Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

[VA Hopeful Dr]

---

Members don't see this ad.

2-3 trillion over 10 yrs. Again I don’t like the BBB. I would’ve wanted significantly more cuts but dems wouldn’t let us

And did you know we could’ve easily provided every homeless person in America a living wage of $60k per year with the current income from taxes had we not wasted billions on fraudulent, wasteful and frankly criminal NGOs funded by the Biden admin. Remember, once Trump won the election, billions were wastefully thrown out the door. It’s very unfortunate. We could take care of everything you and I want helping the poor and needy had the swamp not been so corrupt. It truly is sad and unfortunate

Yer tax dollars at work.

“It truly feels we’re on the Titanic and we’re throwing gold bars off the edge,” the EPA employee told his date in late November last year, as dozens of billions of dollars were rushed out the door without proper due diligence in the final days of the Biden administration.

❝ In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗼𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝘀 𝗢𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲 (𝗟𝗣𝗢) 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗮𝗱𝗲.

The frenzied activity on Jan. 16 and 17, 2025, capped a spending binge that saw the LPO approve at least $93 billion in current and future disbursements after Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election in November, according to documents provided by the department to RealClearInvestigations....

The agreements were made despite a warning from the department’s inspector general, urging the loan office to suspend operations in December over concerns that post-election loans 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁.

In just a few months, 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘆, leading to fears that the Biden administration has created multiple Solyndras, the green energy company that went bankrupt after the Obama administration gave it $570 million.❞

#throwingmoneyoutthedoor
#itsyourmoney

Read the whole thing:

Shovel Ready: Despite Warnings, Biden’s Energy Department Disbursed $42 Billion in Its Final Hours

In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that exceeded the total amount its Loan Progra

preview.realclearinvestigations.com

Forgive me, how did the Democrats stop Congress from doing what the GOP wanted? The bill was passed with no Democrat support after all.

 

[clubdeac]

Forgive me, how did the Democrats stop Congress from doing what the GOP wanted? The bill was passed with no Democrat support after all.

My point is had dems had their way, there would have been absolutely no meaningful cuts to any of the entitlement programs. They were up in arms with the Medicaid work requirement which is completely reasonable. We will never fix the deficit if the American people don’t accept significant Medicare, Medicaid and social security cuts. The Dems won’t do this on principle and it appears as though the republicans won’t either due to fear. Just keep kicking the can down the road. Social security is set to run out in 10 yrs so maybe then we’ll make a change. I personally do not see much changing in the interim

 

[hyperalgesia]

Forgive me, how did the Democrats stop Congress from doing what the GOP wanted? The bill was passed with no Democrat support after all.

They stopped it by leveraging control of almost half of Congress.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

They stopped it by leveraging control of almost half of Congress.

As you only need a majority, leveraging "almost half" doesn't actually do anything.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

My point is had dems had their way, there would have been absolutely no meaningful cuts to any of the entitlement programs. They were up in arms with the Medicaid work requirement which is completely reasonable. We will never fix the deficit if the American people don’t accept significant Medicare, Medicare and social security cuts. The Dems won’t do this on principle and it appears as though the republicans won’t either due to fear. Just keep kicking the can down the road. Social security is set to run out in 10 yrs so maybe then we’ll make a change. I personally do not see much changing in the interim

That's fair, thanks for the clarification.

 

[hyperalgesia]

As you only need a majority, leveraging "almost half" doesn't actually do anything.

That's assuming every member votes in lock step unison to the party leader.

That's not how it works or how it's supposed to work.

So yeah, "almost half" actually does a lot.

Do you remember when Democrats were trying to do some wacko legislation and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin got in the way? Same thing.

 

[callmeanesthesia]

That's assuming every member votes in lock step unison to the party leader.

That's not how it works or how it's supposed to work.

So yeah, "almost half" actually does a lot.

Do you remember when Democrats were trying to do some wacko legislation and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin got in the way? Same thing.

Except the only Republicans really getting in the way of this one were the ones demanding even more cuts to safety net programs.

 

[hyperalgesia]

If the EU decided to create one giant universal healthcare system that would consolidate all member countries' systems into one, do you think it would be an improvement over what they have now?

 

[drusso]

One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Part 1 of 3) – The SALT Deduction Limit Increase

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) increases the limit to SALT deduction to $40k for the 2025 through 2029 tax years, which phases out between an adjusted gross income of $500k to $600k. For the 2025 through 2029 tax years, consider re-evaluating whether it makes more sense to take the...

docempowered.com

What Changed in 2025:​

• From 2018–2024, you could only deduct $10,000 in state and local taxes (SALT), even if you paid far more.
• Starting in 2025, OBBBA raises the deduction to $40,000 for households with an income under $500,000 (called MAGI, which is essentially your adjusted gross income).
• That limit phases out between $ 500,000 and $ 600,000. If your MAGI exceeds $ 600,000, you're back to the $ 10,000 SALT cap.

