An end to ACA Subsidies for the FIRE Community?

[desertadapted]

This may have been posted elsewhere (sorry if so).  Haven’t read the bill but it sounds like the House has passed work requirements to be eligible for some or all ACA subsidies, per this Times article (sorry about the paywall).  It’s not just for Medicaid.  This is all hot off the presses, so do your own research!

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/upshot/medicaid-republicans-work-requirement.html

[bacchi]

Hmm, the article is unclear. It sounds like the ACA subsidy work requirement is somehow linked to the work requirements for Medicaid. In other words, if you're not enrolling for Medicaid, you're not subject to the test/requirement.

The current proposal would require childless adults without disabilities who want Medicaid coverage to prove that they had worked, volunteered or attended school for 80 hours in the month before enrollment. But states could require that people work six months or even a year before becoming eligible for public benefits.

Those who fail to meet the work requirement would also be blocked from receiving subsidies for private plans sold on the Obamacare marketplace...

Moving abroad is looking better and better.

[jim555]

This may have been posted elsewhere (sorry if so).  Haven’t read the bill but it sounds like the House has passed work requirements to be eligible for some or all ACA subsidies, per this Times article (sorry about the paywall).  It’s not just for Medicaid.  This is all hot off the presses, so do your own research!

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/22/upshot/medicaid-republicans-work-requirement.html

This clarifies it...

"Those who fail to meet the work requirement would also be blocked from receiving subsidies for private plans sold on the Obamacare marketplace, another new restriction in this version of the Republican plan. The legislation is unclear on how long the prohibition would last."

[Arbitrage]

Everything I have seen states that this is applicable to Medicaid expansion, not the general non-Medicaid ACA cohort.  This article is written by people who are not necessarily the source of truth; they are interpreting things as well. 

That said, as the bill's contents and provisions are still being changed and debated, it's certainly within the realm of possibility to cut the ACA or add work requirements.

[jim555]

If you fail the Medicaid work requirement you can't get ACA subsidies.  So get unemployed, can't find work, you get barred from the ACA and Medicaid, seems fair to me. /S  Pay full price loser.

[seattlecyclone]

I read through the section of the bill that establishes the work requirements. What I think is a relevant paragraph:

For purposes of section 36B(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual shall be deemed to be eligible for minimum essential coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code for a month if such individual would have been eligible for medical assistance under a State plan (or a waiver of such plan) under this title but for a failure to meet the requirement to demonstrate community engagement under paragraph (1).

Section 36B(c)(2)(B) of the IRC establishes that you can only get subsidies for your ACA Marketplace plan if you aren't eligible for other qualifying insurance (such as Medicaid or employer coverage). The above-quoted paragraph then basically says that you're still counted as Medicaid-eligible (and thus ineligible for ACA subsidies) if you're otherwise Medicaid-eligible except for the work requirement.

I haven't seen anything that would establish work requirements for receiving ACA subsidies at above-Medicaid income levels, but it's a huge bill so it might be in there somewhere.

Also of note is that it's not a work requirement per se but rather a "community engagement" requirement. "Community engagement" is defined as doing 80 or more hours in a month of any combination of work or community service or education, OR having a monthly income at least 80 times the federal minimum wage. I'd expect most FIRE folks would be able to trivially meet the latter requirement; just make sure to do at least $580/month of Roth conversions or other investment income and you're good.

[RedmondStash]

I've been wondering how soon ACA subsidies might be on the chopping block with this administration.

Sounds like it's not entirely clear. But if they institute a work requirement for the subsidies, or chop them altogether, I won't be surprised. Vexed, but unsurprised.

I wonder how likely it is that this bill passes the Senate.

[Telecaster]

Work requirements for various government assistance programs have been implemented in the past.   And what always happens is implementing the work requirements costs more than the money it "saves."   

This is right out the Republican policy playbook of maximizing government waste while minimizing government productivity.   

[jim555]

They are not saying work requirements for subsidies.  They are saying if you didn't meet the work requirements for Medicaid you are barred from getting ACA subsidies.  Big difference.

[rantk81]

That's clear as mud.

What pray-tell are the "big" differences between "work requirements for subsidies" and "work requirements for not being barred from subsidies"

[reeshau]

That's clear as mud.

What pray-tell are the "big" differences between "work requirements for subsidies" and "work requirements for not being barred from subsidies"

You can't get kicked off of Medicaid, and then go to the ACA after that.

If you never applied for Medicaid, you won't have not met the work requirements, so have not been kicked off.

