5 million have dropped ACA insurance after Trump and the GOP let prices skyrocket

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
Far more people than previously known have dropped Affordable Care Act health insurance for 2026, according to data released Friday.

Five million fewer people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace plans compared to the record high reached last year. More than 1 million fewer people picked a plan for 2026, and then 4 million more either disenrolled or failed to pay their premiums and therefore dropped coverage.

Prices in the market skyrocketed after President Trump and Republicans in Congress failed to extend extra financial help for enrollees last year. The Department of Health and Human Services published a report about the data on its website Friday.

"The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," explains Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA. "While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced double or even triple digit increases in their premium payments with the expiration of enhanced tax credits."

The idea that the growth in enrollment was due to massive fraud is a theory advanced by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that's influential in the Trump administration.

 
So in other words ACA was a complete and dismal failure. Which by the way never insured the 30,000,000 Americans that really needed it. Dunce,.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Far more people than previously known have dropped Affordable Care Act health insurance for 2026, according to data released Friday.

Five million fewer people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace plans compared to the record high reached last year. More than 1 million fewer people picked a plan for 2026, and then 4 million more either disenrolled or failed to pay their premiums and therefore dropped coverage.

Prices in the market skyrocketed after President Trump and Republicans in Congress failed to extend extra financial help for enrollees last year. The Department of Health and Human Services published a report about the data on its website Friday.

"The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," explains Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA. "While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced double or even triple digit increases in their premium payments with the expiration of enhanced tax credits."

The idea that the growth in enrollment was due to massive fraud is a theory advanced by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that's influential in the Trump administration.

Click to expand...
I'm guessing that also includes those who lost Medicaid coverage due to the same cuts.

We're going to see hospital EDs being used as primary care options again.
 
Althea said:
I'm guessing that also includes those who lost Medicaid coverage due to the same cuts.

We're going to see hospital EDs being used as primary care options again.
Click to expand...
Althea, hope things are well with you. When is the last time you have been in an ER? Nothing has changed, at least in Massachusetts.
 
Sailor said:
So in other words ACA was a complete and dismal failure. Which by the way never insured the 30,000,000 Americans that really needed it. Dunce,.
Click to expand...




The claim in that forum thread (sourced from an NPR article) is partially true on the numbers but misleading on causation and context.

It frames a enrollment drop as solely due to "Trump and the GOP letting prices skyrocket" by not extending enhanced subsidies.

In reality, it's a mix of policy changes (subsidy expiration + tighter eligibility checks), higher premiums for many, and removal of millions of improper/fraudulent enrollments that inflated prior peaks.

Key Enrollment Numbers​

  • 2025 peak: Record ~24.3 million plan selections; effectuated (paid/active) enrollment around 22–23 million in early data.
  • 2026: Open enrollment selections ~23.1 million (down ~1.2 million). Effectuated/paid enrollment reported at 19.2 million by February 2026 (per HHS/ASPE). This contributes to the ~5 million total drop cited when comparing peaks and accounting for non-payment/disenrollment.
The ~5 million figure combines:

  • Fewer new selections (~1+ million).
  • Higher drop-off from non-payment after premiums rose.
  • Active removal of ineligible/"phantom" enrollments.

This is the first notable decline after years of growth driven by enhanced premium tax credits (from ARPA 2021, extended by IRA through 2025). These made coverage $0 or very low-cost for many (especially 100–150% FPL), boosting enrollment but also enabling fraud via lax verification and income misreporting.

Premiums and Subsidies​

The enhanced subsidies expired after 2025 because Congress (under Republican control post-2024) did not extend them. This led to sharp premium increases for subsidized enrollees—often double or more for many, as the "cliff" returned and contribution percentages rose.

  • Many shifted to higher-deductible plans.
  • Some dropped coverage entirely (projected effects pre-expiration estimated millions losing coverage).
  • Not everyone was hit equally; higher-income subsidy recipients (up to 400%+ FPL under enhancements) saw the biggest jumps.
This matches pre-2026 analyses from KFF, CBO, and others predicting significant attrition.

Fraud and Program Integrity​

The Trump administration/HHS highlights that much of the 2021–2025 growth (~half in some estimates) was improper:

  • Peak improper/phantom/fraudulent enrollment ~5.6 million in 2025 (per their analysis using ACS data, etc.).
  • Actions removed/blocked ~2.9 million ineligible cases.
  • Remaining ~2.6 million suspected issues.
  • Current 19.2 million is still higher than pre-2024 levels (e.g., ~10–11 million around 2019–2020).
Critics (KFF's Cynthia Cox, etc.) argue the drop aligns more with premium hikes than fraud cleanup alone. Conservative groups like Paragon Health Institute pushed the fraud narrative earlier. Both factors are in play—subsidies drove genuine and improper enrollment.

