360
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 6 points 10 hours ago

Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again. This is a lesson from the past about the sort of outcomes we have to look forward to.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Except that the Republicans in congress have refused to allocate funding for ACA subsidies, which means this WILL happen again.

If you read the article you'd know the ACA benefits point I mentioned has nothing to do with subsidies on insurance premiums. It has to do with prior to the ACA insurance companies could deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

[-] IamSparticles@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I did read the article, and that's true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended). In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn't help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can't afford to pay for it.

I'm in my early 50s. Over my life, I've been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I'm looking at the cost of health care going forward and I'm very concerned that I won't be able to afford it.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I did read the article, and that’s true, but insurance companies have been using that as an excuse to drive up premiums at record rates for years now (and making very healthy profits as a result, no pun intended).

I don't disagree that health insurance companies (and their business practices) aren't serving Americans well. However, as the article lays out the couple had the ability and will to pay for insurance premiums. The issue during the 90s was that any gap in coverage would mean health issues found during the gap wouldn't be covered even when paying new premiums. That was fixed with the ACA. I was commenting on the article and their situation.

In my state, the exchange prices went up an average of 21% this year due to the loss of ACA subsidies. It doesn’t help a lot to know that they are legally required to offer you coverage if you can’t afford to pay for it.

I’m in my early 50s. Over my life, I’ve been very diligent about saving, and I expect to have what I thought would be enough to retire in my 60s. But I’m looking at the cost of health care going forward and I’m very concerned that I won’t be able to afford it.

I agree with everything you said here. Republicans are poisoning that portion of the ACA unrelated to the article. I'm also doing the same math you are about making sure I have healthcare until Medicare kicks in. For many, health coverage will be the defining metric to when we can retire. Some of us are discussing that exact topic in a different Lemmy community.

this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
360 points (98.1% liked)

News

35915 readers
3266 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS