[AnimalMuppet]

Well, they painted the Republicans as "the people who wouldn't stop your medical insurance from becoming unaffordable". If Congress fails to extend the subsidy, that's going to be very painful for a lot of people, and politically, the blame will fall on the Republicans. That could be a major win for the Democrats when 2026 rolls around.

[nradov]

I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g...

I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it.

(Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)

[anon7000]

For reference, 400% of the poverty line is $60k for a single person, or $85k for a couple

[rufus_foreman]

For further reference, a 55 year old early retiree who wants to spend $400,000 during the year might sell $400,000 of stock with a cost basis of $200,000 and pay a little over $60k capital gains tax.

The question here is should we continue to subsidize health insurance for that person? Should taxpayers who can work and do work pay for the health insurance of wealthy people who can work and don't work?

It does not sound fair to me, even though I might benefit from it in the near future.

[mindslight]

Your example is an income of $200k, not $60k. So no, that person is not being subsidized.

But yes, our tax system is horribly biased towards those who get to manage their income level or business deductions. W-2 worker bees can't even deduct the cost of the car they need to get to work.