Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Zachary W. Schulz's avatar

This is an incredibly helpful breakdown—clear, specific, and grounded in the real-world stakes that often get lost in abstract policy debates. The pushback in the comments about "appropriations vs. legislation" misses the forest for the trees. Whether these changes arrive via direct statutory language or through follow-up funding mechanisms, the direction of policy is unmistakable—and its consequences are already unfolding.

Dismissing a 75% average increase in out-of-pocket premiums as “just” the expiration of subsidies doesn’t make the impact less real for families suddenly priced out of care. And yes, some families might cut other expenses to keep insurance—but many can’t. That’s the point. We already know from prior state-level experiments that increased administrative burdens and work requirements lead to large-scale disenrollment, not healthier or more stable populations.

What this piece does well is make the stakes legible. You don’t need to agree with every projection to recognize that the system is being hollowed out—and that the burden is going to fall on low-income patients, rural communities, overworked providers, and eventually everyone else as the strain ripples outward.

Keep doing this kind of reporting. It matters.

Susananda's avatar

This confusion is by design of lobbyists of for-profit private health insurance corporations.

At the same time of this big bad bill, private for-profit insurance corporations involved in peddling part c plans will be given with taxpayer dollars an increase of 5.06% in 2026.

6 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?