On Wednesday, Idaho became the first state to let you open enroll for 2026. Without the subsidies, the cost are far more expensive than I thought they would be. I understand that this could belong in the shutdown thread-but I think this deserves its own thread. For many people on a tight budget, this is going to lead to families dropping health care.
Idaho kicks off Affordable Care Act open enrollment as premiums are set to rise nationwide About 25,000 Idahoans are likely to drop their coverage for next year when enhanced subsidies expire. Pages from the U.S. Affordable Care Act health insurance website healthcare.gov are seen on a computer screen More than 100,000 people in Idaho got enhanced subsidies this year — about 87% of all state ACA enrollees.Patrick Sison / AP file
Savewith a NBCUniversal Profile Create your free profile or log in to save this article Oct. 15, 2025, 5:00 AM EDT By Berkeley Lovelace Jr. On Wednesday, open enrollment for Affordable Care Act plans began in Idaho, offering a preview to the rest of the country of how much monthly premiums are set to increase in 2026.
Many Idahoans will have to decide whether they’ll be able to afford coverage once the enhanced subsidies that kept premiums lower for many middle-class families expire at the end of the year.
Bob McMichael, 63, and his wife, Leslie, 62, already know they won’t.
Both are retired and make about $42,000 a year. They currently pay $51 a month for their ACA plan. Late last month, they got a notice that their monthly premium would increase to $2,232 next year without the subsidies.
“We’re facing a stratospheric increase in health care and probably don’t have any option to stay on health care as of January 2026,” McMichael said.
After getting the notice, the McMichaels wrote to Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, urging him to support extending the subsidies.
That decision is at the heart of the government shutdown fight on Capitol Hill, with Democrats saying Republicans must agree to keep in place the enhanced subsidies, first introduced in 2021, before they’ll vote to reopen the government. Without the tax credits, average out-of-pocket premiums are expected to rise by $1,200 a year in Idaho, a 75% increase, according to state health officials.
ACA subsidies set to expire, fueling government shutdown 01:48 “A pretty big number of people are going to see their premiums double, if not more,” said Hillarie Matlock, policy director of Idaho Voices for Children, a nonprofit group that advocates for health insurance access.
More than 100,000 people in Idaho got enhanced subsidies this year — about 87% of all state ACA enrollees, according to data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
About 25,000 Idahoans are likely to drop their coverage for next year if the subsidies expire on Dec. 31, said Pat Kelly, executive director of Your Health Idaho, the state’s ACA marketplace.
The state has spent the last year preparing for the loss of subsidies and expected premium hike, Kelly said.
“We’ve spent a lot of this year training agents on what the changes will be and how we will communicate those changes to their consumers,” he said.
Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and director of research and data analysis on the health policy team at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research group, said that a 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 a year in Idaho could see about a $1,500 increase in their monthly out-of-pocket premiums.
A family of four earning $130,000 a year could see about a $650 increase in their monthly premiums. “And that’s not an outlier,” he said. “For some people, it’s going to be a lot worse.”
“We’ve heard from a couple of folks that they’re trying to get as much taken care of before the end of the calendar year just because they’re concerned about the inability to address things in a preventative way or even do their appointments next year because of the cost,” Matlock, of Idaho Voices for Children, said.
People on ACA plans who don’t qualify for tax credits won’t be spared either, Lukens said: Premiums are expected to rise about 18% on average for them as insurers raise rates for next year.
“Virtually all marketplace enrollees in Idaho are going to see their premiums increase,” he said.
Mark and Sarah Lathrop, of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, don’t qualify for enhanced subsidies. The couple, who own Liberty Lake Wine Cellars just across the border in Washington, currently pay $1,116 a month for their ACA plan.
Their 2026 renewal notice shows that premium climbing to $1,351 a month, a 21% increase, while their plan out-of-pocket maximum will jump from $12,000 to $18,400.
Mark Lathrop said they have already cut back on travel, dining out and other expenses as sales have flattened in their wine business and costs have risen, mainly due to tariffs.
Despite the higher premiums, the couple plan to keep their coverage due to a medical condition that requires annual monitoring.
“I don’t think my situation is as bad as some others that are losing tax credits though, but it will be common among small-business owners,” Mark Lathrop said.
I do like last week a couple repubs including the speaker said that nobody has to worry-subsidies don't run out until the end of the year-that's like an eternity
Everyone who has been paying attention can see they weren't willing to do anything. The only chance the democrats had was to put their backs up against the wall. Even now trump is doing things no other president has ever done during a shutdown and blaming everything "he is choosing to do" on the democrats. Targeting programs every normal human being cares about because he isn't smart enough to know that not every Republican is a heartless SOB like him and his appointed cronies are.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Health insurance sticker shock begins as shutdown battle over subsidies rages
Millions of Americans are already seeing their health insurance costs soar for 2026 as Congress remains deadlocked over extending covid-era subsidies for premiums.
