Biden’s Band-Aid Is Falling Off—And Now Trump Takes the Heat?

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   Blaming Trump for a Bidden Band-Aid Falling Off Misses the Point
   
   
   In recent weeks, headlines have warned that Obamacare premiums are set to spike in 2026, and predictably, fingers are being pointed at Donald Trump. But let’s take a step back and look at the full timeline of events before buying into this narrative. The Affordable Care Act (ACA), passed under President Obama in 2010, created a system of subsidies designed to help low- to moderate-income Americans afford health insurance. These subsidies were strictly income-based, with a hard cutoff at 400% of the federal poverty level. That meant if you made just $1 over the limit, you were forced to pay the full premium price, even if it was unaffordable. This so-called “subsidy cliff” was a built-in feature of the ACA from day one, not a Trump-era policy.
   
   For over a decade, millions of Americans used the ACA as designed, and while many felt the sting of that subsidy cliff, the system functioned without massive national outcry. That changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), President Biden implemented a temporary expansion of Obamacare subsidies. This expansion did two key things: it eliminated the income cap, allowing even higher-earning Americans to qualify for subsidies, and it lowered the maximum percentage of income that any eligible person had to pay for a benchmark health plan. This was a welcome reprieve for many middle-income Americans, especially early retirees and self-employed individuals who had been previously priced out. Then in 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act extended these expanded subsidies, but only through the end of 2025.
   
   While the expansion was politically popular, it came at a steep cost to taxpayers. With more people now eligible and paying less out of pocket, the federal government took on a much larger share of premium costs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the initial expansion from 2021 to 2023 cost over $60 billion. The extension through 2025 added billions more. These temporary provisions were never designed to be permanent, and no serious long-term funding mechanism was proposed. Despite having full control of Congress during his first two years, President Biden never pushed to cement this expansion into law. He treated it as a temporary pandemic relief measure, a band-aid, not a structural reform.
   
   Here’s where the real issue arises. Biden’s team let their temporary fix expire, and now, as the 2025 expiration date nears, we are simply reverting back to the original design of Obamacare, yet somehow, Donald Trump is being blamed for it. Let’s be clear: Trump did not create the subsidy cliff. He didn’t write the ACA. He hasn’t passed new legislation to alter the subsidies. What’s happening in 2026 is the natural result of Biden’s short-term expansion running its course.
   
   The truth is, this system worked as intended for over a decade, even if imperfectly. Users of the ACA knew the rules, met the requirements, and paid what the law asked of them. They were given a temporary break during COVID, and now that the expanded subsidies are ending, some don’t want to return to the previous system, understandably. But blaming Trump for that reversion is disingenuous at best. If Americans want to keep Biden’s band-aid in place, it will now be up to Congress to act. That’s where the debate should be focused,  not on rewriting history to pin this on someone who had nothing to do with the policy in question.
   
   President Trump’s recent bill, often referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” does not directly repeal or alter the Affordable Care Act (ACA) itself, but it does include provisions that change how the ACA operates in practice. The bill does not extend the enhanced subsidies enacted under President Biden’s temporary COVID-era expansion, subsidies that were never part of the original ACA passed under President Obama. These enhanced subsidies are simply expiring at the end of 2025, as scheduled. The result is that the ACA marketplace will revert to its original design, with subsidies returning to pre-COVID levels, which were more limited and excluded higher-income individuals. While critics have suggested Trump’s bill is accelerating a loss of coverage, what’s actually happening is a return to the ACA’s original structure, not a dismantling of the law itself.
   
   However, the bill does implement a few new administrative rules that affect ACA enrollment. First, it shortens the annual open enrollment period, ending it on December 15 instead of January 15, reducing the time people have to sign up. Second, it eliminates special enrollment periods for low-income individuals that allowed year-round sign-ups, a feature added during the Biden administration. Third, the bill requires income and immigration verification before coverage begins, which adds a layer of bureaucracy that may deter or delay enrollment. Finally, the bill introduces a $5 per month premium fee for people who are automatically re-enrolled in plans, requiring them to affirm their eligibility annually or pay the fee. These are all changes written directly into the legislation, not administrative rules from agencies, and they tighten access and increase verification requirements compared to the expanded ACA under Biden, but they do not repeal or rewrite the core structure of the ACA itself.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Trump simply could have chosen to continued the premium credits.... So yes, it was his decision. Nothing to do with Biden.  Totally and completely Trump's decision.   Millions who had affordable health care, will soon no longer have it.  As always, pure cruelty is the point.  We have an Administration who is taking away healthcare from millions in order to make up for the lack of incoming revenue due to the extension of the tax breaks...
      
