When lefties tell you that healthcare should be free, show them this
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Realize that we're at that point.
Nobody said that? You rightys and your superlatives. I see why you are a Trumpy. Damn, are you a sucker.
That's right, Nerdsperg.
And what happens here in January? Yep, the wealthy are slashing health care for the people.Lefties hardest hit.
Are you losing your free meds, Nerdsperg?
What free meds? You go off the reservation again, https://www.facebook.com/reel/1552262616547904
You tell me. How should I know what meds you take, or what they cost?
Are the "wealthy slashing health care for the people in January"?
No.
The phrase is partisan rhetoric describing real 2025–2026 policy changes under the Trump administration and Republican Congress, not a literal action by “the wealthy.”
In 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed major reconciliation legislation (commonly called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act / H.R. 1). It extended and expanded tax cuts (disproportionately benefiting higher-income households and corporations) while making substantial changes to federal health spending:
These changes produced measurable coverage losses and cost increases starting in early 2026 (especially from the subsidy cliff) and are expected to produce larger effects once the main Medicaid work-requirement and financing rules fully apply in 2027. Hospitals, clinics, and states have reported budget pressure, service reductions, and closures in some areas.
Critics (Democrats, progressive advocacy groups, and much of the progressive media) claimed the scale of the federal spending reductions and the concurrent tax benefits tilted toward higher earners, and they describe the package as prioritizing "tax cuts for the wealthy over coverage for lower- and middle-income people".
Supporters frame the same provisions as reforms that reduce waste, fraud, and abuse; remove people they view as ineligible (able-bodied adults not meeting work rules, certain non-citizens); slow unsustainable growth; and protect the traditional Medicaid population (pregnant women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities).
They note that absolute Medicaid spending is still projected to rise over time, just from a lower path than the prior baseline, and that the enhanced subsidies were temporary COVID-era expansions that were always scheduled to end.
CBO’s independent estimates show clear reductions relative to prior law and corresponding increases in the uninsured population. Absolute dollar “cuts” vs. slower growth is a classic Washington framing dispute.
There were significant federal policy changes that raised costs and reduced coverage for millions of people buying insurance on the ACA marketplaces beginning in January 2026, with larger Medicaid effects scheduled for 2027.
These occurred in the same legislation that delivered large tax benefits. Calling it “the wealthy slashing health care for the people in January” is sloganizing, not a precise description of who voted, what the mechanisms were, or the full set of arguments. The underlying trade-offs (tax policy vs. entitlement/spending levels) are real and politically contested.
No.
The phrase is partisan rhetoric describing real 2025–2026 policy changes under the Trump administration and Republican Congress, not a literal action by “the wealthy.”
What actually happened
In 2025, Congress passed and President Trump signed major reconciliation legislation (commonly called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act / H.R. 1). It extended and expanded tax cuts (disproportionately benefiting higher-income households and corporations) while making substantial changes to federal health spending:
- ACA enhanced premium tax credits (originally from the American Rescue Plan and extended by the Inflation Reduction Act) were not renewed. They expired at the end of 2025, so 2026 plans faced much higher net premiums for many enrollees. Average out-of-pocket premiums for subsidized marketplace enrollees rose sharply (KFF and others estimated roughly a doubling in many scenarios; actual observed average payments rose ~58% as some people switched to cheaper plans or dropped coverage). Marketplace enrollment fell by millions in 2026 (from a 2025 peak near 22–24 million toward estimates in the 16.5–17.5 million range).
- Medicaid saw the largest package of federal spending reductions in the program’s history—roughly $900 billion to $1+ trillion over 10 years per CBO estimates (exact figures vary with interactions).
- Key provisions include work/reporting requirements for most ACA expansion adults (generally effective January 1, 2027, with some states implementing earlier), more frequent eligibility redeterminations, restrictions on how states finance their share (provider taxes and related tools), and eligibility limits affecting certain lawfully present immigrants. CBO projected several million additional uninsured by the early 2030s from the Medicaid changes alone (higher when combined with the subsidy expiration and other rules).
These changes produced measurable coverage losses and cost increases starting in early 2026 (especially from the subsidy cliff) and are expected to produce larger effects once the main Medicaid work-requirement and financing rules fully apply in 2027. Hospitals, clinics, and states have reported budget pressure, service reductions, and closures in some areas.
Framing vs. substance
Critics (Democrats, progressive advocacy groups, and much of the progressive media) claimed the scale of the federal spending reductions and the concurrent tax benefits tilted toward higher earners, and they describe the package as prioritizing "tax cuts for the wealthy over coverage for lower- and middle-income people".