I do think this could be worrisome for FIRE families who have shaped their income to go on Medicaid.  And who knows where this wording will be at the end of the reconciliation process.

[frugalor]

As a married couple, do both people have to be working? If only one is working, does only the working one get subsidies?

[rantk81]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

[rocketpj]

I wonder how likely it is that this bill passes the Senate.

Well, you know that Murkowski and Collins will be very concerned (but vote in favour).  And Schumer will be strongly opposed, but somehow vote in favour also.

[jim555]

House law supporting this : "‘(B) OTHER PROVISIONS .—For purposes of section 36B(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, an individual shall be deemed to be eligible for minimum essential coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A)(ii) of such Code for a month if such individual would have been eligible for medical assistance under a State plan (or a waiver of such plan) under this title but for a failure to meet the requirement to demonstrate community engagement under paragraph (1). "

https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/Subtitle_D_Health_ae3638d840.pdf

This means if you failed to meet the "community engagement" requirements of Medicaid you are deemed to be eligible for minimum essential coverage, that means you can't get ACA subsidies.

Seems pretty clear to me.  If you avoid Medicaid entirely you don't have "community engagement" requirements at all since they are not a requirement of the ACA.

[bacchi]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I doubt people like us -- wealthy early retirees -- are on anyone's radar. An ACA work requirement would also harm entrepreneurs who don't draw a salary while their business starts up.

[Kapyarn]

How might work requirements for ACA plans, uhm, work?  I think our state exempts you if you live in a rural area.

We get an estimated $20k in ACA subsidies and cost sharing.  I am not sure I could cover that without getting a job again but it is all farms around here and half the year they don't hire.

[mathlete]

I’ve been saying this for years now, but don’t hang your hopes on LeanFIRE. If you can’t bankroll unsubsidized premiums from your stash, while also carrying at least a year or two of OOPM, maybe consider working a few more years.

The GoP has been gunning for the ACA for 15 years, and if Roe is any indication, they’re pretty tenacious and they won’t stop.

[jim555]

How might work requirements for ACA plans, uhm, work?  I think our state exempts you if you live in a rural area.

We get an estimated $20k in ACA subsidies and cost sharing.  I am not sure I could cover that without getting a job again but it is all farms around here and half the year they don't hire.

The are no requirements for ACA plans.

[reeshau]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I doubt people like us -- wealthy early retirees -- are on anyone's radar. An ACA work requirement would also harm entrepreneurs who don't draw a salary while their business starts up.

Eligibility rules are already f@?!ed up.  Medicaid eligibility is based on monthly income; ACA is based on annual.  If you have lumpy income (say, from investments) you can run into issues.

As my law professor told us: "for all you engineers in the class, understand this: just because the law has structure, does not mean it is without gaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies.  Stop trying to calculate it."

[jim555]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I doubt people like us -- wealthy early retirees -- are on anyone's radar. An ACA work requirement would also harm entrepreneurs who don't draw a salary while their business starts up.

Eligibility rules are already f@?!ed up.  Medicaid eligibility is based on monthly income; ACA is based on annual.  If you have lumpy income (say, from investments) you can run into issues.

As my law professor told us: "for all you engineers in the class, understand this: just because the law has structure, does not mean it is without gaps, contradictions, and inconsistencies.  Stop trying to calculate it."

This will be a gotcha, if you accidentally drop in for one month it could screw everything up for you.  Never report income under the 138% on a monthly or yearly basis, ever.

[Rob_bob]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I'm not following this, when I retired I tried to get ACA coverage but my income was too low so I was kicked to Medicaid. How can anyone who might have qualified for Medicaid be eligible for ACA because it requires a certain level of income?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I would also be on the lookout, when the final bill is adopted in to law, to understand the paperwork requirements.  Republicans seem to love the loophole that they didn't kick people off of Medical Insurance, they just suddenly found a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse because people didn't submit the right paperwork showing that they had met the requirements.

[jim555]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I'm not following this, when I retired I tried to get ACA coverage but my income was too low so I was kicked to Medicaid. How can anyone who might have qualified for Medicaid be eligible for ACA because it requires a certain level of income?

Your annual income can be over the Medicaid line, but if you report a month under you go to Medicaid, so never report a month under.  Do a Roth conversion if needed.

[secondcor521]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I'm not following this, when I retired I tried to get ACA coverage but my income was too low so I was kicked to Medicaid. How can anyone who might have qualified for Medicaid be eligible for ACA because it requires a certain level of income?