​

What This Means for You:​

• If you and your spouse pay >$10k in state and local taxes (very likely) and your MAGI is under $500k, you can deduct up to $40k, reducing your federal taxable income significantly.
• If your MAGI is between $500k–$600k, the benefit is reduced.
• If you're over $600k, the old $10k SALT cap applies again.

For an S-Corp Owner:​

• Your share of business income passes through to your personal return and contributes to MAGI.
• Planning point: Consider ways to manage MAGI under $500k, such as:
  
  • Maximizing retirement contributions (401k, cash balance plans),
  • Timing income deferral or capital purchases,
  • Using bonus depreciation strategically,
  • Leveraging spousal business income allocation if possible.

Standard Deduction vs. Itemizing:​

• The new standard deduction is ~$31,500 for joint filers in 2025.
• But if you pay $30k+ in SALT and have mortgage interest, donations, or medical expenses, itemizing will likely save you thousands in federal taxes.

Action Steps:​

1. Estimate your 2025 MAGI now.
2. Compare SALT paid to the new $40k limit.
3. Run both standard vs. itemized scenarios to see which saves more.
4. If MAGI is above $500k, talk to your CPA about strategies to optimize deductions and possibly lower income into the favorable range.
5. Revisit this analysis annually through 2029, as the limits rise slightly each year.

 

[clubdeac]

One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Part 1 of 3) – The SALT Deduction Limit Increase

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) increases the limit to SALT deduction to $40k for the 2025 through 2029 tax years, which phases out between an adjusted gross income of $500k to $600k. For the 2025 through 2029 tax years, consider re-evaluating whether it makes more sense to take the...

docempowered.com

What Changed in 2025:​

• From 2018–2024, you could only deduct $10,000 in state and local taxes (SALT), even if you paid far more.
• Starting in 2025, OBBBA raises the deduction to $40,000 for households with an income under $500,000 (called MAGI, which is essentially your adjusted gross income).
• That limit phases out between $ 500,000 and $ 600,000. If your MAGI exceeds $ 600,000, you're back to the $ 10,000 SALT cap.

​

What This Means for You:​

• If you and your spouse pay >$10k in state and local taxes (very likely) and your MAGI is under $500k, you can deduct up to $40k, reducing your federal taxable income significantly.
• If your MAGI is between $500k–$600k, the benefit is reduced.
• If you're over $600k, the old $10k SALT cap applies again.

For an S-Corp Owner:​

• Your share of business income passes through to your personal return and contributes to MAGI.
• Planning point: Consider ways to manage MAGI under $500k, such as:
  • Maximizing retirement contributions (401k, cash balance plans),
  • Timing income deferral or capital purchases,
  • Using bonus depreciation strategically,
  • Leveraging spousal business income allocation if possible.

Standard Deduction vs. Itemizing:​

• The new standard deduction is ~$31,500 for joint filers in 2025.
• But if you pay $30k+ in SALT and have mortgage interest, donations, or medical expenses, itemizing will likely save you thousands in federal taxes.

Action Steps:​

1. Estimate your 2025 MAGI now.
2. Compare SALT paid to the new $40k limit.
3. Run both standard vs. itemized scenarios to see which saves more.
4. If MAGI is above $500k, talk to your CPA about strategies to optimize deductions and possibly lower income into the favorable range.
5. Revisit this analysis annually through 2029, as the limits rise slightly each year.

I’m going to start “bunching” donations to my DAF.

 

[Ducttape]

Yes, exactly. They have huge income inequality and wealth inequality and an excellent safety net, extremely low poverty and low corruption.

Unlike the US, there aren't a lot of liberals in Singapore upset that income inequality is not fair. There are some fringe outliers like the opinion article that ducttape shared. But for the most part, Singaporeans are happy with their government and system.

Singapore flies in the face of the ridiculous liberal argument that income inequality leads to revolution and a failed state.

Once again, Singapore does NOT make any attempt to redistribute wealth. It doesn't start with the premise that "inequity" is unfair and a primary problem, in and of itself that leads to a failed state.

thats actually factually incorrect.

the government actually works to rectify income inequality.

part of the reason apparently that singaporeans are not as concerned about income inequality due to the government action.

Income Inequality in Singapore: Trends & Statistics (2025)

Looking for statistics on income (and wealth) inequality in Singapore? We've compiled some of the notable ones.

smartwealth.sg

To address the widening wage gap, Singapore utilises government transfers, which redistribute wealth towards the lower-income groups.

Examples of government transfers include CPF and MediSave top-ups, GST vouchers, and the many schemes available to provide financial aid.

These government transfers are funded by government revenue, of which the bulk comes from corporate and personal income tax and goods and services tax (GST).

