ReportWire

Tag: Subsidies

  • Fact-checking Democratic ACA subsidies talking points

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown failed to resolve differences between Republicans and Democrats over policies related to Obamacare’s affordability.

    Republicans refused to go along with Democrats’ proposal to extend expiring COVID-19-era subsidies for people who buy their insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The Senate voted Nov. 10 to fund the government through January without voting on the subsidies. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the Senate would vote later this year on extending them. 

    Most people who use Affordable Care Act marketplaces obtain subsidies. 

    In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed legislation that made the subsidies more generous. The legislation reduced the maximum amount purchasers would have to pay for coverage and enabled households with incomes higher than 400% of the federal poverty level to receive subsidies. Previously, the subsidies were capped at 400% of the poverty limit for a household, which in 2024 was $60,240 for a one-person household. 

    Congress renewed these enhanced subsidies in 2022 through the end of 2025.

    The subsidies proved popular; the number of people receiving them increased from about 11 million to more than 24 million people, the vast majority of whom receive an enhanced premium tax credit.

    If enhanced tax credits expire, many enrollees will continue to qualify for smaller tax credits, while others will lose eligibility altogether.

    President Donald Trump, who unsuccessfully pledged to repeal and replace Obamacare, said he wants to give people money to buy their own health insurance, without providing details. 

    Democrats will likely campaign on Obamacare costs through the midterms, particularly if Republicans vote against extending the subsidies in the coming weeks. We fact-checked some recent Democratic talking points. 

    “The five states that are most impacted by a failure to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits are West Virginia, Wyoming, Alaska, Mississippi and Tennessee.”  — Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., at a Nov. 10 press conference

    This is accurate, according to one analysis of premium payment increases for consumers choosing plans in the same tier, without the enhanced subsidies. Jeffries was citing the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.

    “Most impacted” can mean many things, not just premium spike size. Florida has 4.7 million people enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans in 2025, more than any other state. About 97% of enrollees receive a discount that makes their plans cheaper.

    One analysis puts Texas ahead of Florida for the overall number of people who will not enroll in ACA plans in 2026 if the subsidies expire. Texas has a larger state population.

    “Forty-five percent of the people, of the Americans, who are going to lose health care or be at risk of losing health care if they don’t on the other side of the aisle extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits, 45% of them are registered Republicans.” — Jeffries at a Nov. 10 press conference

    Jeffries’ statistic for Republican voters affected by the ACA subsidies comes from a May poll by KFF, a leading health policy think tank.

    The poll found Republicans make up 45% of adults who purchase their own health insurance, most of whom do so through the ACA marketplaces. That included 31% who defined themselves as MAGA Republicans and 14% called themselves non-MAGA Republicans. (The survey defined MAGA Republicans as Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who support Trump’s Make America Great Again movement.) About 35% enrolled through the marketplace were Democrats and 20% were independents.

    The rates were lower for Medicaid enrollees, KFF found: 27% self-identified as MAGA or non-MAGA Republicans.

    Jeffries predicted that this group is at risk of losing health care entirely, but we don’t yet know exactly how many would drop their insurance because of rising costs.

    The Congressional Budget Office expects 2 million more people would be uninsured in 2026, increasing to 3.8 million in 2034 and 2025. More people are likely to drop ACA coverage but not become uninsured, for example changing to a job that offers health insurance.

    “If this is the so-called ‘deal,’ then I will be a no. That’s not a deal. It’s an unconditional surrender that abandons the 24 million Americans whose health care premiums are about to double.” — Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., Nov. 9 X post

    This is largely accurate.

    Torres told us he was referring to a Sept. 30 analysis by KFF that found that the expiration of the credits “is estimated to more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay annually for premiums — a 114% increase from an average of $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026.” About 24 million people are on the marketplace, and most receive subsidies.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., went further Nov. 9 when he said ending the subsidies “raises health care premiums for over 20 million Americans by doubling, and in some cases tripling and quadrupling” the cost. 

    Many low-income people would see their out-of-pocket premiums increase from zero to hundreds of dollars, said Larry Levitt, KFF’s executive vice president for health policy.

    “It would cost $38 billion to extend ACA credits next year and prevent millions of people from losing their healthcare. Reminder: Trump sent $40 billion to Argentina for no reason.” — Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., Nov. 7 on Bluesky 

    Lofgren’s statement about the cost of ACA enhanced subsidies is in the ballpark, but she exaggerated what the federal government sent to Argentina.

    Extending the enhanced subsidies would cost about $350 billion over a decade including about $38 billion next year, the center-right American Action Forum found.

    Other estimates are lower or higher. Levitt told us the net effect on the federal budget in 2027, which is a more complete year, is $31.9 billion.

    Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said factoring in direct costs, interest payments and spending in other programs averages around $48.8 billion more each year. 

    Regarding Argentina, Lofgren was referring to the Trump administration’s announcement in October that it agreed to a $20 billion currency swap and facilitated $20 billion in private financing. 

    The funds to support Argentina couldn’t be shifted to health care credits. The U.S. Treasury dedicates a pool of funds  for onetime U.S. intervention in foreign exchange markets.

    Chief Correspondent Louis Jacobson contributed to this article.

    RELATED: Government shutdown fact-checks about SNAP, WIC, Obamacare and immigration

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • President Trump urges Republicans to reopen government as shutdown marks longest in US history

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.”It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.”Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing. The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.”The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    The government shutdown has reached its 36th day, the longest in U.S. history, as President Donald Trump pressures Republicans to end the Senate filibuster in order to reopen the government.

    “It’s time for Republicans to do what they have to do, and that’s terminate the filibuster. It’s the only way you can do it,” Trump told senators Wednesday at the White House.

    The filibuster is a Senate rule that requires 60 votes to advance most legislation. Ending the filibuster would allow Republicans to pass a bill with a simple majority, but several Republicans warn that when Democrats are in power, they’d be able to do the same thing.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after breakfast at the White House, “It’s just not happening.”

    The president also said the shutdown was a “big factor, negative” in Tuesday’s election results.

    “Countless public servants are now not being paid and the air traffic control system is under increasing strain. We must get the government back open soon and really immediately,” Trump said.

    The shutdown is hitting home for many Americans, with lines stretching at food banks across the country as SNAP benefits are delayed and reduced for more than 40 million Americans. After-school programs that depend on federal dollars are closing.

    The Transportation Secretary said, starting Friday, there will be a 10% reduction in flights at 40 airports across the country.

    Republicans have pushed to reopen the government with a short-term spending bill. Democrats have rejected those bills, arguing that Republicans are leaving out a key provision: restoring expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that help millions of Americans lower their health-insurance costs. Democrats say passing a short-term bill without those subsidies would leave families facing sudden premium spikes.

    “The election results ought to send a much needed bolt of lightning to Donald Trump that he should meet with us to end this crisis,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York. “The American people have spoken last night. End the shutdown, end the healthcare crisis, sit down and talk with us.”