The bitter fight sparked a government shutdown at the start of October. Democrats refuse to vote on government-funding legislation unless it extends the subsidies, while Republicans insist on separate negotiations after reopening the government. Now lawmakers face greater pressure to act as Americans who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act are seeing, or about to see, the consequences of enhanced subsidies expiring at the end of the year.
Healthcare.gov — the federal website used by 28 states — is expected to post plan offerings early next week ahead of the start of open enrollment in November. But window shopping has already begun in most of the 22 states that run their own marketplaces, offering a preview of the sticker shock to come.
Premiums nationwide are set to rise by 18 percent on average, according to an analysis of preliminary rate filings by the nonpartisan health policy group KFF. That, combined with the loss of extra subsidies, have left Americans with the worst year-over-year price hikes in the 12 years since the marketplaces launched.
Nationally, the average marketplace consumer will pay $1,904 in annual premiums next year, up from $888 in 2025, according to KFF.
The situation is particularly acute in Georgia, which recorded the second-highest enrollment of any state-run marketplace this year and posted prices for 2026 earlier in October. About 96 percent of marketplace enrollees in Georgia received subsidies this year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank that supports extending the subsidies.
Now Georgians browsing the state website are seeing estimated monthly costs double or even triple, depending on their incomes, as lower subsidy thresholds resume.
“We have people saying they will have to choose between their monthly premiums and mortgage,” said Natasha Taylor, deputy director of Georgia Watch, a consumer advocacy group.
apply toward their health insurance premium when they go to The Washington Post The health care fight at the heart of the shutdown For example, a family of four earning $82,000 a year in Georgia could see their annual premium double to around $7,000 for a plan with midrange coverage, according to a CBPP analysis. If that family earned at least $130,000, they would have to pay the full cost of the annual premium, about $24,000 instead of $11,000.
It’s a similar story in other states, where people in higher income tiers will see especially big premium increases as they become ineligible for subsidies. A 60-year-old couple earning $85,000 may have to pay $31,000 for a plan in Kentucky, $28,000 for a plan in Oregon and $44,000 for a plan in Vermont, according to CBPP.
If Congress doesn’t extend the extra subsidies, Georgia could lose around 340,000 people from its 1.5 million-person marketplace, according to an estimate by nonpartisan advocacy group Georgians for a Healthy Future.
The enhanced subsidies had fully covered monthly premiums for millions of lower-income people in the marketplaces. Many of them will have to start kicking in some of their own money starting Jan. 1, while people with higher incomes will see their monthly subsidies shrink. People earning more than 400 percent of the federal poverty line will no longer be eligible for subsidies at all.
The political fallout in Georgia has already begun to reverberate. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) broke with her party to demand an extension of subsidies, noting her adult children’s premiums are set to double. Greene’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Jon Ossoff, considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in next year’s midterms, has seized on the issue of rising premiums. An Ossoff spokesman said the senator wants the subsidies extended, pointing to polling showing a majority of Georgians feel the same.
Republican Gov. Brian Kemp, who championed the state’s marketplace, didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Atlanta resident Jody Fieulleteau, 31, said she has been paying $160 a month for a subsidized plan on Georgia’s marketplace. She makes about $40,000 a year styling hair and providing behavioral therapy. She has yet to complete an application to see quotes for plans next year, but her monthly premium is likely to nearly double based on her age, income and Zip code.
Fieulleteau said she rushed to schedule a surgery next week for a problem related to menstruation because she’s concerned about having insurance.
“I’m feeling like I need to get everything done this year because I don’t know what next year is going to look like,” she said in a phone interview.
Taylor, of Georgia Watch, said she finds that consumers often don’t understand that their plans are subsidized, which makes it difficult to explain that the pricey plans they see now could become cheaper if Congress votes to extend the subsidies.
“For your average consumer, they look at the bottom line. What’s my out-of-pocket max,” Taylor said. “I don’t think they’re looking at the minutiae of why their premium is what it is.”
The rising insurance costs highlight the political difficulties faced by Washington lawmakers.
The Congressional Budget Office, the legislature’s nonpartisan bookkeeper, has estimated nearly 4 million fewer people will have marketplace plans a decade from now if the extra subsidies expire.