A greater percentage of such taxes (including others) tends to come from richer people as they earn a higher income, own cars, have multiple properties, etc.

High levels of income inequality can create social unrest. Thus, the government has made reducing income inequality its priority.

One way to do this is to provide government transfers to redirect wealth to lower-income families.

 

[Ducttape]

That's assuming every member votes in lock step unison to the party leader.

That's not how it works or how it's supposed to work.

So yeah, "almost half" actually does a lot.

Do you remember when Democrats were trying to do some wacko legislation and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin got in the way? Same thing.

that is how it is working for the republicans, in case you havent been watching.

My point is had dems had their way, there would have been absolutely no meaningful cuts to any of the entitlement programs. They were up in arms with the Medicaid work requirement which is completely reasonable. We will never fix the deficit if the American people don’t accept significant Medicare, Medicaid and social security cuts. The Dems won’t do this on principle and it appears as though the republicans won’t either due to fear. Just keep kicking the can down the road. Social security is set to run out in 10 yrs so maybe then we’ll make a change. I personally do not see much changing in the interim

there should be no meaningful cuts to Social Security.

the american taxpayer paid in to the system and they should get the money they put in.

the problem with SS is a mulititude, including aging population living longer with smaller generations to fund.

2 proposals that routinely get shot down are to increase the age of retirement or to increase the cap. reducing the payment would be of huge detriment to those elderly who rely on social security.

increasing the cap would affect you and i but might not affect billionaires because they do not get most of their wealth through income. something like changing capital gains tax or a wealth tax might be beneficial...



the problem with medicare is the bloat that has occurred with administrative costs and with insurance.

the wrong way to correct these is to cut medicare and medicaid, which would mean that healthcare workers get paid less. insurance and admin will still get their cut because their hands are all over the money. we only get it as a paycheck at the end of the month. in no multiverse will cutting medicare mean that you and i get paid more. thats not happening.

 

[Ducttape]

You avoided this. Thoughts? Sounds horribly corrupt and wasteful by your party. Is this what you support?

Shovel Ready: Despite Warnings, Biden’s Energy Department Disbursed $42 Billion in Its Final Hours

In its last two working days, the Biden administration’s Energy Department signed off on nearly $42 billion for green energy projects – a sum that exceeded the total amount its Loan Progra

preview.realclearinvestigations.com

those were programs all funded by congress that biden was supposed to distribute during his presidency. im sure he put a rush on them knowing that trump would not implement them or would cut them.

which is what trump did.

all presidents rush in policies just before they leave. you do know

that trump signed 14 EO in Jan 2021 before he left office, right?



you made a huge stink about biden reversing trumps policies back in 2021, yet you are okay with trump reversing bidens.

Rules for thee but not for me?

 

[hyperalgesia]

thats actually factually incorrect.

the government actually works to rectify income inequality.

part of the reason apparently that singaporeans are not as concerned about income inequality due to the government action.

Income Inequality in Singapore: Trends & Statistics (2025)

Looking for statistics on income (and wealth) inequality in Singapore? We've compiled some of the notable ones.

smartwealth.sg

I would just point you to chatGPT and Google to better understand the different attitudes toward wealth/income inequality.

 

[clubdeac]

those were programs all funded by congress that biden was supposed to distribute during his presidency. im sure he put a rush on them knowing that trump would not implement them or would cut them.

which is what trump did.

all presidents rush in policies just before they leave. you do know

that trump signed 14 EO in Jan 2021 before he left office, right?



you made a huge stink about biden reversing trumps policies back in 2021, yet you are okay with trump reversing bidens.

Rules for thee but not for me?

Ah not true, not true

There was very little oversight in dissemination of these funds that ultimately went to questionable NGOs. It’s the lack of oversight, transparency and stewardship that’s the problem, bordering on criminal. This is a prime example of one reason why our debt is out of control. The government has shown us time and again that they can not and will not be good stewards of our money. Why on earth would you support giving them more money and control through higher taxes? It’s mind boggling. You’re like a victim of domestic abuse who keeps going back to his/her abuser

 

[clubdeac]

that is how it is working for the republicans, in case you havent been watching.


there should be no meaningful cuts to Social Security.

the american taxpayer paid in to the system and they should get the money they put in.

the problem with SS is a mulititude, including aging population living longer with smaller generations to fund.

2 proposals that routinely get shot down are to increase the age of retirement or to increase the cap. reducing the payment would be of huge detriment to those elderly who rely on social security.

increasing the cap would affect you and i but might not affect billionaires because they do not get most of their wealth through income. something like changing capital gains tax or a wealth tax might be beneficial...



the problem with medicare is the bloat that has occurred with administrative costs and with insurance.

the wrong way to correct these is to cut medicare and medicaid, which would mean that healthcare workers get paid less. insurance and admin will still get their cut because their hands are all over the money. we only get it as a paycheck at the end of the month. in no multiverse will cutting medicare mean that you and i get paid more. thats not happening.