Supporters frame the same provisions as reforms that reduce waste, fraud, and abuse; remove people they view as ineligible (able-bodied adults not meeting work rules, certain non-citizens); slow unsustainable growth; and protect the traditional Medicaid population (pregnant women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities).
They note that absolute Medicaid spending is still projected to rise over time, just from a lower path than the prior baseline, and that the enhanced subsidies were temporary COVID-era expansions that were always scheduled to end.
CBO’s independent estimates show clear reductions relative to prior law and corresponding increases in the uninsured population. Absolute dollar “cuts” vs. slower growth is a classic Washington framing dispute.
Bottom line
There were significant federal policy changes that raised costs and reduced coverage for millions of people buying insurance on the ACA marketplaces beginning in January 2026, with larger Medicaid effects scheduled for 2027.
These occurred in the same legislation that delivered large tax benefits. Calling it “the wealthy slashing health care for the people in January” is sloganizing, not a precise description of who voted, what the mechanisms were, or the full set of arguments. The underlying trade-offs (tax policy vs. entitlement/spending levels) are real and politically contested.
Why do you type dumb shit like that? Are you OK?
You didn't answer the question, Nerdsperg.
But there is care (including medication) provided to non-taxpayers at no cost to the patient, Nerdsperg.
Is medical care (including medication) provided to non-taxpayers at no cost to the patient anywhere?
Yes. Several countries provide medical care (including medications in many cases) at no direct cost to the patient for people who are not taxpayers or formal contributors—such as undocumented immigrants, tourists, low-income non-workers, or non-residents—through tax-funded universal or public systems. “No cost to the patient” means free (or nearly free) at the point of service; the care is still paid for by taxpayers or government revenue. Quality, wait times, and availability of specific drugs vary widely and are often constrained by underfunding.
Clear examples
- Brazil (SUS – Sistema Único de Saúde): Constitutionally universal and free at the point of use for anyone on Brazilian territory. This explicitly includes citizens, legal residents, undocumented migrants, refugees, and tourists/visitors. Coverage includes primary care, emergencies, hospitalization, surgery, specialist care, and prescription medications from the essential list (dispensed free via public pharmacies or programs like Farmácia Popular for many common conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and asthma). No insurance, prior enrollment, or contribution is required for emergency or basic access; documentation barriers are not supposed to block care. Resident foreigners can more easily access ongoing services with a CPF (tax ID).
- Spain: Public healthcare (SNS) access has been restored/expanded for people in irregular (undocumented) status. A 2026 royal decree simplified requirements so that irregular residents can obtain free public care (on the same terms as Spaniards in principle) via a simple declaration of responsibility stating they lack other coverage. Vulnerable groups (minors, pregnant women, etc.) get immediate access. Some copayments can apply for medications (the same “ticket moderador” paid by residents), but core care is free at point of service and publicly funded.
- Other European cases: Multiple countries offer free or heavily subsidized urgent/essential care, infectious-disease treatment, maternity care, and sometimes broader services to irregular migrants. Examples include aspects of systems in Belgium, Italy, and (with limitations) others; France has long had targeted aid (AME) for irregular residents covering care and medications under defined rules. Spain and Belgium are frequently cited alongside France for relatively broad free access including medications in comparable conditions.
- Guatemala: Public Ministry of Health (MSPAS) facilities provide medical services at no charge to any patient regardless of citizenship or insurance status (constitutionally framed as a right without discrimination). Emergency and basic public care is available; the separate social-security system (IGSS) is contribution-based and mainly for formal workers. Resource shortages mean patients sometimes face practical costs or limited availability.
Broader context
Many universal or near-universal systems (e.g., UK NHS for ordinarily resident people, various Nordic or Southern European models) cover legal residents and certain categories of non-contributors (children, unemployed, low-income) free or low-cost at point of service, funded by general taxation rather than individual contributions. Undocumented people usually receive at least emergency/urgent care free of charge in numerous countries for public-health and humanitarian reasons. Some systems explicitly extend further.
In the United States, federal programs generally exclude undocumented immigrants from full Medicaid/Medicare/ACA subsidies, though emergency care is required under EMTALA (hospitals must stabilize emergencies regardless of status or ability to pay), Emergency Medicaid can reimburse certain cases, and some states fund coverage for children or limited adult groups with state money. Community health centers and charity care also serve people regardless of status or payment.
Grok
Grok is an AI assistant built by SpaceXAI. Chat, create images, write code, and get real-time answers from the web and X.
grok.com
That's right, Nerdsperg.
Is that so?
Are they? Says who?
Coward.
Anecdotes are what you base your vapid posts on. You are wrong to attack mine.