you exactly what I’m observing. My union insurance is top notch. Why should I lose that? Something I fought and paid for long before ACA. No need to name call… you’re being the asshole to me because I have a different experience than you.
I'm not even disagreeing that it's just giving more money to insurance companies. That's why it's a bandaid. The lack of a real public option is the problem, especially when it's been proven to be more efficient in every other country on earth, while *still* maintaining a healthy private market. For what you pay in insurance in the US, you could likely afford both the taxes for public healthcare *and* private insurance to supplement it in another country, if you wanted. You're wrong about the market being better before the ACA though. Insurance was cheaper in 2009 because it was 2009, but prior to the ACA, insurance prices were raising even faster. The ACA actually slowed it considerably, mostly due to the increased transparency and scrutiny that came with it.
My focus right now is bridging the health care gap from 60-65. I've been doing a lot of Roth the last few years so that I can keep my income below that 400% level for ACA. I've also been trying a bucket strategy for those 5 years, where I'm doing some CD/TIPS ladders. It will be a tricky time, because those years would be great times to do Roth conversions, but that would interfere with the ACA discounts, which could be huge. As far as investment choices, over the last few years the majority of my retirement savings has been in 2040 TDF's. From age 35-50, I was 90% S&P500. From 25-35, I thought I was some kind of genius and had about 15 different things selected in my 401k.
Yes I would prefer my union insurance that I had 10-15 years before ACA came to be not get tied into an inefficient shitty government insurance. Its not "Fuck you I got mine" its we as union members fought for this and now you want us to give it up. It's "he has his and I want it"
It's far from perfect and mostly benefits the insurance companies. Go ahead and pile on the downvotes😂. Just cause some benefit from it doesn't mean there are a WHOLE bunch of us that don't. We are far from rich and insurance was cheaper before ACA. My opinion... we are not collectively bargaining anything like a union would. We are collectively giving money to rich insurance companies because the government middle man said we had too. The power we had before to hunt for a bargain in a free market was taken away with ACA. Its only gotten more expensive since and insurance companies have received money from every person since with no barraging at all.
You are an extreme minority and no, this is not most Americans' experience with ACA
It's funny you're getting downvoted for sharing your life experience because it goes against the acceptable viewpoints of this subreddit. My ex boyfriend who's still a good friend, was forced, yes, FORCED to pay into the ACA and he received.... Absolutely nothing in the way it benefits. Literally nothing. This was 2016/2017 and he had to pay 48 dollars a month for absolutely nothing. Just because some people benefit doesn't mean everyone does.
The ACA was massively effective in getting tens of millions of people health coverage. It isnt perfect, because it's a bandaid to an utterly broken system. But there isn't anything wrong with bandaging a wound before you can get it stitched up. Your union insurance being superior is a textbook example of why collective bargaining power is important, and most countries with real healthcare systems leverage the bargaining power of their entire populations, rather than handing it over to a middleman who *needs* to extract maximum and ever increasing value from you.
I've got health insurance through my union. My girlfriend (been together 20 years so might as well be married) has ACA. Her premiums are very expensive. Hardly ever uses it and when she does use it the deductible is so high she might as well not even have the insurance. God forbid something major happens but for normal life the hospital bill is cheaper than the insurance and deductible. Nothing is covered until 9k deductible is met. We are middle class. Guess opinions vary depending on if you are getting the subsidies or paying the subsidies. We think it sucks... should probably just tie the knot so she can be on my insurance. Everyone acted like ACA was really gonna stick it to the insurance companies and I think it did exactly the opposite, they were all high fivin when it went into effect. Not just spouting shit, it really is UNaffordable.
Reading this made my ears bleed. Here's a good question to start with: what is the market? Like, what is it really? Where is it? What's it made of? Once you've really grounded your idea of "the market" in reality, then ask yourself, what do the things I listed have to do with the market? What do they actually do? But also, he did not expire ACA what the fuck. The Republicans allowed the COVID expansion to the Premium Tax Credit to expire. ACA was not touched. The amount health insurance companies are getting paid did not change. What changed is who is paying it. What happens to the market when millions of people have an extra few hundred dollars of insurance costs every month? How does that affect consumer spending?
I’ve had ACA off and on for years and the insurance has been more than great. I’ve had my hip replaced, knee surgeries done, my daughter is always covered. Most of the time $0 PCP visits, $0 generic rx. Soon, due to a change in my career, I won’t need it, but I can personally say that my insurance under ACA has been fantastic. Was this not your experience with it? Or did you never use it and are just spouting some shit?