Your annual income can be over the Medicaid line, but if you report a month under you go to Medicaid, so never report a month under.  Do a Roth conversion if needed.

It might depend on the state.  In my state, I just report annual retirement income of $X every year.  They have never yet asked for a monthly breakdown in the past nine years.

[bacchi]

From what you're saying then, it sounds like you're describing a situation where they are making a distinction between:

"people who once applied for medicaid and then failed to maintain eligibility via working enough hours"
(who WOULD NOT BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

and

"people who never applied for medicaid, but still do not maintain the same working requirements that would have been required, if they had ever been on medicaid"
(who WOULD BE eligible for ACA subsidies)

???

For real?

Yeah. It's to prevent the "loophole" of non-work requirement Medicaid applicants who then decide to just apply for an ACA plan and have the subsidies cover their entire premium.

I'm not following this, when I retired I tried to get ACA coverage but my income was too low so I was kicked to Medicaid. How can anyone who might have qualified for Medicaid be eligible for ACA because it requires a certain level of income?

Your annual income can be over the Medicaid line, but if you report a month under you go to Medicaid, so never report a month under.  Do a Roth conversion if needed.

It might depend on the state.  In my state, I just report annual retirement income of $X every year.  They have never yet asked for a monthly breakdown in the past nine years.

The new work requirements are aimed squarely at Medicaid expansion states.

[jim555]

It might depend on the state.  In my state, I just report annual retirement income of $X every year.  They have never yet asked for a monthly breakdown in the past nine years.

That is part of the determination process in an expansion state.  They must determine monthly and yearly income since Medicaid is current month based income.  My state will ask yearly, then divide by 12 and ask is this your current month income.  If you say no it will ask for the actual month income.

[FIREin2018]

Everything I have seen states that this is applicable to Medicaid expansion, not the general non-Medicaid ACA cohort.  This article is written by people who are not necessarily the source of truth; they are interpreting things as well. 

That said, as the bill's contents and provisions are still being changed and debated, it's certainly within the realm of possibility to cut the ACA or add work requirements.

ahh.. Medicaid expansion: Increases eligibility to Medicaid from 100% poverty levels to 138% poverty for states that opted in.
That makes minimum eligibility for Obamacare at 138% poverty for those states.
So there's already a work requirement for Obamacare. You have to have an AGI of at least $20.7k if single to be on it.

edit: AGI

[FIREin2018]

Your annual income can be over the Medicaid line, but if you report a month under you go to Medicaid, so never report a month under.  Do a Roth conversion if needed.

It might depend on the state.  In my state, I just report annual retirement income of $X every year.  They have never yet asked for a monthly breakdown in the past nine years.

Obamacare used to be federally run for my state.
2 yrs ago, my state took over administering it. For both, only yearly income was required

[secondcor521]

Everything I have seen states that this is applicable to Medicaid expansion, not the general non-Medicaid ACA cohort.  This article is written by people who are not necessarily the source of truth; they are interpreting things as well. 

That said, as the bill's contents and provisions are still being changed and debated, it's certainly within the realm of possibility to cut the ACA or add work requirements.

ahh.. Medicaid expansion: Increases eligibility to Medicaid from 100% poverty levels to 138% poverty for states that opted in.
That makes minimum eligibility for Obamacare at 138% poverty for those states.
So there's already a work requirement for Obamacare. You have to earn at least $20.7k if single to be on it.

There is a lower AGI limit, but it doesn't need to be earned income.  It can be unearned income such as capital gains or dividends or interest or Roth conversions (among possibly other options).

[FIREin2018]

Everything I have seen states that this is applicable to Medicaid expansion, not the general non-Medicaid ACA cohort.  This article is written by people who are not necessarily the source of truth; they are interpreting things as well. 

That said, as the bill's contents and provisions are still being changed and debated, it's certainly within the realm of possibility to cut the ACA or add work requirements.

ahh.. Medicaid expansion: Increases eligibility to Medicaid from 100% poverty levels to 138% poverty for states that opted in.
That makes minimum eligibility for Obamacare at 138% poverty for those states.
So there's already a work requirement for Obamacare. You have to earn at least $20.7k if single to be on it.

There is a lower AGI limit, but it doesn't need to be earned income.  It can be unearned income such as capital gains or dividends or interest or Roth conversions (among possibly other options).

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? For both, It's $ coming in

[Kapyarn]

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? It's $ coming in

Unearned income doesn't pick their cabbage or clean their toilets.