Well on the current trajectory, these programs are poised to go belly up whether you like it or not so you better be ready

Surely you support means testing for social security? Why should a billionaire get social security when he’s got billions in the bank? He don’t need it

And this may sound revolutionary but I believe Congress should place the onus of universal healthcare on the insurance companies. They should be covering these individuals instead of the tax payer through ever increasing taxes. What say you

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

That's assuming every member votes in lock step unison to the party leader.

That's not how it works or how it's supposed to work.

So yeah, "almost half" actually does a lot.

Do you remember when Democrats were trying to do some wacko legislation and Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin got in the way? Same thing.

Didn't the GOP pass this without a single Democrat? They clearly had the support they needed from within their own party.

The Democrats couldn't pull that off on their own when Biden was President.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Didn't the GOP pass this without a single Democrat? They clearly had the support they needed from within their own party.

The Democrats couldn't pull that off on their own when Biden was President.

It was a decent bill that will prevent taxes from skyrocketing, among other things.

It's not gonna win Democrats the midterms I'm sorry to break it to you. And neither is Epstein.

 

[Ducttape]

Well on the current trajectory, these programs are poised to go belly up whether you like it or not so you better be ready

Surely you support means testing for social security? Why should a billionaire get social security when he’s got billions in the bank? He don’t need it

And this may sound revolutionary but I believe Congress should place the onus of universal healthcare on the insurance companies. They should be covering these individuals instead of the tax payer through ever increasing taxes. What say you

insurance companies are in it for money pure and simply. they have no interest in their clientele. and how pray tell could you get universal healthcare if insurers require payment for their potential services? if you tell an insurer to cover someone who wont pay, they will essentially pass the cost on to the taxpayers that are paying for insurance. they have to keep up the wealth for their millionaire CEOs and shareholders.

Highest paid health insurance CEOs: Six CEOs raked in a record $123 million last year. - CEOWORLD magazine

The CEOs of America’s six largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies earned nearly $123 million combined in total compensation last year — by far the most of any year in the past decade. CEOWORLD magazine Executive Council reviewed proxy filings for UnitedHealth Group...

ceoworld.biz

with regards to social security, the rich will still get their share, even if they do not need it. why? because the billionaires control the halls of congress and they will force lawmakers to declare that it is patently unfair that an elderly billionaire with a net worth of billions gets $2000 per month (even as they get 100 times that amount in interest monthly).


there have been multiple reasoned suggestions to how to improve social security. congress wont act.

it wont go bankrupt per se as younger people will keep paying in to the system, but it will not have enough funds to pay for current levels of benefits.

medicare and medicaid are different matters but suffice to say our government has always had more interest in other spending, particularly defense spending.

 

[BobBarker]

You are saying that a wealthy person should pay into social security and get nothing back?

 

[powermd]

I asked Chat GPT to epxlain how the BBB is going to affect my ACA exchange purchased health insurance:

If you're enrolled in an ACA exchange plan, here’s how Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (also called “Big Beautiful Bill”) will likely affect you:

---

📈 1. Loss of enhanced ACA subsidies​

• Starting in 2026, the enhanced cost-sharing subsidies introduced in 2021 will expire—unless Congress intervenes. Without them, ACA premiums are projected to jump around 15% on average, with some plans facing increases between 20–25% Them+15Vox+15Houston Chronicle+15.
• Rough estimates suggest about 5.1 million people could lose eligibility for subsidies altogether Wikipedia+9Vox+9Wikipedia+9.

---

🏥 2. Coverage disruption and a sicker insurance pool​

• Millions could lose coverage—up to 10–12 million nationally—primarily from Medicaid cuts, but changes in ACA enrollment rules and affordability may also impact the exchange risk pool Center for American Progress+8Houston Chronicle+8WBAL+8.
• As healthier individuals drop coverage, insurers may raise premiums further to compensate.

---

📝 3. Stricter eligibility, more red tape​

• The bill shortens ACA enrollment windows and imposes more frequent eligibility checks (e.g., income verifications), which could lead to coverage lapses and missed enrollment opportunities Houston Chronicle.
• If red tape leads to gaps, you may lose plan selection flexibility or face penalties for late enrollment.

---

💸 4. Indirect cost increases​

• Medicaid cuts and expanded work requirements could force more people into emergency care, increasing healthcare costs that ripple through the system—ultimately pushing ACA premium prices higher CBS News+15Vox+15Center for American Progress+15.

