"Covid era subsidies" have been now renamed "Premium tax credits".

🤣🤣🤣

6 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That doesn't answer my question though. Are you saying you'd ask millions of federal employees to go without pay for an even longer extended period of time so that you can prove a political point? Not to mention all the ancillary negative impacts from the shutdown.

It's Trump that's being unreasonable. Don't throw it at the feet of the dems.

4 hours ago, Gannan said:

It's Trump that's being unreasonable. Don't throw it at the feet of the dems.

I’m not throwing it at their feet. It doesn’t matter which side is being more unreasonable, at the end of the day the result is that millions of federal employees have gone without pay for over 40 days. You are saying that the Dems that voted to pass the CR "caved and should be ashamed of themselves”. So how long are we to ask federal employees to continue to go without pay and what’s the end game?

7 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

what’s the end game?

Winning the 2026 elections.

Thinking out loud before I get royally screwed. If premium is way high, should I consider pulling from my 401K to cover the overage for the 10 months? Or risk going without?

10 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I’m not throwing it at their feet. It doesn’t matter which side is being more unreasonable, at the end of the day the result is that millions of federal employees have gone without pay for over 40 days. You are saying that the Dems that voted to pass the CR "caved and should be ashamed of themselves”. So how long are we to ask federal employees to continue to go without pay and what’s the end game?

So now they will get their pay, and millions more, including several people I know, will no longer have healthcare. You don't deal with tyrants through appeasement.

37 minutes ago, DiPros said:

Thinking out loud before I get royally screwed. If premium is way high, should I consider pulling from my 401K to cover the overage for the 10 months? Or risk going without?

Probably go without and if something catastrophic happens pull from your 401k

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Probably go without and if something catastrophic happens pull from your 401k

I have a week to decide. Over 100% increase. Just medical coverage going from $236.58 per mo. to $529.86 with an additional deductible (would now be $5K and not $3500) THEN after that a 10% co-insurance until reach max out of pocket of $9200. Good gravy. My other options are higher yet. A Gold plan would be $1155 per mo. w/no deductible need to stay in PHL vicinity.

Broker says reason were switching now, Dec1 is because it's even higher waiting til Jan 1

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

So now they will get their pay, and millions more, including several people I know, will no longer have healthcare. You don't deal with tyrants through appeasement.

So again, play this out. You're saying the Dems should have continued to vote against the CR. Ok, for how long should they have done this? How long can people go on with the government being shut down? The ACA subsidies issue can be addressed in the next election cycle. And I don't see what is "tyrannical" about the level of ACA subsidies. That was decided on through the democratic process of legislation. That's a policy issue and nothing to do with "tyranny".

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So again, play this out. You're saying the Dems should have continued to vote against the CR. Ok, for how long should they have done this? How long can people go on with the government being shut down? The ACA subsidies issue can be addressed in the next election cycle. And I don't see what is "tyrannical" about the level of ACA subsidies. That was decided on through the democratic process of legislation. That's a policy issue and nothing to do with "tyranny".

We are and have been living under tyranny. Congress is largely irrelevant. All of our laws are now done via executive order. Taxes - executive order. Immigration laws- executive order. Which government agencies receive funding and which don't - executive order. The legality of platforms like Tik Tok- executive order. I could go on. This is why 7 million people took to the streets to try to assert we shouldn't be living under a king.

Trump refused to negotiate. Dems should have refused too. The only role congress has left, and the only ability democrats have to oppose this wanna be dictator is to hold the purse strings of the federal budget. How long should it have gone? Until Trump was willing to negotiate. As long as it takes. Federal workers have huge bloated pensions they're able to draw from during the government shut down (without penalty or interest). One of my best friends is a federal employee. They'd be fine. The philosophy of "give Trump whatever he wants and maybe he will leave us alone" is not a strategy. The only way to deal with tyrants is through strength, not appeasement. Why are democrats so unpopular? Because they are feckless cowards rolling over for a 2 bit dictator.

11 minutes ago, Gannan said:

We are and have been living under tyranny. Congress is largely irrelevant. All of our laws are now done via executive order. Taxes - executive order. Immigration laws- executive order. Which government agencies receive funding and which don't - executive order. The legality of platforms like Tik Tok- executive order. I could go on. This is why 7 million people took to the streets to try to assert we shouldn't be living under a king.

Trump refused to negotiate. Dems should have refused too. The only role congress has left, and the only ability democrats have to oppose this wanna be dictator is to hold the purse strings of the federal budget. How long should it have gone? Until Trump was willing to negotiate. As long as it takes. Federal workers have huge bloated pensions they're able to draw from during the government shut down (without penalty or interest). One of my best friends is a federal employee. They'd be fine. The philosophy of "give Trump whatever he wants and maybe he will leave us alone" is not a strategy. The only way to deal with tyrants is through strength, not appeasement. Why are democrats so unpopular? Because they are feckless cowards rolling over for a 2 bit dictator.

The removal of ACA subsidies was done as part of the 2017 TCJA. That wasn't tyranny. That's the democratic process. They were reinstated in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act. They were extended to the end of 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Trump isn't "taking them away". They were set to expire, under legislation that was signed by Biden. Dems were trying to add them back in as part of this CR process. They don't have the ability to do so because they don't control the house nor the senate.

" As long as it takes. Federal workers have huge bloated pensions they're able to draw from during the government shut down (without penalty or interest)."

Not sure who told you that federal workers are allowed to draw from their pensions without penalty if they are under 59.5 years old. That's not true. They are subject to a 10% penalty for doing so. That's why Congressman Beyer introduced the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act last month, which would establish a government shutdown as a hardship that would allow for that penalty to be waived.