Thanks for another reasonable reply. I don’t think there will be an expensive war and doubt we will get bogged down like other presidents have gotten us into as Trump is very deliberate to get in and get out as we saw with Iran. I think the Venezuelan leadership is seeing these displays of force, plus the battle group off their shores so I expect there could be regime change without having to invade or bomb them. On the other points I and others have a different viewpoint. Instead of expanding SNAP and other programs for the poor, we think it is time to help the poor not be so poor any longer! Let’s get those who are able bodied working as there are a lot of jobs and there is little reason to be poor with the opportunities available in America. Very candidly, and this is from someone who was poor and hungry at one time, hunger is a forceful motivation to stop being poor and do what needs done to make a living to take care of one’s self. Let’s spend the money on programs to get poor people working so they are no longer poor. With the many illegal immigrants being deported there are a LOT of jobs available. The trades are high paying jobs and are in desperate need of workers. I could go on, but you get the point. I agree with you on ACA which the democrats set up and knew the subsides were going to end at the end of 2025, but Biden did nothing about it, so this again is a lack of focus, work, and foresight. We can say a lot about Trump but he is usually focused and working hard to achieve his agenda, which we could not say about Biden. I’m in the camp to stop throwing money and temporary patch fixes at problems, and instead spend the money to fix the root cause so the problems don’t need costly work arounds. It seems many in DC only focus on the work arounds …
If they don't fund the ACA, everyone will be looking at their new 2027 health insurance premiums right around September and October. $2k isn't going to save him in that event.
> While they may not make the drugs, they are trafficking them per this from the GAO: Mostly cocaine and money laundering though. Not good, but again not very expensive war or extrajudicial killing worthy in my opinion. > See this about tariffs and 1929 which is not felt to be related: Saying it caused the 1929 crash was definitely hyperbole, I admit. I feel they should talk more about the Fordney-McCumber Act and it's impact leading up to Smoot-Hawley if they want to make this argument. Regardless of if Fordney-McCumber and Smoot-Hawley caused the crash, it was terrible policy and objectively made things economically worse for the United States for many years. Again Congress didn't mean to give the Executive wide spread ability to tariff. Targeted tariffs like Steel, Aluminum, Chips, etc. (more like Trump's first term and Biden) is perfectly reasonable. > Look at the SNAP and other entitlement programs that so many are screaming about as they are being scaled back to what is more reasonable. This issue is extra complicated because the Feds told states they need to do more to stop waste, fraud and abuse while at the same time cutting funds for administrative costs that help to detect those exact things. I would support reforming the program to block the purchase of soda, chips, ice cream and other empty calories or making it more like WIC supporting specific staple items like milk, eggs, butter, cheese, meat, produce, etc. only though. I also think USDA killing the Local Food for Schools program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement was terrible policy that supported US farmers and kept money and support within a local community. Bottom line, while we should do what we can to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse in SNAP, I don't think that should mean reducing benefits to people who are hungry in the US. I have similar concerns about Medicaid and Medicare cuts and their impact on the poorest people in the US. It's shameful how the US spends more per capita for healthcare than much of the western world all to end up with worse outcomes. I tend to think single payer could be a good solution, but realize it would be rife with problems. ACA's blend of medicaid and tax credits for the open market makes a lot of sense in theory but it's in need of reforms and some legal way of encouraging everyone to sign-up to spread the risk across a bigger risk pool.
I just found out yesterday that we are losing our health insurance at work because the price for our plan went up 3.5x for the employer. A lot of people who work for smaller corporations and businesses are going to be facing that reality over the coming weeks. Even though we had Blue Cross policies that we paid for those ACA subsidies were keeping our cost lower too.
Haven't done extensive research on them, but there are massive headwinds for healthcare providers over the next few years. Keep in mind, the loss of ACA subsidies are an issue for next year, but huge cuts to Medicare/Medicaid spending due to the Republican tax plan start at the end of 2026 too. https://insurancenewsnet.com/innarticle/unitedhealth-hiking-rates-plans-to-shed-1m-members-in-26-as-profits-rise >Those hard choices will continue in 2026. UHC expects to drop one million members in Medicare Advantage, Noel said, including individual and group markets. >The health insurer expects to shed two-thirds of its Affordable Care Act enrollment after raising rates more than 25% in the 30 states it offers ACA plans, Noel said. >Plus if people are forced to find new plans and / or Trump delivers on this wish to issue the money to the people to purchase their own plans, it’s a possibility they will still insure with UNH? The article I provided shows that UNH themselves expects to lose 1m customers next year (2% of their total). What do you think will happen if/when the economy worsens, job losses accelerate, AND costs go up? I think they're being overly optimistic personally, and 2027 might be even worse for enrollment. As far as Trump doing literally anything positive for healthcare, lol
But based on what I can find ACA related revenue is only like 1-3% of their total revenue, seems a bit overdone? Plus if people are forced to find new plans and / or Trump delivers on this wish to issue the money to the people to purchase their own plans, it’s a possibility they will still insure with UNH?