---

✅ So, what this means for you:​

Impact Area	What It Means
Premiums	Expect a 15–20% increase in 2026 without subsidy extensions
Subsidy amount	If you qualify today, your financial help may drop sharply
Enrollment	Shorter sign-up periods + more verification = higher bureaucratic burden
Coverage stability	Risk of gaps/disruptions due to stricter rules

---

🧭 What you can do now:​

1. Watch for subsidy updates in late 2025—there’s a slim chance Congress will renew funding.
2. Act early during 2026 open enrollment to avoid missing deadlines.
3. Stay alert to your income and documentation—minor changes could affect subsidy status.
4. Explore alternative options, like Healthy Maine Plans or off-exchange private coverage, if ACA becomes too costly or cumbersome.

---

Summary:​

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill significantly cuts assistance and adds complexity to ACA coverage. Premiums are projected to climb, financial help may shrink, and eligibility rules will tighten—together, these changes could make your health insurance more expensive and harder to manage.

 

[clubdeac]

You are saying that a wealthy person should pay into social security and get nothing back?

It’s something that has been going around Congress as a way to prevent social security from becoming insolvent in 10 yrs. It’s either we pay more on the front end or take less on the back end. Something will have to change though

We pay into other entitlement programs that we’ll never use. It’s not entirely different. Do I think it’s fair? No, absolutely not but then again is it fair we pay 40% in taxes? Duct may disagree

 

[SSdoc33]

It’s something that has been going around Congress as a way to prevent social security from becoming insolvent in 10 yrs. It’s either we pay more on the front end or take less on the back end. Something will have to change though

We pay into other entitlement programs that we’ll never use. It’s not entirely different. Do I think it’s fair? No, absolutely not but then again is it fair we pay 40% in taxes? Duct may disagree

i think what you are talking about is raising the FICA limit. we stop paying SS taxes at $176k right now. i dont want to see that limit raised. (again).

im not against social security per se, but there is no reason we cant raise the retirement age

 

[clubdeac]

insurance companies are in it for money pure and simply. they have no interest in their clientele. and how pray tell could you get universal healthcare if insurers require payment for their potential services? if you tell an insurer to cover someone who wont pay, they will essentially pass the cost on to the taxpayers that are paying for insurance. they have to keep up the wealth for their millionaire CEOs and shareholders.

Highest paid health insurance CEOs: Six CEOs raked in a record $123 million last year. - CEOWORLD magazine

The CEOs of America’s six largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies earned nearly $123 million combined in total compensation last year — by far the most of any year in the past decade. CEOWORLD magazine Executive Council reviewed proxy filings for UnitedHealth Group...

ceoworld.biz

with regards to social security, the rich will still get their share, even if they do not need it. why? because the billionaires control the halls of congress and they will force lawmakers to declare that it is patently unfair that an elderly billionaire with a net worth of billions gets $2000 per month (even as they get 100 times that amount in interest monthly).


there have been multiple reasoned suggestions to how to improve social security. congress wont act.

it wont go bankrupt per se as younger people will keep paying in to the system, but it will not have enough funds to pay for current levels of benefits.

medicare and medicaid are different matters but suffice to say our government has always had more interest in other spending, particularly defense spending.

So now all of a sudden you’re a nihilist with really no good ideas on how to fix the system. Ok

 

[hyperalgesia]

i think what you are talking about is raising the FICA limit. we stop paying SS taxes at $176k right now. i dont want to see that limit raised. (again).

im not against social security per se, but there is no reason we cant raise the retirement age

I haven't seen a breakdown but I'd like to see how ssdi growth contributes to it's financial stress.

As long as it's predictable and sustainable, I think some small tweaks like you said are warranted.

 

[hyperalgesia]

I asked Chat GPT to epxlain how the BBB is going to affect my ACA exchange purchased health insurance:

If you're enrolled in an ACA exchange plan, here’s how Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (also called “Big Beautiful Bill”) will likely affect you:

---

📈 1. Loss of enhanced ACA subsidies​

• Starting in 2026, the enhanced cost-sharing subsidies introduced in 2021 will expire—unless Congress intervenes. Without them, ACA premiums are projected to jump around 15% on average, with some plans facing increases between 20–25% Them+15Vox+15Houston Chronicle+15.
• Rough estimates suggest about 5.1 million people could lose eligibility for subsidies altogether Wikipedia+9Vox+9Wikipedia+9.

---

🏥 2. Coverage disruption and a sicker insurance pool​

• Millions could lose coverage—up to 10–12 million nationally—primarily from Medicaid cuts, but changes in ACA enrollment rules and affordability may also impact the exchange risk pool Center for American Progress+8Houston Chronicle+8WBAL+8.
• As healthier individuals drop coverage, insurers may raise premiums further to compensate.