Republicans say the premium assistance — intended to help people be insured during the coronavirus pandemic — are just a Band-Aid for a failure of the Affordable Care Act to rein in the costs of plans. They also say the subsidies were so generous they incentivized fraud, pointing to a CBO estimate that 2.3 million enrollees improperly claimed a subsidy this year.
But 13 House Republicans who face competitive reelection campaigns next year wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) on Tuesday asking him to consider extending premium assistance.
“Millions of Americans are facing drastic premium increases due to shortsighted Democratic policymaking,” they wrote. “While we did not create this crisis, we now have both the responsibility and the opportunity to address it.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) said in a news conference that she heard from families whose premiums are doubling as window shopping started in her state Tuesday. She said she heard similar stories from Idaho and Montana, noting most people who rely on premium assistance live in red states.
“Families are logging on, looking for health coverage for next year, and coming face to face with massive price hikes because Republicans downright refuse to work with us to do something about it,” Murray said.
Insurers have partially blamed the premium hikes on the expiration of the subsidies, saying they’ll cause healthy people to drop coverage, leaving a sicker, more expensive pool of customers behind. Insurers have also cited higher drug and hospital prices, expensive weight-loss drugs and medical inflation as reasons for raising premiums.
But if Congress acts to extend the subsidies, even after open enrollment begins Nov. 1, some plans may be willing to lower premiums, said David Merritt, senior vice president of external affairs at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose member plans are sold in all marketplaces. Adjusting rates lower would get more complicated after Dec. 31, he said.
Even if Congress does extend the subsidies, consumer advocates say damage has already been done.
Many people will visit the insurance marketplaces and decide to forgo coverage after seeing pricey 2026 plans, they said, and not revisit their decision even if subsidies are restored.
Obamacare ( Affordable Health Care) is the democrats fault. gopers go…..Kill it at all costs!
It is the Democrats fault. Those that work pay for their insurance. Do you see the clue there? Those that work!!! Why should those that work pay for ours and other people's healthcare that choose to not work?
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
Why should those that work pay for ours and other people's healthcare that choose to not work?
I mean most industrialized nations on the planet have universal or government 'free' healthcare which those working pay for with taxes. There's dozens of reasons why as a Nation people choose to look after those less fortunate than themselves. I know you claim to be a christian (although to read some of your 'thoughts' on these boards one would be surprised/shocked if that is true).
But assuming virtually every other 1st world country might have it wrong - I went to the internet and asked the question and got a viable answer.
This is a deeply felt and important question that gets to the heart of different philosophies about the role of government and society. The sentiment that it's unfair for workers to subsidize non-workers is understandable. Here’s a breakdown of the reasoning, both pragmatic and philosophical, used to justify this system in most first-world countries.
1. The Pragmatic Argument: It's Cheaper and More Efficient for Everyone
This is the most compelling argument from a cold, practical standpoint. A universal healthcare system, funded by taxes, often ends up being less expensive and more efficient for society as a whole, including the people who pay into it.
* **Preventive Care is Cheaper Than Emergency Care:** A person without health insurance who chooses not to work will still get sick or have accidents. If they can't afford a doctor, they will eventually go to the emergency room. By law (in the U.S., for example, EMTALA), emergency rooms cannot turn away patients in critical condition. This is the most expensive form of healthcare possible. The cost of that uncompensated emergency care is then passed on to everyone else in the form of higher hospital bills and insurance premiums. It's far cheaper for the system to pay for a $150 doctor's visit and antibiotics than a $50,000 ICU stay for a preventable condition. * **Herd Immunity and Public Health:** Diseases don't check tax returns. If a segment of the population is unvaccinated and lacks access to basic care, it becomes a breeding ground for infectious diseases (like tuberculosis, measles, or flu strains). This puts everyone at risk, including the working population and their children. A healthy population, overall, is a safer and more productive one. * **Reduces "Job Lock":** Universal healthcare decouples health insurance from employment. This allows people to: * Start their own small business without fearing the loss of health coverage for their family. * Leave a job they hate to find a better one, increasing labor market efficiency. * Take time to retrain or get an education for a more productive career. All of these activities benefit the economy, which in turn benefits the taxpayer.
2. The Ethical and Social Contract Argument
This argument moves beyond pure economics to the kind of society people want to live in.