      If the argument is why didn't Biden make some of his changes permanent? Why isn't Trump making a multitude of things in his horrendous ugly bill permanent? Why wasn't the TCJA permanent?

      replyreport
      1. 76

         wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         He could have written a $10,000 stipend for every person, too.  All his fault that we don't get a big check, right?
         
         He isn't making giveaways permanent because we cannot afford it.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Oh yes the "we can't afford it argument...."
            
            But we can afford this tax plan? No, we actually can't because we are blowing up the debt and deficit and throwing people off of their health care to do it.   Why? Because Trump is a hateful individual.  He hates Democrats and he hates Obama most of all.... The man is disgusting.  Let me be perfectly clear...He’s a mentally, morally, ethically, spiritually bankrupt POS.
            
            I think you also miss the point of the original post attempting to put the blame on Biden for Trump's decision to 86 the premium tax credits on the ACA...
            
            https://x.com/PetRep/status/1941106102067966204

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               You are diverting --- I hope to keep the subject of the thread. Why not build a thread and expand your view?

               replyreport
            2. 76

               wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               And with this post the reality of TDS is show once more.  And then it's coupled with outright lies, such as claiming that Trump "86'd" the premium tax credits when it was Biden that wrote it into the original bill.
               
               Trump refused to extend those credits, but that is a far, far cry from 86ing them.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  TDS isn't a reasoned argument...
                  
                  "Trump refused to extend those credits, but that is a far, far cry from 86ing them.
                  
                  They will disappear this year...that means gone, the end, over.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Gosh--- nothing is forever in Washington. Come on.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        After Trump telling everyone that he hates Democrats.. it's a done deal.  And everyone knows how much he hates Obama and the ACA.  I think that this  really showcases what most of us have known all along, that Trump is a very hateful, spiteful, vindictive, angry , insecure little man... On top of his other loathsome qualities

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                           "After Trump telling everyone that he hates Democrats.. it's a done deal.  And everyone knows how much he hates Obama and the ACA.  I think that this  really showcases what most of us have known all along, that Trump is a very hateful, spiteful, vindictive, angry , insecure little man... On top of his other loathsome qualities" Willow
                           
                           It was a done deal once Biden signed the bill allowing the subsidies to expire. It seems you’re overlooking that the subsidies were always intended to expire. We all know Trump has never hidden his feelings about the ACA—or about Obama.
                           
                           Why do you feel Trump would have asked that the subsidies be extended? You realize he is trying to cut Government spending on social giveaways. Not sure why you feel he would do something Biden even saw as political trouble.
                           
                           I need not share all the qualities I appreciate bout Trump. But his transparency is at the top of the list.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                              "Why do you feel Trump would have asked that the subsidies be extended?
                              
                              Because it makes sense???

                              replyreport
                              1. 84

                                 Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 You’re questioning why Trump would support a costly program when he campaigned on reducing government spending, especially since he consistently highlighted this stance at every rally. But let me ask: why didn’t Biden make the provision permanent in his own bill? After all, he was the one who included the expiration at the end of 2025. Maybe it’s time to direct that scrutiny toward Joe. Trump has always been clear that he wasn’t a fan of Obamacare and largely left it alone. Those on the ACA will simply return to the expectations that existed before the temporary subsidies. They should probably be grateful that Biden provided some relief during a turbulent period.
                                 
                                 Trump has never positioned himself as a leader who supports government giveaways. His policies have consistently emphasized personal responsibility, economic growth through job creation, and reducing dependency on federal aid. Rather than expanding social programs, he has focused on cutting regulations, lowering taxes, and encouraging self-sufficiency. For Trump, success comes from opportunity, not handouts.

                                 replyreport
               2. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Factually, everything is simply reverting to the way it was before Biden’s temporary subsidy expansions, meant to expire at the end of 2025. It’s unclear why some refuse to acknowledge these basic facts. Those who enrolled prior to COVID should expect a return to the original terms they agreed to. This conversation has become ridiculous. Biden's bill was Biden's bill--- the subsidies will expire as they were deemed to. 
                  
                  I am not sure why anyone would think Trump would make any attempt to extend them. He is trying to cut spending, not add a new, very expensive social program.  I mean, has all common sense been lost?

                  replyreport
         2. 84

            Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Dan,  Not sure where Willow is going with this. This issue is pretty cut and dry, it’s strange that anyone would think Trump should, or even would, push to keep these subsidies. He ran on cutting social spending, plain and simple. Why would anyone expect him to suddenly flip and create a new social giveaway?
            
