Foreign Policy Shifts?

[Spekkio]

How do you figure that? All health care spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA account for a little over $2 trillion of the total US budget of $7.4 trillion. How is the ACA account for over half of that via 'corporate welfare tax credits'?

Uhhh, arithmetic? Medicare spending in 2025 was $988 billion (we'll round to $1T), so the ACA is making up the rest of it.

Because the ACA obligates the federal government to pay half of corporate healthcare plan costs, which themselves are about half of the total cost of health 'insurance.' That $2,000 / mo plan for a family of 4 obligates Uncle Sam to $1,000 / mo in subsidies to the company. It's estimated that some unknown number between 20 and 50% of that (because private entities don't need to be constantly audited by federal agencies) is passed onto the consumer.

Which means for every dollar a health insurance raises premiums, companies pay $0.25.

There are 134 million full-time working Americans. Fortunately for the US government, not all of them work at large companies and not all of them insure a family of 4.

 

[Flash]

Uhhh, arithmetic? Medicare spending in 2025 was $988 billion (we'll round to $1T), so the ACA is making up the rest of it.

While eligibility for it was expanded under the ACA, Medicaid ≠ ACA and it accounted for about $625 billion from the federal last year.

 

[Spekkio]

While eligibility for it was expanded under the ACA, Medicaid ≠ ACA and it accounted for about $625 billion from the federal last year.

The medicaid expansion is part of the ACA, which sends federal dollars to each state that raised its qualification threshold to 138% Federal Poverty level. The federal government pays 90% of the difference.

41 states and DC have adopted it.

 

[Flash]

The medicaid expansion is part of the ACA, which sends federal dollars to each state that raised its qualification threshold to 138% Federal Poverty level. The federal government pays 90% of the difference.

And how much of Medicaid budget do the beneficiaries covered under the expanded criteria account for? You are arguing that it is 100%, for a program that preceded the ACA by over 40 years.

 

[taxi1]

I agree, 100%.

Maybe we could start here:

1. A public education system that actually focuses on reading, writing, and STEM subjects, not padding the retirement portfolios of people like Randy Weingarden.

2. Figuring out what cultural and educational influences created a leader like Elon Musk.

3. Term limits for all members of the House and Senate.

4. A complete and total focus on the nuclear family.

5. Reminding people, every, single, day about the horrors of communism, facism, and socialism.

6. Mandating 2 years of community service for every citizen between the ages of 18 and 25. Military, EMS, Public Health, LE, Public Education.

7. Providing special tax incentives for people that choose to follow a career in #6 above.

8. Allow people to live, tax free in their homes once their mortgage is paid off.

9. Stop borrowing against the the SS trust fund. Maybe provide an alternative to families that have the means to fund their own retirement.

10. Make the tax code clean and easy to comprehend.

Some comments/questions, having not read the rest of the thread:

4. Why the complete and total focus on the nuclear family? And what does that mean anyway? Both of my parents came from broken families, and could have used some help, and kind of got it. My dad joined the Navy for "3 squares and a rack".

5. Can we broaden the horrors to any kind of authoritarianism? Like the kind being promulgated by the current admin?

6. I'm down with that. Volunteerism in general.

8. That makes zero sense. The people in those homes use huge amounts of infrastructure and services no different than the ones paying mortgages. Roads, telecom, fire, police, satellite services, schools to raise kids so they can pay taxes and fight wars, etc. It's like water to fish, it is everywhere and goes unnoticed, you just assume it is there.

10. Amen. Put HR Block out of business.

 

[number9]

10. Amen. Put HR Block out of business.

The federal government had a great plan (really) to do this, it worked well, and then tax prep companies lobbied against it, and so Republicans killed it.

 

[Spekkio]

Some comments/questions, having not read the rest of the thread:

4. Why the complete and total focus on the nuclear family? And what does that mean anyway? Both of my parents came from broken families, and could have used some help, and kind of got it. My dad joined the Navy for "3 squares and a rack".

90% of recipients of SNAP are single mothers.

If a woman wants to have a high chance of giving herself a lifetime of poverty, have a child out of wedlock.

 

[taxi1]

90% of recipients of SNAP are single mothers.

If a woman wants to have a high chance of giving herself a lifetime of poverty, have a child out of wedlock.

Indeed, my father came from a single mother. It was a nuclear family...until his dad split town.

Same for my mother, with her dad leaving, although her mom eventually remarried into a composite family with step-dads and sisters, after a lot of ugly churn.

Neither of my grandmothers chose single parenthood.

 

[Spekkio]

Indeed, my father came from a single mother. It was a nuclear family...until his dad split town.

Same for my mother, with her dad leaving, although her mom eventually remarried into a composite family with step-dads and sisters, after a lot of ugly churn.

Neither of my grandmothers chose single parenthood.

I'm pretty sure that emphasizing nuclear family means taking steps to prevent situations like yours from happening.

 

[Spekkio]

You are arguing that it is 100%, for a program that preceded the ACA by over 40 years.

I don't think that I ever said that.

 

[Brett327]

Why the complete and total focus on the nuclear family?

I'm confused by this as well. With a small government mindset, why do we want the federal government focusing on the composition of American families? Where in the Constitution is this mentioned as a power the Federal government has over our families? I thought we wanted the government out of our business. Now you're telling us that a core government power is a complete and total focus on my personal business? This kind of political incoherence is bizarre and suggests that Rob hasn't bothered to think through any of the items on his list for ideological consistency.

 

[taxi1]

I'm pretty sure that emphasizing nuclear family means taking steps to prevent situations like yours from happening.

That's a good goal.

On my dad's side, they are from coal mining country south of Pittsburgh. Back then, you worked for the mine, shopped at the company store, lived in a company house. In poverty. Not conducive to domestic tranquility. My father lived in 6-7 different houses growing up, all within a few miles of each other, as his dad changed jobs/mines. Unions helped solve the systemic problems that led to so much dysfunction.

These were the backside of the robber barons and gilded age, where the owner lived in a sweet mansion while the workers lived in hovels. Huge income disparity. Not as huge as right now, but huge.

 

[Spekkio]

I'm confused by this as well. With a small government mindset, why do we want the federal government focusing on the composition of American families? Where in the Constitution is this mentioned as a power the Federal government has over our families? I thought we wanted the government out of our business. Now you're telling us that a core government power is a complete and total focus on my personal business? This kind of political incoherence is bizarre and suggests that Rob hasn't bothered to think through any of the items on his list for ideological consistency.

You can message the importance of family at key opportunities without spending money on federal programs.

Unfortunately we haven't had a President postured to do this in the last decade.