    Republicans have said they’re willing to negotiate ACA subsidies, but only after the shutdown is over.

    See more government shutdown coverage from the Washington News Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States Sue Over Trump Administration Suspending Food Benefits During Shutdown

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON (Reuters) -A coalition of Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit on Tuesday to stop President Donald Trump’s administration from suspending food aid benefits starting on November 1 amid the ongoing U.S. government shutdown.

    Attorneys general and governors from 25 states and the District of Columbia filed the lawsuit in Boston federal court after the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it would not use $6 billion in contingency funds to pay for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, also known as food stamps.

    “The federal government has the money to continue funding SNAP benefits — they’re choosing to harm millions of families across the country already struggling to make ends meet,” Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell said in a social media post.

    Democrats and Republicans in Congress have traded blame for the shutdown and for the risk that SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to more than 41 million low-income Americans, could lapse in November. 

    The USDA’s shutdown plan had included the potential use of contingency funds for SNAP, but on Saturday the department updated its website to say no benefits would be issued on November 1 as scheduled, stating “the well has run dry.”

    The lawsuit argues the suspension of benefits is arbitrary and being carried out in violation of the law and regulations governing the program, which requires that “assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households.”

    The lawsuit says the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 makes clear that the contingency funds should be used when necessary to carry out program operations.

    The plaintiffs, who are led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, Arizona and Minnesota, say a failure by the federal government to issue monthly food assistance payments as a result of a lapse in appropriations would mark a first in the SNAP program’s 60-year history.

    The states say they will seek to have a judge issue a temporary restraining order forcing the USDA to use available contingency funds for November SNAP benefits and ensure that millions of families do not lose access to food assistance in the coming days.

    “Millions of Americans are about to go hungry because the federal government has chosen to withhold food assistance it is legally obligated to provide,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement. 

    The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Idira Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Agriculture in a statement said Senate Democrats are appointing an inflection point where they either “hold out for the Far-Left wing of the party or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive timely WIC and SNAP allotments.”

    SNAP benefits are available for Americans whose income is less than 130% of the federal poverty line, or $1,632 a month for a one-person household, or $2,215 for a two-person household in many areas. 

    SNAP benefits are paid out on a monthly basis, though the exact date payments are distributed varies among states, which are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the benefits.

    The shutdown also threatens benefits for nearly 7 million participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, known as WIC.

    (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Chizu Nomiyama)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Trump administration posts notice that no federal food aid will go out Nov. 1

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture has posted a notice on its website saying federal food aid will not go out Nov. 1, raising the stakes for families nationwide as the government shutdown drags on.

    The new notice comes after the Trump administration said it would not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November. That program helps about 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries.

    “Bottom line, the well has run dry,” the USDA notice says. “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats.”

    The shutdown, which began Oct. 1, is now the second-longest on record. While the Republican administration took steps leading up to the shutdown to ensure SNAP benefits were paid this month, the cutoff would expand the impact of the impasse to a wider swath of Americans — and some of those most in need — unless a political resolution is found in just a few days.

    The administration blames Democrats, who say they will not agree to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate with them on extending expiring subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Republicans say Democrats must first agree to reopen the government before negotiation.

    Democratic lawmakers have written to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins requesting to use contingency funds to cover the bulk of next month’s benefits.

    But a USDA memo that surfaced Friday says “contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.” The document says the money is reserved for such things such as helping people in disaster areas.

    It cited a storm named Melissa, which has strengthened into a major hurricane, as an example of why it’s important to have the money available to mobilize quickly in the event of a disaster.

    The prospect of families not receiving food aid has deeply concerned states run by both parties.

    Some states have pledged to keep SNAP benefits flowing even if the federal program halts payments, but there are questions about whether U.S. government directives may allow that to happen. The USDA memo also says states would not be reimbursed for temporarily picking up the cost.

    Other states are telling SNAP recipients to be ready for the benefits to stop. Arkansas and Oklahoma, for example, are advising recipients to identify food pantries and other groups that help with food.

    Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., accused Republicans and Trump of not agreeing to negotiate.

    “The reality is, if they sat down to try to negotiate, we could probably come up with something pretty quickly,” Murphy said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We could open up the government on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there wouldn’t be any crisis in the food stamp program.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump hosts Senate Republicans at renovated White House

    [ad_1]

    But as President Donald Trump welcomed Republican senators for lunch in the newly renovated Rose Garden Club — with the boom-boom of construction underway on the new White House ballroom — he portrayed a different vision of America, as a unified GOP refuses to yield to Democratic demands for health care funding and the government shutdown drags on.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    [ad_2]

    By LISA MASCARO, MARY CLARE JALONICK and SEUNG MIN KIM – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Florida is one of ‘hardest hit’ states if ACA credits expire

    [ad_1]

    As the government shutdown entered its third week, Democrats continued to withhold their support for a government funding bill unless Republicans agree to extend expiring Affordable Care Act marketplace subsidies. 

    A Democratic lawmaker said Florida will be affected by the expiring subsidies more than any other state after the Nov. 1 ACA enrollment start.

    “FL will be HARDEST HIT by Obamacare cuts in the nation on Nov 1st,” U.S. Rep. Darren Soto, D-Fla., wrote Oct. 13 on X. “4.6 Million Floridians will see HUGE healthcare hikes of 75% or more unless Congress fixes it. The clock is ticking!” 

    Soto, who represents Florida’s 9th Congressional District, which includes eastern Orlando and the cities of Kissimmee and St. Cloud, expanded on his point in an Oct. 12 Orlando Sentinel opinion editorial. “The top 10 Obamacare congressional districts are all in the state,” Soto wrote. “Our district has the second-most enrollment in the nation, with 271,000 people receiving the Premium Tax Credits.”

    Without congressional action, the pandemic-era enhanced ACA credits will expire Dec. 31, and researchers estimate premiums around the U.S. will rise by more than 114% on average for enrollees who use the credits, leading to an estimated 3.8 million more people becoming uninsured over the next decade.

    Health care experts said Soto’s Florida warning is on point.

    “Florida might be tied with Texas in the percentage of enrollment increase since the credits have been in place, but it has always had a lot of people signing up for the ACA,” said Cynthia Cox, vice president of the ACA program at KFF, a health care research think tank. “This might be due to demographics and the kinds of jobs residents have, but Florida would definitely be the top, or tied as the top state affected by these cuts.”

    Soto’s office pointed PolitiFact to Congressional Budget Office and KFF estimates for coverage loss and premium increases if the credits expire.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    What will happen in Florida if the enhanced ACA tax credits expire?

    Florida has more people enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans than any state — around 4.7 million in 2025. About 97% of enrollees receive a discount that makes their plans cheaper.

    In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed legislation that made ACA subsidies more generous, by reducing the maximum amount enrollees would have to pay for coverage and enabling households whose incomes were higher than 400% of the federal poverty level to receive the subsidies. Congress renewed these enhanced subsidies in 2022 through the end of 2025, so they are now poised to expire.

    Determining whether Florida would be the “hardest-hit” state if the enhanced credits expire depends on how that is measured. Data shows Florida as one of the top states, if not the top, for the number of people affected.

    “There are different ways to measure the effects,” Cox said. “For instance, if it’s the steepest premium increases for a smaller number of people, that might be West Virginia or Wyoming.”

    An Oct. 14 Washington Post analysis found that Florida has the highest number of people receiving the enhanced credits, which could result in the state bearing the biggest blow, relative to its population, of residents becoming uninsured or experiencing steep premium increases. The analysis puts Texas second. 

    About 8% of ACA enrollees under 65 nationwide use the enhanced credit; but in Florida, the same share is 24% — the highest in the country, The Washington Post found. 

    That disparity is largely because Florida did not expand Medicaid eligibility, making the ACA the main pathway for people with lower incomes to obtain affordable coverage. Many people with ACA coverage are self-employed or work for a small business.

    About 2.4 million Floridians with ACA Marketplace plans in 2025 earn under 138% of the federal poverty limit. 

    “When states expand Medicaid, anyone who makes below 138% of the federal poverty level is eligible for the program, so they’re not on the ACA marketplaces,” Cox said. “In states that didn’t expand Medicaid, like Florida, Texas and Georgia, residents can get ACA coverage and qualify for the enhanced credits.”

    Another study, by the nonpartisan Urban Institute think tank and the Commonwealth Fund health care research organization, put Texas ahead of Florida for the overall number of people who will not enroll in ACA plans in 2026.

    “In terms of absolute numbers of people becoming uninsured, our tables show Texas being hit harder,” said Jessica Banthin, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute’s health policy division and one of the report’s authors. “But in terms of population share, it’s very likely the case that Florida is being hit harder.”

    A KFF analysis found that, in every Florida congressional district, enrollees over age 60 who make just over 400% of the federal poverty level — about $84,600 for two people — will face premiums in 2026 quadruple what they pay now, on average.

    Overall, lower- and middle-income Floridians will feel the brunt of expired subsidies.

    “Especially an older couple who are early retirees who may still have a moderate income,” Cox said. “They won’t have any other option and may see a premium increase of $20,000 because they aren’t eligible for Medicare yet.”

    Floridians with private employer-based insurance may also see indirect effects.

    “If many more people in Florida become uninsured, then hospitals and other providers will face an increase in patients who can no longer pay their medical bills,” said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Health Policy Institute. “These costs are projected to result in service cutbacks, hospital closures and mergers, particularly in rural areas, which affect everyone.”

    Our ruling

    Soto said Florida will be the “hardest hit” state if ACA enhanced subsidies expire.

    Florida has 4.7 million people enrolled in ACA plans in 2025, more than in any other state. One analysis found that 24% of Florida’s enrollees under age 65 use enhanced subsidies, the highest in the country, compared with 8% of enrollees nationally.

    “Hardest hit” can mean many things. In terms of the share of enrollees relative to a state’s population, Florida is safely one of the most affected states, if not the most affected for people who will see premium increases or become uninsured as a result of higher prices. By raw numbers in another analysis, Texas might be first, because it has a bigger population.

    Experts said other states such as West Virginia may face steeper premium hikes, but for a smaller number of people. 

    Soto’s statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate it Mostly True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As the shutdown drags on, these people will lose if health care subsidies expire

    [ad_1]

    TYLER, Texas — TYLER, Texas (AP) — Celia Monreal worries every day about the cartilage loss in her husband’s knees. Not just because it’s hard for her to see him in pain but also because she knows soon their health care costs could skyrocket.

    Monreal, 47, and her husband, Jorge, 57, rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace for health coverage. If Congress doesn’t extend certain ACA tax credits set to expire at the end of the year, their fully subsidized plan will increase in cost, putting it out of reach. Without insurance, they won’t be able to afford his expected knee replacement surgeries, much less the treatment they need for other issues, like her chronic high blood pressure and his high cholesterol.

    “It worries me sometimes, because if you’re not healthy, then you’re not here for your kids,” Monreal said. “It’s a difficult decision, because, OK, do I spend $500 on a doctor’s visit or do I buy groceries?”

    Those are the types of choices facing the millions of Americans whose state or federal marketplace health insurance plans will be up for renewal in November. The enhanced premium tax credits that have made coverage more affordable for low- and middle-income enrollees for the last four years will expire this year if Congress doesn’t extend them. On average, that will more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay for premiums next year, according to an analysis by health care research nonprofit KFF.

    The tax credits are at the heart of the federal government shutdown, in its third week with no end in sight. Democrats have demanded the subsidies be extended as part of any funding deal they sign, while Republicans say they’ll only negotiate on the issue once the government is funded.

    With Congress deadlocked and the open enrollment period for ACA plans approaching on Nov. 1 in most states, Americans like Monreal are left to navigate the unknown.

    More than 24 million people have ACA health insurance, a group including farmers, ranchers, small business owners and other self-employed people who don’t have other health insurance options through their work.

    The enhanced premium tax credits set to expire this year have made costs far more manageable for many of them, allowing some lower-income enrollees to get health care with no premiums and higher earners to pay no more than 8.5% of their income.

    If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to the KFF analysis.

    While some premium tax credits will remain, the level of support will decrease for most enrollees. Anyone earning more than 400% of the poverty level — or around $63,000 per year for a single person — won’t be eligible for the remaining tax credits.

    As a result, especially hard-hit groups will include a small number of higher earners who’ll have to pay a lot more without the extra subsidies and a large number of lower earners who’ll have to pay a small amount more, said Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at KFF.

    With higher premiums, some people will drop out of health insurance altogether, Cox said. When many younger, healthier people inevitably forgo coverage, insurance companies will increase costs for members of the covered population to account for them being older and sicker.

    The change may also strain hospitals, since more uninsured people will need emergency care they can’t afford. That could lead to hospital closures or cost increases.

    “If you have less subsidies for people getting health insurance, you’re going to have less health coverage and less health care,” said Jason Levitis, a senior fellow in the health policy division at the Urban Institute. “People are going to be sicker and die more.”

    Erin Jackson-Hill has allergies, asthma and searing hip pain she’s managing with prescribed medications until she can get a hip replacement. But even with all those conditions, the 56-year-old in Anchorage, Alaska, doesn’t think she can pay for health insurance next year if the ACA subsidies aren’t extended.

    The executive director of two nonprofits, who also cares for her 89-year-old father full time, already pays nearly $500 a month for her premiums. If the subsidies disappear, she plans to forgo health insurance and pay for her asthma and allergy medications out of pocket.

    Jackson-Hill said she worries about what will happen if her hip worsens and she can’t make it up the stairs in her father’s two-story home without treatment.