            Sometimes I feel like people are genuinely shocked that Trump is actually doing exactly what he ran on, and what he won on.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               Here is where Willow is going, right from his post: 
               
               "Trump is a hateful individual.  He hates Democrats and he hates Obama most of all.... The man is disgusting.  Let me be perfectly clear...He’s a mentally, morally, ethically, spiritually bankrupt POS."  Willow
               
               That's all that matters to those with TDS.  Not truth, not reality.  Just berate Trump and vilify him every chance.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  https://x.com/MrJulieGoldman/status/1941242287096541607
                  
                  But yes, tell me more about how he's a wonderful guy...he's a hateful SOB.

                  replyreport
               2. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Dan,  I’ve come to agree with what you’ve shared. This issue is so obvious that I’m genuinely baffled why she would think Trump would consider implementing an expensive social program. Even Biden didn’t try to make it permanent. And Trump never hid his stance on the ACA. At this point, even when the facts are laid out, she seems to ignore them and respond purely with emotion.

                  replyreport
      2. 84

         Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         "Trump simply could have chosen to continued the premium credits.... So yes, it was his decision. Nothing to do with Biden." Willow
         
         I don’t see your point. Biden could’ve made it permanent in his own bill, but he didn’t. Trump ran on cutting costly social programs, he was clear about that from day one. So why on earth would he keep one of old Joe’s band-aid fixes?
         
         Those subsidies cost taxpayers billions. If Trump chose to keep them, he wouldn’t just be maintaining a temporary measure, he’d be creating a brand-new social giveaway that would become a permanent drain on taxpayers.
         
         Hey, the subsidies were meant to go away, and they will. Honestly, I didn’t even have a problem with Biden’s big, beautiful band-aid at the time. It gave some folks a lifeline to keep their insurance as we got through COVID. But let’s be real, it was always meant to expire and go back to the way things were by the end of 2025.
         
         Like it or not, Trump won. He made no secret of his plan to cut unnecessary spending. That agenda clearly resonated; otherwise, he wouldn’t be back on top.
         
         I mean, no one should be surprised that the ACA will revert right back to what it was before the band-aid. I guess some got a taste of taxpayers footing more of the bill.
         
         " Millions who had affordable health care, will soon no longer have it.  As always, pure cruelty is the point.  We have an Administration who is taking away healthcare from millions in order to make up for the lack of incoming revenue due to the extension of the tax breaks..."  Willow
         
         Sorry, but this makes no sense given what I just shared. Why would anyone lose coverage? It’s simply reverting back to how it was before Biden’s temporary band-aid, which was always meant to expire. All the same rules and regulations will still apply, just without the extra subsidy boost.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            Lol, you don't think there's a cost to millions of uninsured people? 
            
            And every bill, throughout history, is generally written with provisions that expire. That's the only way they pass.... Including all of Trump's ridiculous bills. 
            The Biden blaming needs to stop. He made a decision to improve upon Obamacare and Trump made a decision to cut that improvement... Those are the facts.  The question you posed, "why would anyone lose coverage". Clearly the answer is that many will not be able to afford the drastically increased premiums.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

               "Lol, you don't think there's a cost to millions of uninsured people? " Willow
               
               Lol—of course there’s a cost to having millions of uninsured people, but let’s not pretend the only solution is endless taxpayer-funded subsidies. The real debate is who should be responsible for that cost: hardworking taxpayers, or the individuals who are able-bodied and capable of contributing but choose not to?
               
               We can't keep dumping billions into bloated social programs and calling it compassion. There's a difference between helping people through tough times and creating a permanent class of dependency. The subsidies were meant to be temporary, a COVID-era lifeline, not a forever free ride.
               
               That’s simply not factual. Yes, some bills include provisions with expiration dates—but to claim every bill is written that way is just flat-out false. Many major laws are passed with permanent provisions, especially those involving tax reform, defense, or long-term regulatory changes. Expiration clauses are often political tools used to manipulate budget scoring or force future renegotiation, not some standard rule.
               
               And calling all of Trump’s bills “ridiculous” is just partisan noise, not argument. His tax cuts, for example, had both temporary and permanent components, just like every administration’s major fiscal packages. Were there expirations? Yes, because Democrats demanded them during negotiations to prevent them from being permanent. That’s politics, not incompetence.
               
               Let’s not pretend Biden’s subsidy expansion wasn’t a temporary COVID-era measure from the start. It was always marketed as a short-term boost to help people through the pandemic, not a permanent overhaul of the system. If they wanted it to be permanent, they had full control for two years. They didn’t make it happen.  This is just a fact: Biden could have made it permanent-- he did not.
               
               So no, this blanket claim doesn’t hold water. Let’s deal in facts, not spin.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Why should I be responsible to foot the bill for this tax scheme? A scheme that drastically reduces revenue and requires lots of folks to make huge sacrifices that will benefit a small percent.   Again, in terms of making provisions of bills permanent. Why didn't he make his ugly tax plan permanent during his first go-around?   The claim of making provisions in bills permanent, absolutely does not hold water... At any point in history. 
                  Trump and maga own all of this, 100%
                  
                  Fact is, it's a party based on hate and grievance.
                  