---

📝 3. Stricter eligibility, more red tape​

• The bill shortens ACA enrollment windows and imposes more frequent eligibility checks (e.g., income verifications), which could lead to coverage lapses and missed enrollment opportunities Houston Chronicle.
• If red tape leads to gaps, you may lose plan selection flexibility or face penalties for late enrollment.

---

💸 4. Indirect cost increases​

• Medicaid cuts and expanded work requirements could force more people into emergency care, increasing healthcare costs that ripple through the system—ultimately pushing ACA premium prices higher CBS News+15Vox+15Center for American Progress+15.

---

✅ So, what this means for you:​

Impact Area	What It Means
Premiums	Expect a 15–20% increase in 2026 without subsidy extensions
Subsidy amount	If you qualify today, your financial help may drop sharply
Enrollment	Shorter sign-up periods + more verification = higher bureaucratic burden
Coverage stability	Risk of gaps/disruptions due to stricter rules

---

🧭 What you can do now:​

1. Watch for subsidy updates in late 2025—there’s a slim chance Congress will renew funding.
2. Act early during 2026 open enrollment to avoid missing deadlines.
3. Stay alert to your income and documentation—minor changes could affect subsidy status.
4. Explore alternative options, like Healthy Maine Plans or off-exchange private coverage, if ACA becomes too costly or cumbersome.

---

Summary:​

Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill significantly cuts assistance and adds complexity to ACA coverage. Premiums are projected to climb, financial help may shrink, and eligibility rules will tighten—together, these changes could make your health insurance more expensive and harder to manage.

You get ACA subsidies?

 

[Ducttape]

You are saying that a wealthy person should pay into social security and get nothing back?

exactly what i implied - that there are people who defend billionaires.

you are saying someone who owns billions needs $2000 per month as much as a 90-year-old who has no other income...

it is a precarious moral high horse to say that the billionaire deserves or is owed that money - he benefitted from a system that rewarded him while not helping others (that he and his fellows paid to get in place)

So now all of a sudden you’re a nihilist with really no good ideas on how to fix the system. Ok

oh i have ideas. they arent "good", because you wont like them.

to fix the system:
1. get rid of private insurance and go to single payor but never going to happen

to help the system, you need to either reduce costs or increase money:
1. get rid of pharmacy benefit manager services
2. increase the medicare tax
3. decrease physician payments
4. cap prescription med payment
5. just give up and reduce the defense budget and shift costs to Medicare/Medicaid
6. change the system (maybe making all health insurance companies non profit?)

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It was a decent bill that will prevent taxes from skyrocketing, among other things.

It's not gonna win Democrats the midterms I'm sorry to break it to you. And neither is Epstein.

That's quite the non sequitur there. I don't believe I mentioned any of that.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

exactly what i implied - that there are people who defend billionaires.

you are saying someone who owns billions needs $2000 per month as much as a 90-year-old who has no other income...

it is a precarious moral high horse to say that the billionaire deserves or is owed that money - he benefitted from a system that rewarded him while not helping others (that he and his fellows paid to get in place)


oh i have ideas. they arent "good", because you wont like them.

to fix the system:
1. get rid of private insurance and go to single payor but never going to happen

to help the system, you need to either reduce costs or increase money:
1. get rid of pharmacy benefit manager services
2. increase the medicare tax
3. decrease physician payments
4. cap prescription med payment
5. just give up and reduce the defense budget and shift costs to Medicare/Medicaid
6. change the system (maybe making all health insurance companies non profit?)

Raise the Social Security cap or phase out benefits based on income, not both since either one would likely make the program secure going forward.

 

[clubdeac]

exactly what i implied - that there are people who defend billionaires.

you are saying someone who owns billions needs $2000 per month as much as a 90-year-old who has no other income...

it is a precarious moral high horse to say that the billionaire deserves or is owed that money - he benefitted from a system that rewarded him while not helping others (that he and his fellows paid to get in place)


oh i have ideas. they arent "good", because you wont like them.

to fix the system:
1. get rid of private insurance and go to single payor but never going to happen

to help the system, you need to either reduce costs or increase money:
1. get rid of pharmacy benefit manager services
2. increase the medicare tax
3. decrease physician payments
4. cap prescription med payment
5. just give up and reduce the defense budget and shift costs to Medicare/Medicaid
6. change the system (maybe making all health insurance companies non profit?)

You’re right, those are quite extreme and scream full on socialism.

I’m not going to argue bc I know you truly believe these changes would work. However I often wonder why don’t people with these extreme views who wish to completely upend the current capitalistic American system that our country was founded on and embrace socialism, just move. Why not move to China or Russia, Venezuela? Even Canada would be closer to your ideal. You could still access SDN over there 😉

 

[hyperalgesia]

You’re right, those are quite extreme and scream full on socialism.