    “I will have to go to the emergency room, or I’ll have to go bankrupt in order to pay for it,” she said.

    Another ACA enrollee, Salt Lake City freelance filmmaker and adjunct professor Stan Clawson, said he’ll find a way to pay for health insurance next year — even if it means he must buy cheaper groceries or get a new job that provides it.

    Clawson, 49, has lived with paralysis below his abdomen since falling while rock climbing when he was 20. He’s active and generally healthy, but his spinal cord injury has resulted in tendonitis in his shoulders and frequent urinary tract infections.

    He also has to buy catheters to use every time he urinates — a cost he said would add up to around $1,400 a month without insurance.

    “I don’t think a lot of people realize how expensive it is to have a disability,” Clawson said, adding that trying to live without health insurance would be “financially devastating.”

    Chrissy Meehan, a hair stylist in Upper Chichester, Pennsylvania, has a neck condition that may require surgery. She says if ACA subsidies expire, she’ll further delay the procedure.

    The 51-year-old voted for Republican Donald Trump for president last year, something she said she’s almost embarrassed about now that the Republican-led government hasn’t renewed the subsidies that help her afford her coverage through the state marketplace.

    “I work hard, and I’m trying to survive and do it the right way and pay my way,” Meehan said. “I don’t want free. I just want affordable for my income.”

    Health policy analysts note that even if the subsidies are extended, insurance rate hikes for 2026 are already higher because insurers had to factor in their potential expiration when they set premium prices earlier this year.

    There are also concerns the delay will cause chaos, confusion and stress for Americans, some of whom have already started receiving notices that their premiums will skyrocket next year.

    “Once those people say, ’Oh, wait, forget it, I’m out,’ it’s going to be hard to get a lot of them back,” said the Urban Institute’s Levitis.

    Monreal’s husband will likely need both knees replaced, which will force him to take time off his job filling concrete. On their already tight $45,000 joint annual income, budgeting for themselves and their five children will become that much harder.

    The concern over their budget and the uncertainty over their health care coverage send her thoughts into yet another worrisome spiral with just two weeks until open enrollment begins.

    “They haven’t told us nothing,” she said of her insurance provider. “And you know what? At the end, you end up with no health care.”

    ___

    Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press video journalist Tassanee Vejpongsa contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Democrats, holding out for health care, ready to reject government funding bill for 10th time

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up health care benefits.

    The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become as it has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor. House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

    “Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

    Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on health care, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government.

    Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They warned that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

    “We have to do something, and right now, Republicans are letting these tax credits expire,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

    Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s wheels into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.

    Democrats have rallied around their priorities on health care as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

    When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Barack Obama’s signature health care law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to health care research nonprofit KFF.

    Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

    Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

    “They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored health care elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

    Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

    Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the health care system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

    President Donald Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great health care,” but has not meaningfully weighed into the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on health care.

    If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to health care, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.

    Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

    Thune said it would be a step toward getting “the government funded in the traditional way, which is through the annual appropriations process.”

    It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

    While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Senate Democrats, Holding Out for Health Care, Ready to Reject Government Funding Bill for 10th Time

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up health care benefits.

    The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become as it has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor. House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

    “Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

    Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on health care, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government.

    Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They warned that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

    “We have to do something, and right now, Republicans are letting these tax credits expire,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.

    Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s wheels into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.


    A deadline for subsidies on health plans

    Democrats have rallied around their priorities on health care as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

    When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Barack Obama’s signature health care law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to health care research nonprofit KFF.

    Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

    Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

    “They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored health care elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

    Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

    Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

    House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the health care system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

    President Donald Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great health care,” but has not meaningfully weighed into the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on health care.

    If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to health care, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.


    Votes on appropriations bills

    Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

    Thune said it would be a step toward getting “the government funded in the traditional way, which is through the annual appropriations process.”

    It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

    While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Rick Scott on ACA subsidies and abortion

    [ad_1]

    U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said Democrats have shuttered the federal government over hyper-partisan issues: abortion and immigration.

    “Democrats are shutting down the government and harming American families because they want to waste another trillion of your dollars on liberal priorities like health care for illegal aliens and funding for free abortions,” Scott posted Oct. 2 on X. He reshared a post by anti-abortion nonprofit group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.

    Democrats aren’t seeking to fund health care for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. We previously rated that False. Immigrants in the country illegally are largely ineligible for federally funded health care. 

    Scott’s other point, about federal funding for free abortions, is also wrong. Federal law prohibits federal funds for abortions, and Democrats’ Sept. 17 proposal to temporarily extend government funding wouldn’t change this. The discussion is centered around a fight over a longstanding process in some Affordable Care Act plans that separates federal funds from money paid by patients for abortion care coverage.

    The Democratic proposal to temporarily fund the government calls for extending pandemic-era enhanced ACA subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. Without congressional action, researchers estimate insurance premiums will rise by more than 114% on average for enrollees who use subsidies, leading to an estimated 3.8 million more people becoming uninsured over the next 10 years.

    Democrats also seek to roll back about $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts in Republicans’ tax and spending bill that President Donald Trump signed into law in July. The Democrats’ legislation would restore access to certain health care programs for some legal immigrants who will lose access under the Republican law.

    Because some state Affordable Care Act insurance plans cover abortion,anti-abortion advocates say the enhanced federal subsidies Democrats support indirectly fund abortion. But the ACA requires that insurers segregate insurance premiums from enrollees so that money for abortion is separated from federal funds.

    “The ACA is very clear in the statute and there is nothing in it that provides ‘free’ abortions using federal dollars,” Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president and director of the Women’s Health Policy Program at KFF, a health care think tank, told PolitiFact. “Non-federal funds are to be collected by the plans and segregated to be used exclusively to pay for abortions. Federal funds are not used to subsidize tax credits or abortion coverage in any way.”

    PolitiFact contacted Scott’s office but did not hear back.

    Democrats’ proposal doesn’t include funding for free abortions

    Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has barred using federal funds for abortions — except in cases or rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman —including via Medicaid, Medicare and other federal insurance providers. Congress enacts the amendment annually and it’s attached as a rider to annual appropriations bills to ensure government money doesn’t go toward abortions. The restrictions apply to the subsidies that Democrats seek to extend.

    Anti-abortion groups and some Republican lawmakers have pushed to prohibit subsidies’ use in insurance plans that include abortion coverage, and seek to attach the Hyde Amendment to any ACA subsidy extension. Democrats cite the ACA process to separate taxpayer funds and accuse Republicans of using the debate to expand nationwide restrictions on abortion coverage.

    Section 1303 of the health law stipulates that insurers must deposit insurance premiums for abortion services into a separate account and charge each enrollee $1 per month to pay for covered abortion services.

    Anti-abortion advocates say the money is fungible, meaning that once insurance providers have collected it, they can spend it on anything, including abortion.