Broader Context​

  • Pre-enhanced subsidies: ACA marketplaces had steady but lower enrollment; uninsured rate improvements came from Medicaid expansion too.
  • Pandemic era: Continuous coverage + enhanced subsidies + looser rules created a surge.
  • Medicaid unwinding: Separate redeterminations post-pandemic also reduced overall coverage.
  • Effectuated enrollment will fluctuate; full-year 2026 averages are still coming in.
Bottom line: Premiums did rise significantly for many due to the subsidy expiration (a deliberate policy choice not to extend temporary enhancements).

Enrollment dropped as a result, with real coverage losses.

However, the prior "record high" was artificially inflated by improper enrollments, and the current level remains elevated historically.

The thread presents one partisan angle; the data shows a correction involving affordability challenges and integrity efforts.

For personal situations, check Healthcare.gov or state exchanges—options vary by income, location, and alternatives like employer coverage or Medicaid.


grok.com

ACA Enrollment Drop: Subsidies, Fraud, and Premiums | Shared Grok Conversation

Regarding ACA coverage . . . https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/5-million-have-dropped-aca-in
grok.com grok.com
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Far more people than previously known have dropped Affordable Care Act health insurance for 2026, according to data released Friday.

Five million fewer people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace plans compared to the record high reached last year. More than 1 million fewer people picked a plan for 2026, and then 4 million more either disenrolled or failed to pay their premiums and therefore dropped coverage.

Prices in the market skyrocketed after President Trump and Republicans in Congress failed to extend extra financial help for enrollees last year. The Department of Health and Human Services published a report about the data on its website Friday.

"The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," explains Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA. "While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced double or even triple digit increases in their premium payments with the expiration of enhanced tax credits."

The idea that the growth in enrollment was due to massive fraud is a theory advanced by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that's influential in the Trump administration.

Click to expand...
The ACA destroyed the healthcare system.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Far more people than previously known have dropped Affordable Care Act health insurance for 2026, according to data released Friday.

Five million fewer people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace plans compared to the record high reached last year. More than 1 million fewer people picked a plan for 2026, and then 4 million more either disenrolled or failed to pay their premiums and therefore dropped coverage.

Prices in the market skyrocketed after President Trump and Republicans in Congress failed to extend extra financial help for enrollees last year. The Department of Health and Human Services published a report about the data on its website Friday.

"The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," explains Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA. "While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced double or even triple digit increases in their premium payments with the expiration of enhanced tax credits."

The idea that the growth in enrollment was due to massive fraud is a theory advanced by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that's influential in the Trump administration.

Click to expand...
Yep. The Trump administration took the deductibles back to the original plan levels after Biden and Democrats lowered them for Chinese Disease. Those reductions were supposed to be temporary, not permanent. Now, assholes on the Left want to make them permanent.

The best solution is to get rid of Obamacare altogether and let the 7% of Americans that buy an Obamacare plan buy their health insurance on an open and free market rather than one badly skewed by government interference.
 
"To say there are only five problems with Obama's clusterfucking of the US health system would be akin to saying there are five grains of sand on Daytona's beach. First off, when it was just kicking off, up to 9.3 million people lost their coverage during the first open enrollment period. President Obama personally apologized for Americans losing health coverage, but didn't come up with a plan to replace their lost coverage.
As many as 214,000 doctors opted out of participating in Obamacare exchange plans. Insurance premium amounts varied in increase from $2,524 annually for an individual between the ages of 31 and 40 to $12,040 for a family headed by someone over age 60. My own coverage from Blue Cross - which eventually stopped offering Obamacare coverage - for the Babs and me immediately went from $ 310.00 a month to $ 880.00 per.
Obamacare’s website revised and then dropped the section entitled “Can I keep my own doctor?” Politifact named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013.
It took his own VP - Mumblin' Joe - to knock him off the top spot on the 'Worst Presidents Ever' list, and this guy has the balls to spend nearly a billion dollars on a monument to himself."

1782734254285.png
 
Guno צְבִי said:
Far more people than previously known have dropped Affordable Care Act health insurance for 2026, according to data released Friday.

Five million fewer people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace plans compared to the record high reached last year. More than 1 million fewer people picked a plan for 2026, and then 4 million more either disenrolled or failed to pay their premiums and therefore dropped coverage.

Prices in the market skyrocketed after President Trump and Republicans in Congress failed to extend extra financial help for enrollees last year. The Department of Health and Human Services published a report about the data on its website Friday.