* **Compassion and Basic Human Dignity:** Most first-world societies have made a collective ethical decision that access to healthcare is a fundamental right, not a privilege tied to employment or wealth. Allowing a fellow citizen to suffer or die from a treatable illness because they are down on their luck is seen by many as a moral failure. * **The "There But For Fortune Go I" Principle:** Life is unpredictable. A productive worker today could be disabled by a car accident or a sudden illness tomorrow. A sudden economic downturn can wipe out an entire industry, leaving skilled, willing people without work. The social safety net, including healthcare, is there for everyone, recognizing that anyone could need help at some point in their life. * **We Already Pay for Shared Services We Don't Directly Use:** People pay taxes for public schools even if they don't have children, for fire departments even if their house never catches fire, and for roads they may never drive on. They do this because these services create a stable, functional, and prosperous society. Universal healthcare is viewed through the same lens—a foundational public good that benefits everyone by creating a healthier, more stable, and less desperate populace.
3. Addressing the Core Concern: "Those Who Choose Not to Work"
Your question specifically highlights people who *choose* not to work. This is a key distinction.
* **The "Deserving" vs. "Undeserving" Poor:** This is a classic debate. In reality, the number of people who are physically and mentally capable of working but *choose* a life of long-term idleness while living comfortably on state benefits is vanishingly small. Welfare systems in first-world countries are typically meager and difficult to live on. * **Who Are the "Non-Workers"?** The group of non-workers is diverse and includes many people whom society does not expect to work: * **Children.** * **The elderly and retirees.** * **The severely disabled.** * **Full-time caregivers for young children or disabled relatives.** * **Students.** * **People temporarily between jobs.** * **The "Choice" is Often an Illusion:** Many people who aren't working aren't making a simple choice. They may be struggling with untreated mental illness, addiction, a lack of education or skills, or living in an area with no jobs. Denying them healthcare often makes these underlying problems worse, making it harder for them to ever become productive, tax-paying citizens.
Conclusion: A Different Perspective on "Paying For"
From the perspective common in many first-world countries, you are not just "paying for other people's healthcare." You are:
1. **Paying for a more efficient and cheaper healthcare system for yourself.** 2. **Buying into an insurance policy for your own potential future misfortune.** 3. **Investing in public health and economic stability, which you benefit from.** 4. **Upholding a social contract that says a civilized society does not let its members die from preventable causes.**
The system is not designed as a reward for idleness but as a pragmatic and ethical foundation for a healthy, secure, and productive society. The alternative—a system where healthcare is only for those who can pay—often results in higher overall costs, greater public health risks, and a society that many find less compassionate and secure.
Last edited by mgh888; 10/23/2510:40 AM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Obamacare ( Affordable Health Care) is the democrats fault. gopers go…..Kill it at all costs!
It is the Democrats fault. Those that work pay for their insurance. Do you see the clue there? Those that work!!! Why should those that work pay for ours and other people's healthcare that choose to not work?
wrong again Only about 60% of all employees have employer sponsored health care-and if you are at a job that you make less than 200% federal poverty level (poor)-only 23.9% offer.
Figure 1 Share of non-elderly people with employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI), overall and by poverty level, March 2023 Overall All 60.4% Poverty Level Less Than 200 FPL* 23.9% 200 to Less Than 400 FPL* 59.0% 400 FPL and Above* 84.2% Note: A small share of people had more than one type of coverage at the time of survey. Poverty measured based on income from the prior year. The federal poverty level in 2022 was $13,590 for an individual. * Group different than others within the category at p < .05
Source: KFF analysis of the 2023 Current Population Survey ASEC Supplement Get the dataDownload PNG KFF (rebrand 2024)
Obamacare ( Affordable Health Care) is the democrats fault. gopers go…..Kill it at all costs!
It is the Democrats fault. Those that work pay for their insurance. Do you see the clue there? Those that work!!! Why should those that work pay for ours and other people's healthcare that choose to not work?
wrong again Only about 60% of all employees have employer sponsored health care-and if you are at a job that you make less than 200% federal poverty level (poor)-only 23.9% offer.
Figure 1 Share of non-elderly people with employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI), overall and by poverty level, March 2023 Overall All 60.4% Poverty Level Less Than 200 FPL* 23.9% 200 to Less Than 400 FPL* 59.0% 400 FPL and Above* 84.2% Note: A small share of people had more than one type of coverage at the time of survey. Poverty measured based on income from the prior year. The federal poverty level in 2022 was $13,590 for an individual. * Group different than others within the category at p < .05
Source: KFF analysis of the 2023 Current Population Survey ASEC Supplement Get the dataDownload PNG KFF (rebrand 2024)
I pay too much in taxes now. Hopefully cutting some fat now can save some federal tax dollars later.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
So by cutting fat you call that helping lower waged, working Americans with their healthcare payments as "fat"? Some people have a weird definition of fat. 40 billion went to Argentina why again? You never uttered a word about that. Would you like a list of actual fat being spent to help you understand what that actually means?