    Health policy experts say this argument is flawed. The ACA had the same process in place since its 2010 enactment. Then-President Barack Obama issued an executive order that year affirming that the funding restrictions spelled out in the Hyde Amendment apply to Section 1303.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    In 2014, the first year of the federal health care marketplace, a Government Accountability Office report found mixed compliance for the process to separate the funding, and Health and Human Services issued additional guidance instructing insurers how to comply. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion access, HHS reiterated that ACA coverage of abortion services is subject to state law.

    “This is not something new that Democrats are proposing,” said Katie Keith, a Georgetown University health policy researcher and Affordable Care Act expert. “This framework has been in place since the ACA was enacted, and for more than a decade since the marketplace opened.”

    The 2010 law allows states to bar health care plans from covering abortions, which 25 states have done. Twelve states have laws that require marketplace plans to include abortion coverage, while the remainder neither require nor prohibit abortion coverage in ACA plans.

    Research has also found that the ACA’s required monthly minimum of $1 per member for abortion services “exceeds the cost of abortions that plans are paying for with those funds,” KFF wrote in September. For example, one report found that Maryland ACA plans had $25 million in unspent funds from policyholder payments for abortion coverage.

    “Democrats are not touching abortion coverage at all right now,” Keith said. “They are talking about extending the status quo and preventing a premium spike for millions of Americans. When COVID-era ACA extensions were put in place it had nothing to do with abortion then — and it still has nothing to do with abortion now.”

    Our ruling

    Scott said Democrats shut down the government because they are seeking to use taxpayer money on “health care for illegal aliens and funding for free abortions.”

    This distorts the Democratic shutdown proposal on two fronts. 

    Immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally are largely ineligible for federally funded health care; the Democrats’ proposal would restore access to certain health care programs for some legal immigrants who stand to lose access.

    Democrats also are not seeking funding for free abortions. Federal law prohibits federal funds to be used for abortions except in cases or rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant woman. The ACA  requires non-federal funds to be collected by insurance plans and segregated into separate accounts to be used exclusively for abortion services.

    We rate Scott’s statement False.

    PolitiFact staff writer Maria Ramirez Uribe contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Republicans falsely tie shutdown to Democrats wanting health care for immigrants illegally in the US

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown drags on as health care compromise remains elusive

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — To hear party leaders talk, the seventh day of the government shutdown sounded a lot like the first. Democrats are seeking negotiations on expiring health care subsidies while Republicans say they won’t discuss it, or any other policy, until the government reopens.

    The two sides are also offering starkly different visions of the Affordable Care Act and how to deal with the expanded premium assistance that will soon expire for millions of people — Democrats want the aid extended, while Republicans insist the subsidized health care system is broken and must be cut back.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“s6>@4C2ED’ A@D:E:@? 92D ?@E 492?865[” D2:5 $6?2E6 s6>@4C2E:4 {6256C r9F4< $49F>6C] “(6 H2?E E96 D2>6 E9:?8 E92E 2 >2;@C:EJ[ 2? @G6CH96=>:?8 >2;@C:EJ[ @7 p>6C:42?D H2?E[ H9:49 😀 E@ 6?5 E9:D D9FE5@H? 2?5 92=E E96 962=E9 42C6 4C:D:D E92E H:== D6?5 AC6>:F>D DA:<:?8 7@C E6?D @7 >:==:@?D @7 A6@A=6]”k^Am

    kAmw@FD6 $A62<6C k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^C6AF3=:42?DECF>AG@F89ED9FE5@H?4@?8C6DD56>@4C2EDEC2?DA@CE2E:@?_577f`636c7“d763gech2_cdece43d4Qm|:<6 y@9?D@?k^2m[ #{2][ >6E H:E9 $6?2E6 #6AF3=:42?D @? %F6D52J 2?5 D2:5 E96 A2CEJ 😀 “`__T F?:E65[” H9:49 96 D2:5 😀 “2 8@@5 A=246 E@ 36 :?]”k^Am

    kAmxE’D F?4=62C 9@H E96 :>A2DD6 H:== 6?5[ 6G6? 2D 9F?5C65D @7 E9@FD2?5D @7 7656C2= H@C<6CD 2C6 8@:?8 F?A2:5 2?5 >2?J 8@G6C?>6?E D6CG:46D 2C6 D=@H65 @C DFDA6?565] s6>@4C2ED 36=:6G6 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^D9FE5@H?E2I4C65:ED962=E9:?DFC2?46ECF>AA@==@32>242C6523f3`_37`b564bb2ggc57d7h76bcb7eQmE96 AF3=:4 😀 @? E96:C D:56k^2m 2D E96J 7:89E E@ <66A E96 r~’xs6C2 DF3D:5:6D[ 3FE 962=E9 42C6 😀 2=D@ @?6 @7 E96 >@DE :?EC24E23=6 :DDF6D 😕 r@?8C6DD — 2?5 2 C62= 4@>AC@>:D6 😀 F?=:<6=J E@ 36 62DJ[ @C BF:4<]k^Am

    kAm%96C6 2C6 D@>6 #6AF3=:42?D 😕 r@?8C6DD H9@ H2?E E@ 6IE6?5 E96 2:5 2D >:==:@?D @7 A6@A=6 H9@ C646:G6 E96:C :?DFC2?46 E9C@F89 E96 prp >2C<6EA=246D 2C6 D6E E@ C646:G6 ?@E:46D E92E E96:C AC6>:F>D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^4@?8C6DD962=E942C6E2I4C65:ED@32>242C6D9FE5@H?7`66ebe5532f7ed322dabc4dd43_4he6QmH:== :?4C62D6 2E E96 368:??:?8 @7 E96 J62Ck^2m] qFE >2?J v~! =2H>2<6CD 2C6 DEC@?8=J @AA@D65 E@ 2?J 6IE6?D:@? — 2?5 D66 E96 5632E6 2D 2 ?6H @AA@CEF?:EJ E@ ECJ E@ C67@C> E96 AC@8C2>]k^Am

    kAm“x7 #6AF3=:42?D 8@G6C? 3J A@== 2?5 72:= E@ 8C23 E9:D >@>6?E[ E96J H:== @H? :E[” HC@E6 %6I2D #6A] r9:A #@J[ 2 #6AF3=:42?[ 😕 2 =6EE6C AF3=:D965 😕 %96 (2== $EC66E y@FC?2= @G6C E96 H66<6?5] w6 6?4@FC2865 D6?2E@CD ?@E E@ 8@ “H@33=J” @? E96 :DDF6]k^Am