                  Fingers crossed that Maga followers get to disproportionately feel the effects of all of this ... I hope they get what they wanted

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     Comparing Biden’s temporary Obamacare subsidies, set to expire in 2025 per his own legislation, to Trump’s tax policy is like comparing apples to oranges. The Obamacare subsidies were designed as a short-term relief measure during COVID. They were never meant to be permanent, and everyone knew that from the start. To act shocked now that they’re ending, on schedule, is either political theater or willful ignorance. Trump didn’t cancel anything; the expiration was baked into Biden’s own bill. Period.
                     
                     Now on to the taxes. Trump’s tax reform, whether you like it or not, cut taxes across all brackets, not just for the wealthy. That’s just a fact. Yes, the corporate tax cuts were permanent, and the individual ones were set to expire, but that’s because Senate budget rules don’t allow permanent changes that increase the deficit without a 60-vote majority. So no, it wasn’t some underhanded “scheme.” It was navigating the constraints of Congress, just like every president before him has had to do. If the left had been willing to negotiate, the whole package could’ve been permanent.
                     
                     And this idea that Trump’s base should “feel the effects” of his policies as some kind of punishment? That’s spiteful, not sensible. Millions of Americans supported Trump because they believe in smaller government, fewer handouts, and more personal responsibility. Disagreeing with that vision is one thing, but rooting for people to suffer because you don’t like their politics? That’s not principled, it’s petty.
                     
                     The “party of hate and grievance” claim is ironic when it’s being hurled with such bitterness and contempt. If we want to have serious debates about policy, great, let’s do it. But let’s not pretend moral superiority while wishing harm on people who voted differently. That’s not how democracy works, and frankly, it’s part of what’s dividing this country.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        "And this idea that Trump’s base should “feel the effects” of his policies as some kind of punishment? That’s spiteful,"
                        
                        Spiteful, lol?  Punishment?That implies  these consequences of the bill are bad though???
                        
                        Maga voted for this, they asked for this, they  defend all of this nonsense.... Why would it be punishment for Maga folks to be on the receiving end of all of it?

                        replyreport
               2. 60

                  Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "Were there expirations? Yes, because Democrats demanded them during negotiations to prevent them from being permanent. That’s politics, not incompetence."
                  
                  So if it's not incompetence? Why are you trying to hang the loss of Obamacare credits on Biden?
                  
                  
                  "We can't keep dumping billions into bloated social programs and calling it compassion. There's a difference between helping people through tough times and creating a permanent class of dependency.
                  
                  What? How does this thought apply to people working and paying for insurance through Obamacare?  You do understand that it's not free?  I believe it allows people to purchase healthcare at a reasonable price when their employer does not offer such....

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                     "What? How does this thought apply to people working and paying for insurance through Obamacare?  You do understand that it's not free?  I believe it allows people to purchase healthcare at a reasonable price when their employer does not offer such...." willow
                     
                     No, it is not free, and was carefully written --- end of 2025, all will revert to those rules. The temporary band-aid will be ripped away. This was set into law by Biden.   It would seem like you may have hoped the program would be amended. Biden did not choose to do that, and he has the Congress and could have. This is just factual. You are arguing on emotion.
                     
                     I am not even sure why anyone would think Trump would have touched this. He was never a proponent of the ACA.  I will step away, I can't at all see your point.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Willowarborposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Trump has made the choice to end affordable health care for millions. Fact.  Why? Because he hates Obama and Democrats... That's on maga.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

                           What?
                           
                           It seems that those who were on the ACA prior to COVID will simply be reverting back to the coverage they had before the temporary subsidies were added. Yet you seem to suggest that what they were willing to buy into before COVID is no longer good enough for them now. That’s a bit odd, isn’t it?
                           
                           Trump has not ended the ACA. What’s happening is simply Congress honoring the 2025 expiration date that was written directly into Biden’s own bill. So the real question is, why didn’t Biden push to amend the ACA and make those subsidies permanent when he had the chance? He could have done so, especially when his party held more leverage. Blaming Trump for something Biden chose not to do is misplaced. It seems, oddly enough, you’re directing frustration at the wrong person.

                           replyreport
2. 84

   Sharlee01posted 2 weeks ago

   Hey everyone—didn’t take long for a diversion! Hopefully, we can all stick to the topic I proposed. Feel free to build your own thread—there’s plenty of “Trump did this” stuff out there already. So please, let’s not give oxygen to distractions.
   

   replyreport