Since you already think you pay too much in taxes maybe you should be objecting to those huge import taxes trump is making you pay. He gave you a small tax cut in one hand then turned around and increased your taxes on the goods you buy in the other hand. You were duped again.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
So by cutting fat you call that helping lower waged, working Americans with their healthcare payments as "fat"? Some people have a weird definition of fat. 40 billion went to Argentina why again? You never uttered a word about that. Would you like a list of actual fat being spent to help you understand what that actually means?
Since you already think you pay too much in taxes maybe you should be objecting to those huge import taxes trump is making you pay. He gave you a small tax cut in one hand then turned around and increased your taxes on the goods you buy in the other hand. You were duped again.
I don't think a Democrat can lecture me about a tax cut. They have never seen a tax hike they did not like. There are ways to care for the poor among us and thru the federal government is not it.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
So you have no legitimate response. I think I might have a room with some trumpian participation trophies out back. I'll dig on out for you.
I gave you, my response. It is not everyone's responsibility to take care of the poor thru the federal government. It is not right. I pay for my family's insurance and should not have to pay for others. Especially foreigners that should not be here anyway.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
This is how you think working class America families should be treated. I'm still looking for a trophy for you. I think you need to read Matt. 25 again.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
LOl - I missed the part where Jesus said "let the poor and needy suffer and die without medical aid". You are such an shining example of Christianity. Congrats.
"The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have government-provided universal healthcare. While other industrialized nations may have mixed public and private systems, they typically mandate universal coverage through compulsory insurance or a publicly funded system, unlike the U.S. system which leaves a significant portion of the population uninsured." . . . Add to that the US has the highest healthcare costs per action/procedure. Highlighting several points made by AI.
Funny how the rest of the world does it - and their healthcare is cheaper and more affordable for ALL - and the wealthiest nation on the planet simply wants to look after the rich kids. Very MAGA.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
LOl - I missed the part where Jesus said "let the poor and needy suffer and die without medical aid". You are such an shining example of Christianity. Congrats.
"The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have government-provided universal healthcare. While other industrialized nations may have mixed public and private systems, they typically mandate universal coverage through compulsory insurance or a publicly funded system, unlike the U.S. system which leaves a significant portion of the population uninsured." . . . Add to that the US has the highest healthcare costs per action/procedure. Highlighting several points made by AI.
Funny how the rest of the world does it - and their healthcare is cheaper and more affordable for ALL - and the wealthiest nation on the planet simply wants to look after the rich kids. Very MAGA.
I guess those that do not have healthcare needs to make better choices or work harder. Paying for those that do not want to work is wrong. Actually, if you want to quote Jesus, he says it simply as those that do not work do not eat. He also states that those that do not work are worse than infidels. That is saying not working and not doing your part is actually worse than saying there is no God.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
They work hard and are Americans. They are doing their part. Why do you keep lying about that?
Do you have any idea how your life would be if those who work jobs that provide no healthcare stopped doing those jobs? Obviously you don't.
As I've said before, you don't have a Christian bone in your body and you've said everything a person could say to make the rest of us look bad.
Good news is you are not my judge. I help people. I give quite a bit willingly thru charitable donations. I do not like the government dictating what I give. I actually would like to see the government get out of my wallet. There is nothing un-Christian to not want to give to your government. Now we have to pay Ceasar what Ceasar requires but we do not have enjoy paying Ceasar. I know I can do better with my money than our government. I can invest better and make more money than our government. I can give and spend to resources that actually have Godly principles. I do not want my money going to those that do not work. They do not deserve a penny of it. I do not want my money going to plan parenthood to kill babies. I do not want my money used to fund sex change surgeries. Those are noy Godly principles and should not have a penny of my money. So, I render to Ceasar what is Ceasar but will always vote for those that I feel will require less money of mine going to Ceasar.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
I don't have to be the ultimate judge to see who you are. You make that perfectly clear.
You have no plan how to help people that are hard working Americans keep their healthcare while advocating the overlords you have chosen make it impossible for them to pay for it. Yes, you will be judged for that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I don't have to be the ultimate judge to see who you are. You make that perfectly clear.
You have no plan how to help people that are hard working Americans keep their healthcare while advocating the overlords you have chosen make it impossible for them to pay for it. Yes, you will be judged for that.
Keep your hands out Pit your hero Dems will give you just enough that you always need them. Only hard work gets you independent, but people like you know nothing about that. But you think you know it all. I don't need the government for anything other than a military to protect the Nation. Nothing else. But you keep begging your good at it.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." Margarat Thatcher