    kAm“%96 ;:8 😀 FA[ E96 A2?56>:4 😀 @G6C 2?5 >J 4@==628F6D D9@F=5?’E 3=:?< 😕 2?J @E96C 5:C64E:@?[” #@J HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:42?D 92G6 366? C2:=:?8 282:?DE E96 p77@C523=6 r2C6 p4E[ 7@C>6C !C6D:56?E q2C24< ~32>2’D D:8?2EFC6 962=E9 42C6 =2H[ D:?46 :E H2D 6?24E65 `d J62CD 28@] qFE H9:=6 E96J 92G6 366? 23=6 E@ 49:A 2H2J 2E :E[ E96J 92G6 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^F?:E65DE2E6D4@?8C6DDd`ag5h47c444c5_2gedd544eegg5gb32Qm?@E 366? 23=6 E@ DF3DE2?E:2==J 2=E6C :Ek^2m 2D 2 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^@32>242C6242962=E942C64@G6C2863:56?ECF>A_4fb5456c2`h262ed43gb56_`7a5d5a6QmC64@C5 ac >:==:@? A6@A=6k^2m 2C6 ?@H D:8?65 FA 7@C :?DFC2?46 4@G6C286 E9C@F89 E96 prp[ 😕 =2C86 A2CE 3642FD6 3:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD 😕 DF3D:5:6D 92G6 >256 E96 A=2?D >@C6 277@C523=6 7@C >2?J A6@A=6]k^Am

    kAm}@H[ D@>6 @7 E96> D66 E96 s6>@4C2ED’ 7:89E 2D E96:C 492?46 E@ C6G:D:E E96 :DDF6 — AFEE:?8 #6AF3=:42? 4@?8C6DD:@?2= =6256CD 2?5 !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 😕 2 4@>A=:42E65 A@D:E:@?]k^Am

    kAm“x 2> 92AAJ E@ H@C< H:E9 s6>@4C2ED @? E96:C u2:=65 w62=E942C6 !@=:4:6D[ @C 2?JE9:?8 6=D6[ 3FE 7:CDE E96J >FDE 2==@H @FC v@G6C?>6?E E@ C6@A6?[” %CF>A HC@E6 @? D@4:2= >65:2 |@?52J ?:89E[ k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^8@G6C?>6?ED9FE5@H?ECF>A4@?8C6DDf5f6e7h3c6da5_d3eha44c_64e4he47bQmH2=<:?8 324< 62C=:6C 4@>>6?EDk^2m D2J:?8 E96C6 H6C6 @?8@:?8 ?68@E:2E:@?D H:E9 s6>@4C2ED]k^Am

    kAmk2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^8@G6C?>6?ED9FE5@H?E9F?62A:?E6CG:6H@>3>6>@e3fh45echgf3e`fb7`3bahd54bd_dhhcQm$6?2E6 |2;@C:EJ {6256C y@9? %9F?6k^2m[ #$]s][ E@=5 C6A@CE6CD |@?52J E92E “E96C6 >2J 36 2 A2E9 7@CH2C5” @? prp DF3D:5:6D[ 3FE DEC6DD65[ “x E9:?< 2 =@E @7 :E H@F=5 4@>6 5@H? E@ H96C6 E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 =2?5D @? E92E]”k^Am

    kAm$@>6 v~! D6?2E@CD 2C8F6[ E9@F89[ E92E E96 @?=J A2E9 7@CH2C5 😀 E@ @G6C92F= E96 =2H] “%96 H9@=6 AC@3=6> H:E9 2== @7 E9:D 😀 ~32>242C6[” D2:5 u=@C:52 $6?] #:4< $4@EE]k^Am

    kAmy@9?D@? D2:5 E96C6 H6C6 @?8@:?8 E2=2E:4 492?86D” E@ E96 =2H E92E r@?8C6DD >:89E 4@?D:56C @?46 E96 8@G6C?>6?E C6@A6?D]k^Am

    kAm%96 $6?2E6 92D ?@H C6;64E65 2 w@FD6A2DD65 3:== E@ 6IE6?5 8@G6C?>6?E 7F?5:?8 F?E:= >:5}@G6>36C 7:G6 E:>6D[ H:E9 s6>@4C2ED 56?J:?8 #6AF3=:42?D E96 G@E6D E@ A2DD :E F?=6DD E96J H:? 4@?46DD:@?D @? 962=E9 42C6]k^Am

    kAm(:E9 =6256CD 2E @55D[ D@>6 C2?<2?57:=6 D6?2E@CD 😕 3@E9 A2CE:6D 92G6 366? 😕 AC:G2E6 E2= @FE] $6?2E6 pAAC@AC:2E:@?D r@>>:EE66 r92:CH@>2? $FD2? r@==:?D[ #|2:?6[ 92D DF886DE65 AFD9:?8 29625 H:E9 2 8C@FA @7 3:A2CE:D2? DA6?5:?8 3:==D E92E 2C6 A6?5:?8 2?5 E96? D64FC:?8 2 4@>>:E>6?E E@ 5:D4FDD E96 962=E9 42C6 :DDF6]k^Am

    kAmqFE >2?J s6>@4C2ED D2J 2 4@>>:E>6?E :D?’E 8@@5 6?@F89[ 2?5 #6AF3=:42?D D2J E96J ?665 566A6C C67@C>D — =62G:?8 E96 E2=6?E[ 2E 2 DE2?5DE:==]k^Am

    kAm|2:?6 $6?] p?8FD z:?8[ 2? :?56A6?56?E H9@ 42F4FD6D H:E9 s6>@4C2ED[ G@E65 H:E9 #6AF3=:42?D E@ <66A E96 8@G6C?>6?E @A6?] qFE 96 D2:5 |@?52J E92E 96 >:89E DH:E49 9:D G@E6 E@ “?@” :7 #6AF3=:42?D 5@ ?@E “@776C D@>6 C62= D@=:5 6G:56?46 E92E E96J 2C6 8@:?8 E@ 96=A FD H:E9 E9:D 4C:D:D” @? 962=E9 42C6]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:42? $6?] |2C2 D2:5 9:D A2CEJ 😀 “?@E 3F58:?8[” 9@H6G6C]k^Am

    kAm“u:CDE 2?5 7@C6>@DE[ 367@C6 H6 42? E2=< 23@FE 2?JE9:?8[ E96J ?665 E@ C6@A6? E96 8@G6C?>6?E[” |F==:? D2:5]k^Am

    kAm$E:==[ D@>6 #6AF3=:42?D D2J E96J 2C6 @A6? E@ 6IE6?5:?8 E96 DF3D:5:6D — 6G6? :7 E96J 5@?’E =:<6 E96> — 2D :E 364@>6D 4=62C E92E E96:C 4@?DE:EF6?ED H:== 7246 C:D:?8 4@DED]k^Am

    kAm“x’> H:==:?8 E@ 4@?D:56C G2C:@FD C67@C>D[ 3FE x E9:?< H6 92G6 E@ 5@ D@>6E9:?8[” D2:5 #6AF3=:42? $6?] y@D9 w2H=6J @7 |:DD@FC:] w6 D2:5 r@?8C6DD D9@F=5 255C6DD E96 :DDF6 “D@@?6C C2E96C E92? =2E6C” 367@C6 @A6? 6?C@==>6?E 368:?D }@G] `]k^Am