I’m not going to argue bc I know you truly believe these changes would work. However I often wonder why people with these extreme views who wish to completely upend the current capitalistic American system that our country was founded on and embrace socialism, just move. Why not move to China or Russia, Venezuela? Even Canada would be closer to your ideal. You could still access SDN over there 😉

To be fair, our education systems teaches people to be capitalist hating socialists. I think it's the exception, rather than the rule, to understand the beauty of free market capitalism and the true essence of our country.

 

[mdo1738]

you are saying someone who owns billions needs $2000 per month as much as a 90-year-old who has no other income...

it is a precarious moral high horse to say that the billionaire deserves or is owed that money - he benefitted from a system that rewarded him while not helping others (that he and his fellows paid to get in place)

What someone “needs” versus what is fair and just can be very different things. I don’t think any of us would argue that the billionaire “needs” that money. But it is morally reprehensible to me to say that they don’t deserve their fair share of what they paid into the system just because they were more successful than some other person.

 

[Ducttape]

Consider it this way. What they invested in the system is considerably smaller percent of their working income than someone who is middle class or lower class.

Everyone pays the same amount in to social security up until the cap. As a percent, it is 6.2% for wages up to $176k.

So is it fair that someone making up to $176k is paying 6.2% of their salary compared to someone making $800k a year is paying 1.3% of his income get the same amount?

Now I would be in favor of giving everyone $2k per month, but maybe have those making much more pay a progressive rate increase.

 

[Ducttape]

You’re right, those are quite extreme and scream full on socialism.

I’m not going to argue bc I know you truly believe these changes would work. However I often wonder why don’t people with these extreme views who wish to completely upend the current capitalistic American system that our country was founded on and embrace socialism, just move. Why not move to China or Russia, Venezuela? Even Canada would be closer to your ideal. You could still access SDN over there 😉

The argument "you can leave" is a childish reply for those who have no contribution to a discussion. It is a logical fallacy called "ergo decedo".

You surely have a better response than the ergo decedo logical fallacy. (Also called traitorous critic fallacy).

 

[mdo1738]

Consider it this way. What they invested in the system is considerably smaller percent of their working income than someone who is middle class or lower class.

Everyone pays the same amount in to social security up until the cap. As a percent, it is 6.2% for wages up to $176k.

So is it fair that someone making up to $176k is paying 6.2% of their salary compared to someone making $800k a year is paying 1.3% of his income get the same amount?

Now I would be in favor of giving everyone $2k per month, but maybe have those making much more pay a progressive rate increase.

I understand exactly how you’re considering it. My opinion is that it’s a terrible way to consider it. Progressive taxation is discriminatory and punishes the successful. Flat rate for all is the only just method.

 

[clubdeac]

The argument "you can leave" is a childish reply for those who have no contribution to a discussion. It is a logical fallacy called "ergo decedo".

You surely have a better response than the ergo decedo logical fallacy. (Also called traitorous critic fallacy).

I’m just saying the US was founded on limited government, federalism, individual rights, private property rights, capitalism, Laissez-Faire, free market economics, entrepreneurship and equality of opportunity.
If these are not consistent with your values then I think you should leave

 

[bubaghanush]

I understand exactly how you’re considering it. My opinion is that it’s a terrible way to consider it. Progressive taxation is discriminatory and punishes the successful. Flat rate for all is the only just method.

Are you talking personal income, capital gains, corporate tax, or what?

 

[mdo1738]

Are you talking personal income, capital gains, corporate tax, or what?

All of it. 10% flat rate on all taxable income (so excludes SS or disability). No sales tax or other tax on consumption. No property tax.

 

[hyperalgesia]

All of it. 10% flat rate on all taxable income (so excludes SS or disability). No sales tax or other tax on consumption. No property tax.

Agree. People need to realize that a flat tax is a progressive tax.

I don't really object to the bracket system we have except it validates the absolutely toxic ideology of "equity" that liberals are universally infected with.

 

[bubaghanush]

All of it. 10% flat rate on all taxable income (so excludes SS or disability). No sales tax or other tax on consumption. No property tax.

Agree. People need to realize that a flat tax is a progressive tax.

I don't really object to the bracket system we have except it validates the absolutely toxic ideology of "equity" that liberals are universally infected with.

I am actually not against a flat tax if it provides a reasonable safety net and can start to tackle the debt.

A back of the hand chatGPT calculation says 10% flat tax across the board would give about 2.9T in revenue. The federal budget is $6.5-7T and state and local spending is $3.7T.

So a flat tax rate of 10% covers less than 30% of current government expenditures.

Any ideas how to reconcile that?

 

[mdo1738]

Ed

I am actually not against a flat tax if it provides a reasonable safety net and can start to tackle the debt.

A back of the hand chatGPT calculation says 10% flat tax across the board would give about 2.9T in revenue. The federal budget is $6.5-7T and state and local spending is $3.7T.