"The main takeaway is that enrollment is down 13% from last year," explains Cynthia Cox, director of KFF's Program on the ACA. "While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced double or even triple digit increases in their premium payments with the expiration of enhanced tax credits."

The idea that the growth in enrollment was due to massive fraud is a theory advanced by the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that's influential in the Trump administration.

Click to expand...
Money for bombs but not for Americans.
 
LurchAddams said:
Money for bombs but not for Americans.
Click to expand...


In relation to this issue, is "Money for bombs but not for Americans" a reasoned reaction?


No, "Money for bombs but not for Americans" is not a particularly reasoned reaction.

It's a rhetorical oversimplification that ignores federal budget realities, the temporary nature of the enhanced ACA subsidies, broader spending priorities, and legitimate debates over program design, fraud, and fiscal sustainability.


Federal Budget Context​


The U.S. federal budget is dominated by mandatory/entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), which makes up the majority of outlays—far exceeding defense. Defense (including "bombs," procurement, operations, etc.) is a significant but minority share:


  • Mandatory spending: ~60%+ of the budget, growing due to demographics and healthcare costs. Medicaid + ACA subsidies alone are hundreds of billions annually.
  • Defense/discretionary: Typically 12-15% of total outlays (higher as a share of discretionary spending, ~50%). Recent FY2026 figures put national defense around $1 trillion (including supplementals and mandatory defense elements), amid global threats.
  • ACA enhanced subsidies: These added substantial costs—tens of billions per year (e.g., ~$30B+ impact from extension debates). They were temporary pandemic-era measures (ARPA 2021, extended to 2025 via IRA), not baseline ACA policy. Expiration was known; extending them permanently would add hundreds of billions over a decade.

Health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc.) already dwarf defense in long-term projections and have driven much of the spending growth. The enhanced ACA credits boosted enrollment but at a high fiscal cost, with documented improper enrollment issues.


Why the Slogan Falls Short​


  • False dichotomy: It's not "bombs or ACA." Congress debates trade-offs across the entire budget (entitlements, interest on debt, non-defense discretionary, etc.). Defense funding supports deterrence, alliances, and readiness—priorities with bipartisan support historically, especially post-2022 with Ukraine, China tensions, etc. Cutting it doesn't automatically fund ACA extensions; baseline ACA exists without the temporary enhancements.
  • ACA specifics: The drop reflects subsidy cliffs returning to pre-2021 law, higher premiums for many (especially middle-income), and cleanup of fraud/phantom enrollments. Pre-enhancement, marketplaces functioned at lower enrollment/cost. Critics of extension argue it distorts markets, encourages dependency, or crowds out private coverage; supporters emphasize coverage gains and affordability. Both sides have data points.
  • "Not for Americans": This ignores that defense spending employs Americans, funds R&D with civilian spillovers, and provides national security (a core federal role under the Constitution). Domestic programs have their own inefficiencies (e.g., ACA fraud estimates in the millions of enrollees, Medicaid improper payments). Total federal health spending is massive and projected to grow faster than defense.
  • Opportunity costs exist everywhere: Prioritizing one area (e.g., permanent enhanced subsidies) means less for debt reduction, tax relief, infrastructure, or other domestic needs. The U.S. runs large deficits; sustainability matters.

Reasoned Perspectives​


A more grounded reaction would weigh:


  • Effectiveness: Did enhanced subsidies deliver net value vs. cost? They reduced uninsured rates and helped during COVID but created cliffs and integrity problems.
  • Alternatives: Targeted aid for low-income, market reforms, or state flexibility vs. broad expensive subsidies.
  • Overall priorities: Defense (~3% GDP historically low in peacetime) vs. entitlements (crowding out future flexibility). Both can be critiqued for waste.
  • Politics: Decisions on subsidies involved both parties over time; expiration followed divided government and fiscal debates.

Slogans like this polarize without engaging trade-offs, evidence on fraud vs. genuine need, or long-term fiscal math (CBO baselines show health/entitlements driving debt).

Reasonable disagreement on ACA policy or defense levels exists, but framing it as zero-sum neglect of Americans distorts the picture. Actual policy analysis requires looking at totals, outcomes, and incentives—not selective emotional appeals.
 
Diogenes said:
In relation to this issue, is "Money for bombs but not for Americans" a reasoned reaction?


No, "Money for bombs but not for Americans" is not a particularly reasoned reaction.

It's a rhetorical oversimplification that ignores federal budget realities, the temporary nature of the enhanced ACA subsidies, broader spending priorities, and legitimate debates over program design, fraud, and fiscal sustainability.