[FIREin2018]

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? It's $ coming in

Unearned income doesn't pick their cabbage or clean their toilets.

ahh... the fix to the vacuum of menial jobs left by all the illegals kicked out of the US.
But isn't there already a work requirement to be on Welfare?

[sonofsven]

Everything I have seen states that this is applicable to Medicaid expansion, not the general non-Medicaid ACA cohort.  This article is written by people who are not necessarily the source of truth; they are interpreting things as well. 

That said, as the bill's contents and provisions are still being changed and debated, it's certainly within the realm of possibility to cut the ACA or add work requirements.

ahh.. Medicaid expansion: Increases eligibility to Medicaid from 100% poverty levels to 138% poverty for states that opted in.
That makes minimum eligibility for Obamacare at 138% poverty for those states.
So there's already a work requirement for Obamacare. You have to earn at least $20.7k if single to be on it.

There is a lower AGI limit, but it doesn't need to be earned income.  It can be unearned income such as capital gains or dividends or interest or Roth conversions (among possibly other options).

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? For both, It's $ coming in

Republican virtue signalling

[rantk81]

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? For both, It's $ coming in

I'm confused again.  Are you saying that the proposed bill currently no longer counts dividends, cap gains, or Roth conversions toward income requirements for reaching > 138%FPL for ACA?

[jim555]

Income is income of any type for ACA / ACA Medicaid purposes.  Earned, not earned, and anything that makes up MAGI are not changing.

[reeshau]

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? For both, It's $ coming in

I'm confused again.  Are you saying that the proposed bill currently no longer counts dividends, cap gains, or Roth conversions toward income requirements for reaching > 138%FPL for ACA?

The proposed bill is more direct than that.  Speaker Mike Johnson, on Face The Nation, said on Sunday:

"[Speaker Mike] Johnson said the Medicaid work requirements are 'not some onerous, burdensome thing,' saying they require recipients to work a minimum of 20 hours a week — either working, be in job training programs or volunteering in the community."

While existing processes in Arkansas and Georgia will "data match," using W-2's to infer you are working, if that doesn't work they want proof of work (hours worked) not income.  Volunteering gives something of an out,  but there is still a time commitment there, and a question of who can vouch for that volunteering.  (What if it was volunteering for Harvard?  For the DNC?)  There are also other exemptions, but the process to confirm those is not yet clear.

These are the additional requirements.  They do not replace the income boundaries of Medicaid or ACA.

[rantk81]

ahh.. So the current work requirement proposal for Medicaid is actually earned income and not unearned income?
What's the difference in the Republican's eyes? For both, It's $ coming in

I'm confused again.  Are you saying that the proposed bill currently no longer counts dividends, cap gains, or Roth conversions toward income requirements for reaching > 138%FPL for ACA?

The proposed bill is more direct than that.  Speaker Mike Johnson, on Face The Nation, said on Sunday:

"[Speaker Mike] Johnson said the Medicaid work requirements are 'not some onerous, burdensome thing,' saying they require recipients to work a minimum of 20 hours a week — either working, be in job training programs or volunteering in the community."

While existing processes in Arkansas and Georgia will "data match," using W-2's to infer you are working, if that doesn't work they want proof of work (hours worked) not income.  Volunteering gives something of an out,  but there is still a time commitment there, and a question of who can vouch for that volunteering.  (What if it was volunteering for Harvard?  For the DNC?)  There are also other exemptions, but the process to confirm those is not yet clear.

These are the additional requirements.  They do not replace the income boundaries of Medicaid or ACA.

I'm approaching my FIRE date, and all I really care about is, if I will be able to peg to 399% FPL from a combination of dividends, interest, cap gains, and Roth conversions, in order to get the ACA premium subsidy.

[FIREin2018]

I'm approaching my FIRE date, and all I really care about is, if I will be able to peg to 399% FPL from a combination of dividends, interest, cap gains, and Roth conversions, in order to get the ACA premium subsidy.

399%?
You won't get much of a subsidy.
Your get max subsidy between 138% and 149% poverty.

[kite]

80 hours/month of work, school or community service?

I can’t wrap my head around why that’s a problem. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

80 hours/month of work, school or community service?

I can’t wrap my head around why that’s a problem.

I don't think most people would have issues with clearly defined and reasonable work requirements, it's more the paperwork that is involved and having an understaffed, red tape laden government you have to interface with.  Do you foresee Congress providing a streamlined app / online form that provides quick feedback on insufficient documentation?  And don't forget, the goal is to find hundreds of billions in savings, so they need to go cheap on the IT / staffing and are incentivized to kick as many people off Medicaid as they can...