So a flat tax rate of 10% covers less than 30% of current government expenditures.

Any ideas how to reconcile that?

Sounds like we need to lower government expenditures quite a bit.

 

[Ducttape]

I understand exactly how you’re considering it. My opinion is that it’s a terrible way to consider it. Progressive taxation is discriminatory and punishes the successful. Flat rate for all is the only just method.

is it?

people who make more money have had benefit from the system that allows them to get their wealth.

a "progressive" will argue that a flat rate is discriminatory, and the degree that it affects the poor is discriminatory against them

I’m just saying the US was founded on limited government, federalism, individual rights, private property rights, capitalism, Laissez-Faire, free market economics, entrepreneurship and equality of opportunity.
If these are not consistent with your values then I think you should leave

worthless argument. see above.
Traitorous critic fallacy.

it was also based on slavery and that women were not included. we fought a war about the former and had years of social unrest on the latter.

by that standard, because the Constitution was written by white men, all women and non whites including american indians should leave.

surely you have something better to contribute, no?

 

[Ducttape]

Agree. People need to realize that a flat tax is a progressive tax.

I don't really object to the bracket system we have except it validates the absolutely toxic ideology of "equity" that liberals are universally infected with.

this is an outright fallacy.

turbotax:
A progressive tax is when the tax rate you pay increases as your income rises.

investopedia:
Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher-income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers.

govfacts.org:

Progressive Taxation: The More You Earn, The More You Pay​

Regressive taxes flip the progressive model upside down. While the tax rate might look the same for everyone, lower-income people end up paying a bigger share of their income.


ask anyone other than yourself. ask chatgpt. im sure they will concur with you.

oh snap:
A flat tax is generally not considered progressive. In fact, it's usually classified as regressive because it applies the same tax rate to everyone, regardless of income level. This means that people with lower incomes end up paying a larger proportion of their income in taxes compared to people with higher incomes.
(i didnt add the bold in this last comment)

 

[mdo1738]

I’m not sure what “system” allows people to get their wealth. Work ethic and intelligence allow for that. The “system” tries to stymie that growth by siphoning off as much of that hard earned wealth to the pockets of career politicians and career welfare artists as possible.

 

[clubdeac]

is it?

people who make more money have had benefit from the system that allows them to get their wealth.

a "progressive" will argue that a flat rate is discriminatory, and the degree that it affects the poor is discriminatory against them


worthless argument. see above.
Traitorous critic fallacy.

it was also based on slavery and that women were not included. we fought a war about the former and had years of social unrest on the latter.

by that standard, because the Constitution was written by white men, all women and non whites including american indians should leave.

surely you have something better to contribute, no?

Do you really believe what you just wrote? Duct again I think this country is beyond petty identity politics and intersectionality. I was referencing our country’s ideals not the color of our founding fathers skin or their gender

I think I speak for most on this board, your views are becoming progressively more radical and untethered from reality. A safety check up might be in order. I sincerely hope you can find the help you need

 

[SSdoc33]

Taking another look at the tax bill: i dont think i really like it. it appears as though i wont benefit from the increased SALT limit. charitable deductions are essentially gone. i can no loner deduct tax preparation fees and financial planning fees, and there is this Pease limitation.

this bill really hits high income W-2 wage earners.

it keeps my tax bracket where it is, but the small portion of the tax that would have put my in a higher bracket is offset by the badness above.

not pleased. the uber rich get off scott-free. the semi-rich like us dont really get much help and in some cases may be worse off.

ducttape should be happy with it.

 

[SSdoc33]

Do you really believe what you just wrote? Duct again I think this country is beyond petty identity politics and intersectionality. I was referencing our country’s ideals not the color of our founding fathers skin or their gender

I think I speak for most on this board, your views are becoming progressively more radical and untethered from reality. A safety check up might be in order. I sincerely hope you can find the help you need

speak only for yourself

your "ideals" are not necessarily the country's "ideals"

 

[SSdoc33]

Ed


Sounds like we need to lower government expenditures quite a bit.

go on...... im listening....

this is the point where every libertarian decides to go full on anarchist.....

 

[bubaghanush]

Ed


Sounds like we need to lower government expenditures quite a bit.

DOGE was able to lower federal spending around 1%. You could cut Medicaid, Medicare, social security, and the entire military and still only be halfway there.

A 10% flat tax rate sounds great, but is also complet fantasy.

 

[Ducttape]

im not sure about your intentions. the past experience on this forum......

you comment that the constitution stands for limited government and individual rights, which is true, but it does not explicitly stand for capitalism or laissez-faire economy or free market economy. you mention equal opportunity but neglect to note that slaves were considered 3/4 of people and women were not included at all.

logical fallacies need to be called out. looks like you would rather double down on them, essentially saying that i am not american or dont have american ideals so get out.