Federal Budget Context​


The U.S. federal budget is dominated by mandatory/entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), which makes up the majority of outlays—far exceeding defense. Defense (including "bombs," procurement, operations, etc.) is a significant but minority share:


  • Mandatory spending: ~60%+ of the budget, growing due to demographics and healthcare costs. Medicaid + ACA subsidies alone are hundreds of billions annually.
  • Defense/discretionary: Typically 12-15% of total outlays (higher as a share of discretionary spending, ~50%). Recent FY2026 figures put national defense around $1 trillion (including supplementals and mandatory defense elements), amid global threats.
  • ACA enhanced subsidies: These added substantial costs—tens of billions per year (e.g., ~$30B+ impact from extension debates). They were temporary pandemic-era measures (ARPA 2021, extended to 2025 via IRA), not baseline ACA policy. Expiration was known; extending them permanently would add hundreds of billions over a decade.

Health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, ACA, etc.) already dwarf defense in long-term projections and have driven much of the spending growth. The enhanced ACA credits boosted enrollment but at a high fiscal cost, with documented improper enrollment issues.


Why the Slogan Falls Short​


  • False dichotomy: It's not "bombs or ACA." Congress debates trade-offs across the entire budget (entitlements, interest on debt, non-defense discretionary, etc.). Defense funding supports deterrence, alliances, and readiness—priorities with bipartisan support historically, especially post-2022 with Ukraine, China tensions, etc. Cutting it doesn't automatically fund ACA extensions; baseline ACA exists without the temporary enhancements.
  • ACA specifics: The drop reflects subsidy cliffs returning to pre-2021 law, higher premiums for many (especially middle-income), and cleanup of fraud/phantom enrollments. Pre-enhancement, marketplaces functioned at lower enrollment/cost. Critics of extension argue it distorts markets, encourages dependency, or crowds out private coverage; supporters emphasize coverage gains and affordability. Both sides have data points.
  • "Not for Americans": This ignores that defense spending employs Americans, funds R&D with civilian spillovers, and provides national security (a core federal role under the Constitution). Domestic programs have their own inefficiencies (e.g., ACA fraud estimates in the millions of enrollees, Medicaid improper payments). Total federal health spending is massive and projected to grow faster than defense.
  • Opportunity costs exist everywhere: Prioritizing one area (e.g., permanent enhanced subsidies) means less for debt reduction, tax relief, infrastructure, or other domestic needs. The U.S. runs large deficits; sustainability matters.

Reasoned Perspectives​


A more grounded reaction would weigh:


  • Effectiveness: Did enhanced subsidies deliver net value vs. cost? They reduced uninsured rates and helped during COVID but created cliffs and integrity problems.
  • Alternatives: Targeted aid for low-income, market reforms, or state flexibility vs. broad expensive subsidies.
  • Overall priorities: Defense (~3% GDP historically low in peacetime) vs. entitlements (crowding out future flexibility). Both can be critiqued for waste.
  • Politics: Decisions on subsidies involved both parties over time; expiration followed divided government and fiscal debates.

Slogans like this polarize without engaging trade-offs, evidence on fraud vs. genuine need, or long-term fiscal math (CBO baselines show health/entitlements driving debt).

Reasonable disagreement on ACA policy or defense levels exists, but framing it as zero-sum neglect of Americans distorts the picture. Actual policy analysis requires looking at totals, outcomes, and incentives—not selective emotional appeals.
Click to expand...
Musk again, got any thoughts of your own, something you can’t copy and paste
 
FastLane said:
But but but.....Obama told us the ACA would lower premiums. :idonteven:
Click to expand...
It would have - had the Republicans agreed to extend the subsidies. You only have your own party to blame shit-stain.

You prove how much of an idiot and scumbag you are every day. Thousands of Americans are losing their healthcare you and you celebrate it.

You suck.
 
LurchAddams said:
It would have - had the Republicans agreed to extend the subsidies. You only have your own party to blame shit-stain.

You prove how much of an idiot and scumbag you are every day. Thousands of Americans are losing their healthcare you and you celebrate it.

You suck.
Click to expand...
If the tax payer has to subsidies the plan it is NOT saving money. You are a complete moron.
 
FastLane said:
If the tax payer has to subsidies the plan it is NOT saving money. You are a complete moron.
Click to expand...
And yet we have 30 billion to bomb Iran and lose our asses in the process. Not only do you prove to be a total fool every fucking day, you also prove you don't give a shit about your own neighbors.

You just love watching suffering and cruelty.

You suck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top