    kAm#6A] |2C;@C:6 %2J=@C vC66?6[ #v2][ D2:5 D96 😀 “?@E 2 72?” @7 ~32>242C6 3FE :?5:42E65 D96 >:89E G@E6 E@ 6IE6?5 :E]k^Am

    kAm“x’> 8@:?8 E@ 8@ 282:?DE 6G6CJ@?6 @? E9:D :DDF6 3642FD6 H96? E96 E2I 4C65:ED 6IA:C6 E9:D J62C >J @H? 25F=E 49:=5C6?’D :?DFC2?46 AC6>:F>D 7@C a_ae 2C6 8@:?8 E@ s~&q{t[ 2=@?8 H:E9 2== E96 H@?56C7F= 72>:=:6D 2?5 92C5H@C<:?8 A6@A=6 😕 >J 5:DEC:4E[” D96 A@DE65 @? D@4:2= >65:2 |@?52J 6G6?:?8]k^Am

    kAm(:E9 3@E9 D:56D 5:88:?8 :?[ E96 D9FE5@H? 4@F=5 8@ @? 7@C D@>6 E:>6[ =62G:?8 7656C2= H@C<6CD H:E9@FE E96:C C68F=2C A2J4964A k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A7656C2=H@C<6CD324<32JD9FE5@H?fgd63ffe5ab`a5`7eg7f6h`he`5_2hb2Qm>2J 3=@4< 324< A2J :7 E96 8@G6C?>6?E C6@A6?Dk^2m]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A D:8?65 =68:D=2E:@? :?E@ =2H 😕 a_`h E92E 6?DFC6D 324< A2J 7@C 7656C2= H@C<6CD 5FC:?8 2?J 8@G6C?>6?E 7F?5:?8 =2AD6] qFE 2 (9:E6 w@FD6 >6>@ H:E9 E96 C2E:@?2=6 7@C ?@ 324< A2J 😀 F?56C 4@?D:56C2E:@?]k^Am

    kAmy@9?D@? E@=5 C6A@CE6CD %F6D52J E92E 96 5@6D?’E @H E96 56E2:=D @7 E96 >6>@[ 3FE “:7 E92E 😀 ECF6[ E92E D9@F=5 EFC? FA E96 FC86?4J 2?5 E96 ?646DD:EJ @7 E96 s6>@4C2ED 5@:?8 E96 C:89E E9:?8 96C6]”k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2ED AFD965 324< @? E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 C2E:@?2=6] “u656C2= H@C<6CD[ :?4=F5:?8 7FC=@F8965 H@C<6CD[ 2C6 6?E:E=65 E@ E96:C 324< A2J 7@==@H:?8 2 D9FE5@H?[” D2:5 (2D9:?8E@? $6?] !2EEJ |FCC2J[ E96 E@A s6>@4C2E @? E96 $6?2E6 pAAC@AC:2E:@?D r@>>:EE66]k^Am

    kAm%96 (9:E6 w@FD6 2=D@ D2:5 %F6D52J E92E :E H:== FD6 E2C:77 C6G6?F6 E@ 3@=DE6C E96 $A64:2= $FAA=6>6?E2= }FEC:E:@? !C@8C2> 7@C k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^H:48@G6C?>6?ED9FE5@H?7@@52:5f3`5d74b`f3ad3fh_`d62bbd`hf7bf35Qm(@>6?[ x?72?ED 2?5 r9:=5C6?k^2m[ H9:49 😀 724:?8 7F?5:?8 D9@CE286D 3642FD6 @7 E96 D9FE5@H?]k^Am

    kAm!C6DD D64C6E2CJ z2C@=:?6 {62G:EE D2:5 😕 2 A@DE @? ) E92E %CF>A 92D “:56?E:7:65 2 4C62E:G6 D@=FE:@? E@ EC2?D76C C6D@FC46D” 7C@> E2C:77D E96 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D :>A@D65 @? &]$] EC25:?8 A2CE?6CD] $96 5:5 ?@E AC@G:56 56E2:=D @7 9@H DF49 7F?5:?8 EC2?D76CD >:89E H@C<]k^Am

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By MARY CLARE JALONICK, LISA MASCARO and KEVIN FREKING – Associated Press

    Source link

  • New Mexico governor signs bills to counter federal cuts

    [ad_1]

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a package of bills Friday aimed at shoring up food assistance, rural health care and public broadcasting in response to recently enacted federal cuts.

    The new legislation responds to President Donald Trump’s big bill as well as fear that health insurance rates will rise with the expiration of COVID-era subsidies to the Affordable Care Act exchange in New Mexico. Exchange subsidies are a major point of contention in the Washington budget standoff and related federal government shutdown.

    New Mexico would set aside $17 million to backfill the federal credits if they are not renewed, under legislation signed by the governor.

    The Democratic-led Legislature met on Wednesday and Thursday to approved $162 million in state spending on rural health care, food assistance, restocking food banks, public broadcast and more.

    Starting this year, New Mexico expects to lose about $200 million annually because of new federal tax cuts. But the state still has a large budget surplus thanks to booming oil production.

    “When federal support falls short, New Mexico steps up,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

    Many federal health care changes under Trump’s big bill don’t kick in until 2027 or later, and Democratic legislators in New Mexico acknowledged that their bills are only a temporary bandage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Mexico Governor Signs Bills to Counter Federal Cuts, Support Health Care and Food Assistance

    [ad_1]

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a package of bills Friday aimed at shoring up food assistance, rural health care and public broadcasting in response to recently enacted federal cuts.

    The new legislation responds to President Donald Trump’s big bill as well as fear that health insurance rates will rise with the expiration of COVID-era subsidies to the Affordable Care Act exchange in New Mexico. Exchange subsidies are a major point of contention in the Washington budget standoff and related federal government shutdown.

    New Mexico would set aside $17 million to backfill the federal credits if they are not renewed, under legislation signed by the governor.

    The Democratic-led Legislature met on Wednesday and Thursday to approved $162 million in state spending on rural health care, food assistance, restocking food banks, public broadcast and more.

    Starting this year, New Mexico expects to lose about $200 million annually because of new federal tax cuts. But the state still has a large budget surplus thanks to booming oil production.

    “When federal support falls short, New Mexico steps up,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

    Many federal health care changes under Trump’s big bill don’t kick in until 2027 or later, and Democratic legislators in New Mexico acknowledged that their bills are only a temporary bandage.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Europe Must Fight Tax Fraud Gangs, Corruption, EU Chief Prosecutor Says

    [ad_1]

    ATHENS (Reuters) -Europe is losing an estimated 50 billion euros ($58 billion) a year from tax and customs fraud, which are now the most attractive criminal activities in the bloc, and more needs to be done to fight the gangs responsible, the EU’s top prosecutor said. 