U.S. Representative Don Beyer

Beyer Introduces Legislation To Support Federal Workers A...

If you’re worried about whether or not federal workers get paid on time then you’re focused on the wrong issues.

33 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The removal of ACA subsidies was done as part of the 2017 TCJA. That wasn't tyranny. That's the democratic process. They were reinstated in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act. They were extended to the end of 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Trump isn't "taking them away". They were set to expire, under legislation that was signed by Biden. Dems were trying to add them back in as part of this CR process. They don't have the ability to do so because they don't control the house nor the senate.

" As long as it takes. Federal workers have huge bloated pensions they're able to draw from during the government shut down (without penalty or interest)."

Not sure who told you that federal workers are allowed to draw from their pensions without penalty if they are under 59.5 years old. That's not true. They are subject to a 10% penalty for doing so. That's why Congressman Beyer introduced the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act last month, which would establish a government shutdown as a hardship that would allow for that penalty to be waived.

U.S. Representative Don Beyer

Beyer Introduces Legislation To Support Federal Workers A...

Who cares? They’re still getting paid when the government starts back up. Talk about a non-factor

I can get a gap insurance policy in case I would get sick or injured for like $300 per month. It's another option. Anyone ever had one of these short term policies?

4 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Who cares? They’re still getting paid when the government starts back up. Talk about a non-factor

How many months can you go without collecting a paycheck?

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

How many months can you go without collecting a paycheck?

Probably six months at most

But maybe longer if I knew I was gonna get paid for the missed paychecks as federal employees are

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The removal of ACA subsidies was done as part of the 2017 TCJA. That wasn't tyranny. That's the democratic process. They were reinstated in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act. They were extended to the end of 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Trump isn't "taking them away". They were set to expire, under legislation that was signed by Biden. Dems were trying to add them back in as part of this CR process. They don't have the ability to do so because they don't control the house nor the senate.

" As long as it takes. Federal workers have huge bloated pensions they're able to draw from during the government shut down (without penalty or interest)."

Not sure who told you that federal workers are allowed to draw from their pensions without penalty if they are under 59.5 years old. That's not true. They are subject to a 10% penalty for doing so. That's why Congressman Beyer introduced the Emergency Relief for Federal Workers Act last month, which would establish a government shutdown as a hardship that would allow for that penalty to be waived.

U.S. Representative Don Beyer

Beyer Introduces Legislation To Support Federal Workers A...

It's clearly more important to you that government workers get paid, than it is for people to have health care. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

56 minutes ago, Gannan said:

It's clearly more important to you that government workers get paid, than it is for people to have health care. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise.

I never said one was more important than the other. The reality is that the legislation that Biden signed in 2022 extended the ACA subsidies to the end of 2025. Trump isn't taking them away. The GOP simply isn't extending them further. They are expiring under law that was signed by Biden in 2022. You're talking about tyranny on one hand and then on the other saying that the democrats should use the CR process to extend the ACA subsidies. Do you think there is some hypocrisy in that sentiment?

The other reality is that the GOP currently controls the house and senate. So if the Dems want to put the ACA subsidies back in, then the best route to do so is to regain legislative power in 2026 and put them back on the table. Keeping the government shut down indefinitely and trying to put them back in during the CR process isn't going to happen. They don't have the legislative advantage to do so. There's no point in keeping the government shut down indefinitely, it's just going to cause more needless negative impact at this point.

Health care once again becomes a major issue. GOP tried to prevent the ACA in the beginning. Then tried to repeal it. Keep saying they have a plan, but just a binder of nothing. Now letting the ACA supplements expire, with no answer to health care crisis.

Just jump into the volcano and surrender to your Orange God. 2026 is coming and they won’t find high enough ground from being swept by a great blue tsunami.

12 minutes ago, Talkingbirds said:

Health care once again becomes a major issue. GOP tried to prevent the ACA in the beginning. Then tried to repeal it. Keep saying they have a plan, but just a binder of nothing. Now letting the ACA supplements expire, with no answer to health care crisis.

Just jump into the volcano and surrender to your Orange God. 2026 is coming and they won’t find high enough ground from being swept by a great blue tsunami.

Excuse me, they now have a notebook full of ideas!

17 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I never said one was more important than the other. The reality is that the legislation that Biden signed in 2022 extended the ACA subsidies to the end of 2025. Trump isn't taking them away. The GOP simply isn't extending them further. They are expiring under law that was signed by Biden in 2022. You're talking about tyranny on one hand and then on the other saying that the democrats should use the CR process to extend the ACA subsidies. Do you think there is some hypocrisy in that sentiment?

The other reality is that the GOP currently controls the house and senate. So if the Dems want to put the ACA subsidies back in, then the best route to do so is to regain legislative power in 2026 and put them back on the table. Keeping the government shut down indefinitely and trying to put them back in during the CR process isn't going to happen. They don't have the legislative advantage to do so. There's no point in keeping the government shut down indefinitely, it's just going to cause more needless negative impact at this point.

Actually true. I still think Democrats should have held out another week just to make sure the point got extra drilled, but yeah the shutdown never really had a victory for ACA as a plausible end point. It was about causing enough chaos for all those non engaged voters that keep pulling the lever for Trump to be forced to pay attention and know who to blame when this health care disaster unfolds.

That said they totally chickened out and in another week might have had something to show for their efforts. Trump's filibuster threats intimidated them despite the fact they had some real leverage. That's cowardice and it better finally mean Schumer's pelt on the wall.