The shutdown standoff over the death of the ACA subsidies???
Honestly you might be holding for a while, healthcare companies are not going to fare well with the death of the ACA subsidies. Not only is that a huge amount of cash they're going to lose out on, a lot of people straight up wont be able to afford healthcare without those subsidies, which will force them to jack up rates for all their customers, which in turn will generate negative headlines and lose them more customers too
Theyd have everyone just die instead of have any sort of coverage. They have NO plan. They just are riling up their racist base against “obamacare” to repeal that, even though many of those fuckin losers are on ACA. But obamacare god forbid
You're right. We even had the ACA in the status quo. But they want to go back to a time even before that...
Made the mistake of having my eyes open when a couple ACA related truth soc screenshots hit my feed
Who is disputing that? Your work plan resets earlier. So you pay now. ACA plans reset jan 1. So ACA premiums reset jan 1st.
I’ve been in the same mindset lately. I came across an app from a friend, and it has paid off tremendously. I’m loving moonshot. I purchased ACA and I am already seeing about a 150% payout. It’s available on their “create” tab if you search for it. I’m open to answering any questions, here is my link if you want to support me as well for my advice https://moonshot.com?ref=13TuwN
Yeah but ACA is affecting EVERYONE not just people on it. EVERYONES premiums are going up dude.
No, non ACA policies are also spiking. We got word ours normal work policy is going up big time.
ACA premiums change from Jan 1. You do renew now though but till December current year coverage applies. Your work insurance plan must be expiring in November, hence immediate update. Not the case with ACA.
This is not a new plan. It has been discussed in Congress for years. It is a universal HSA plan. Under health insurances now, you can also contribute to a HSA to provide money for medical expenses that the insurance does not pay. The universal HSA would allow anyone to save money, tax free for medical expenses without having an insurance policy. The major change is that funds can be put into the HSA for people under a certain income level to be able to cover insurance premiums and medical costs. This can foster medical insurance competition in the market and bring down costs. ACA pretty much guarantees premium payments to insurance companies and has caused an increase in all insurance premiums.
I am as big a bear as there is but still want to comment Most do not have a clue with how the ending of ACA subsidies even works. Congress under Biden approved increased subsidies in 21 and reupped them and expanded them in 23. These were all set to expire end of 25. The two major changes were Increase the amount of the subsidies size. This effected everyone who gets them equally. They also temporarily ended the 4x poverty income rate cap. Conventional wisdom is the Republican house will propose keeping the increased subsidy size and put the 400% poverty cap. I think this will happen. Who is impacted the most of this happens? Not poor people. Instead it is families making between $125k and $300k per year. They are not poor and I doubt Democrats will fight that hard for them. But they are the middle class and the income range that retail investors live in. So. No doubt it will have a negative impact on the market but not as big as people think. And the total FED spending for it is only about $30B. $30B is not that much in the economic scheme of things. But there are plenty of other reasons to be bearish so you will win
I'll bring some nuance to this: Many HMOs and even PPOs are free or near free for single people at medium to large white collar companies. In my decade-long tech career I've never paid a premium (until next year likely due to the ACA subsidies sunsetting). No plan is going to have a negative premium so even if the HDHP is also free or near free, the high deductible would make it the lesser healthcare option for those who do actually want to access healthcare on a regular basis. So no, objectively a HDHP does not always make the most sense. I'd argue there is no one size fits-all between the HMO, PPO and HDHP configurations. But my beef with HDHPs is that it is most often sought after by investors interested in the HSA. I feel this encourages people to not seek medical care. That's implicitly what a lot of threads around HSA discussions imply, particularly to young people. It is my personal belief that everyone who can, should seek consistent medical care, even if just a yearly physical/visit. The chances of getting anything chronic in your 20s/30s are low but never zero. It is a form of insurance for single young people's earning potential.
Look at the companies involved in the sector. Look at their proportion of clients that are covered under Medicare advantage plans, and under Medicaid/ACA plans. 16% of the US is covered under the ACA. The ACA is very likely to experience an adverse selection death spiral. This means in the next few years, it will be much less than 16% of Americans getting healthcare from the exchange. Many people will be dropped both voluntarily and involuntarily from Medicaid plans. Then Medicare. 20% of the US is covered under Medicare plans. They are having small and regular cuts in revenue. How much is revenue cut under the new BBB you ask? Good question, I think a lot of people would like to know the answer to that question. And I think no matter how many times you google "Medicare reimbursement rate changes in 2026" you'll find a wide range of answers. I think the real question is this: will the private market be able to make up for insurance companies loss in revenue from the public market? I'm doubtful.