[Paul der Krake]

Just signed up for an ACA plan and spent zero time thinking about future hypotheticals.

[Kapyarn]

Just signed up for an ACA plan and spent zero time thinking about future hypotheticals.

Yeah, I have pretty much come down to the same philosophy.  We currently get a huge subsidy, probably about $20,000/yr with cost sharing out of pocket stuff added in.  Would it hurt to lose that?  Yeah, but it wouldn't mean we live in a cardboard box.  I would just pull more from Roths, drop some subscriptions, and take fewer vacations.  I think I would rather do all of that than try to find a job at age 56 (probably 57 by the time the bill was passed and subsidies were ended).  That is only 7 years until Medicare, so about $140,000 thereabouts.

[MrGreen]

I'm approaching my FIRE date, and all I really care about is, if I will be able to peg to 399% FPL from a combination of dividends, interest, cap gains, and Roth conversions, in order to get the ACA premium subsidy.

399%?
You won't get much of a subsidy.
Your get max subsidy between 138% and 149% poverty.

This depends on the state. We live in North Carolina, one of the most expensive states in the country for health insurance and our subsidy at 399% FPL is still almost 10k.

[jim555]

80 hours/month of work, school or community service?

I can’t wrap my head around why that’s a problem.

So you wouldn't have a problem doing 80 hours for ACA subsidies as well?  Logically that would fall right into line with your line of thought.

[seattlecyclone]

80 hours/month of work, school or community service?

I can’t wrap my head around why that’s a problem.

I don't think most people would have issues with clearly defined and reasonable work requirements, it's more the paperwork that is involved and having an understaffed, red tape laden government you have to interface with.  Do you foresee Congress providing a streamlined app / online form that provides quick feedback on insufficient documentation?  And don't forget, the goal is to find hundreds of billions in savings, so they need to go cheap on the IT / staffing and are incentivized to kick as many people off Medicaid as they can...

Right. The proposed "community engagement" requirements have a number of ways to complete your 80 hours/month, and they have a number of exceptions where you don't even need to do that (such as if you're caring for a dependent child or have a disability or live in a county with a high unemployment rate or have a monthly income at least 80x the federal minimum wage). How many people do you think there are who are not working, not studying, not disabled, not looking for work, and living on an income of less than $580/month? It really can't be that many. The only way then that this saves any amount of money is if the bureaucratic effort required to prove you meet the "community engagement" requirements (or an exception to those requirements) is higher than many people are willing or able to deal with. As an FI individual I have all the time in the world to deal with bureaucracy when necessary, and all the education required to speak their language once I get their attention. I'll be fine. A lot of folks who need Medicaid a heck of a lot more than I ever will...they'll have trouble.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

I would also add, this is political suicide.  Sure it sounds good coming out of ‘their politicians’ mouth, kick those lazy, layabout no gooders off my tax roll, but in practice it’ll look terrible…. The midterms will simply be - Democrats = Obamacare and supporting social safety nets, Republicans = Goodies to some wealthy group most people don’t rub shoulders with, but my rural hospital shut down and I know someone who lost coverage that wasn’t a lazy bum….  Preventing ‘the largest tax increase in history’ will be a distant memory, but massive deficits won’t be.  Trump truly has taken over the ‘Conservative’ party.

[moustachebar]

Do we know if the 80 hours would include work for one's own nascent enterprise? Sometimes getting a new situation started can take time. One great thing about ACA is the space to start a new thing of your own, but Medicaid expansion fills that need at the low end of the pay scale.

Do we know if Medicaid coverage would be available for a stay at home parent whose working spouse gets insurance through work?

[moustachebar]

Are there people who don't qualify for disability but can't work 20 hours a week? Does it take some time to be assessed for disability? Is the process efficient, coverage similar, savings meaningful?

Are there allowances for people who can't find work or volunteer opportunities, or can only find them part year or can't get to them due to isolation or lack of transport?

This actually seems less and less reasonable to me when I think of many edge cases where people can't get coverage but 80 hours of service or work is beyond them.

Have you ever tried to volunteer someplace for 80 hours a month? Most places aren't organized enough. So now you're juggling multiple volunteer gigs and coordinating transportation?

[Arbitrage]

The entire purpose of these proposed changes is to kick millions of people off of government-subsidized health care, to lower spending and partially offset the tax cuts (while only raising the debt by a somehow acceptable number of trillions and claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility).  They can couch it however they want, and you might think it's not that onerous, but they're crafting it to be onerous enough that it makes a very significant difference.