    Laura Codruta Kovesi was speaking on Thursday at Piraeus port in Athens, where The European Public Prosecutor’s Office has been carrying out a major probe. 

    “We want to send the criminals behind this massive fraud a strong message: the rules of the game have changed, no more safe havens for you!” Kovesi told reporters at Piraeus. “We have to fight back. As Europeans.”

    EPPO has been probing a string of fraud cases that have rocked Greece, including a case dubbed “Calypso” that involved alleged gangs extending from China to at least 14 EU countries, which were operating out of Piraeus.  

    The agency has confiscated over 2,400 shipping containers at the port, which is majority-owned by China’s COSCO, in the largest seizure to date across the EU. 

    Gangs allegedly underreported the value of goods coming from China into the EU, resulting in lost VAT revenue and duties of around 800 million euros since 2017, EPPO says.

    EPPO’s investigations in recent years have also indicated that state corruption, which helped plunge Greece into a 2009-2018 debt crisis, has not been uprooted. Some of the cases have hurt the centre-right government’s popularity.    

    During her visit to Greece this week, Kovesi said she sought the deployment of more prosecutors and resources for EPPO in Athens. Ministers pledged support.

    She also urged Greece to amend laws protecting politicians from prosecution, adding that such immunity hinders EPPO’s probes. 

    EPPO has referred two cases to the Greek parliament, the only body that can investigate ministers under the constitution. 

    One of them is linked to Greece’s worst rail disaster in 2023. The most recent case relates to Greek farmers and state officials suspected of defrauding the EU of subsidies for the use of pastureland since 2019.

    (Reporting by Renee Maltezou; Adidtional reporting Yannis Souliotis; Editing by Sharon Singleton)

    Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Reuters

    Source link

  • Looming Health Insurance Spikes for Millions Are at the Heart of the Government Shutdown

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. government shut down Wednesday, with Democratic lawmakers insisting that any deal address their health care demands and Republicans saying those negotiations can happen after the government is funded.

    At issue are tax credits that have made health insurance more affordable for millions of people since the COVID-19 pandemic. The subsidies, which go to low- and middle-income people who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, are slated to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn’t extend them. Their expiration would more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay for premiums next year, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care issues.

    Democrats have demanded that the subsidies, first put in place in 2021 and extended a year later, be extended again. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’smega-bill passed this summer, which don’t go into effect immediately but are already driving some states to cut Medicaid payments to health providers.

    Some Republicans have expressed an openness to extending the tax credits, acknowledging many of their constituents will see steep hikes in insurance premiums. But the party’s lawmakers in Congress argue negotiations over health care will take time, and a stopgap measure to get the government funded is a more urgent priority.


    Health insurance rates will skyrocket for millions without congressional action

    A record 24 million people have signed up for insurance coverage through the ACA, in large part because billions of dollars in subsidies have made the plans more affordable for many people.

    With the expanded subsidies in place, some lower-income enrollees can get health care with no premiums, and high earners pay no more than 8.5% of their income. Eligibility for middle-class earners is also expanded.

    When the tax credits expire at the end of 2025, enrollees across the income spectrum will see costs spike. Annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to the KFF analysis.


    Millions expected to lose Medicaid coverage without changes to Trump’s big bill

    Republicans’ tax and spending bill passed this summer includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food assistance over the next decade, largely by imposing new work requirements on those receiving aid and by shifting certain federal costs onto the states.

    Medicaid’s programs, which serve low-income Americans, enroll roughly 78 million adults and children. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects 10 million additional Americans will become uninsured in the next decade as a result of Republicans’ law, between Medicaid and other federal health care programs.

    Democrats want to roll back the Medicaid cuts in any government funding measure, while Republicans have argued that cuts are needed to reduce federal deficits and eliminate what they say is waste and fraud in the system.


    Democrats say health care can’t wait

    Democrats have insisted an extension of the health subsidies needs to be negotiated immediately as people are beginning to receive notices of premium increases for next year.

    “In just a few days, notices will go out to tens of millions of Americans because of the Republican refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

    He added the higher health care costs millions of Americans are facing are coming “in an environment where the cost of living is already too high.”

    At the White House on Monday, congressional Democratic leaders shared their health care concerns with Trump. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said after the meeting that Trump “was not aware” that so many Americans would see increases to their health care costs.


    Republicans call for stopgap funding first, and a negotiation later

    Republican leaders say they handed Democrats a noncontroversial stopgap funding measure and argue that Democrats are instead choosing to shut the government down.

    “We didn’t ask Democrats to swallow any new Republican policies,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said after Tuesday’s failed vote. “We didn’t add partisan riders. We simply asked Democrats to extend the existing funding levels, to allow the Senate to continue the bipartisan appropriations work that we started. And the Senate Democrats said no.”

    Republican leaders have offered to negotiate with Democrats on ACA health insurance subsidies — but only once they vote to keep the government open until Nov. 21.

    “I will go to the Capitol right now to talk to Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats about premium support for the Affordable Care Act, but only after they’ve reopened the government,” Vice President JD Vance said Wednesday on Fox News.

    That might be easier said than done, with many Republicans in Congress still strongly opposed to extending the enhanced tax credits.

    Swenson reported from New York.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Would rural areas be hit twice as hard if subsidies lapse?

    [ad_1]

    As Republicans and Democrats careened toward an Oct. 1 government shutdown, the parties clashed over whether to pass a clean extension of federal funding, as Republicans sought, or to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies, as Democrats wanted.

    In an interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation” — aired Sept. 28, three days before government funding was set to run out — Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said that if Republicans failed to extend the expiring subsidies, many Americans would see a big hit in their out-of-pocket health insurance costs. 

    Klobuchar said rural Americans, including farmers, would be hit disproportionately.

    “Republicans have created a health care crisis,” Klobuchar said. “My constituents, Americans, are standing on a cliff right now with these insurance premium increases that are upon them. So, Democrats are united in pushing on this and saying, look, let us do something about this crisis before it is too late — a 75% increase in premiums starting Nov. 1 on people who are small business owners, people who are farmers out there, twice as much in the rural areas.”

    We previously rated the 75% talking point Mostly True. (The group that made that estimate subsequently upped it to 114%.)

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Klobuchar’s “twice as much” comparison can be interpreted in more than one way. By one of those readings — the one her office said she intended, that rural enrollees would see their out-of-pocket costs double — Klobuchar is correct.

    What are enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies?

    People who use the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces can buy health insurance from providers at various levels of coverage and varying premium costs. Most purchasers obtain subsidies, as long as they meet the income guidelines. 

    In 2021, then-President Joe Biden signed legislation that made Affordable Care Act subsidies more generous. The law reduced the maximum amount purchasers would have to pay for coverage and enabled subsidies for households with incomes higher than 400% of the federal poverty level. Previously, the subsidies were capped at 400% of the poverty limit for a household. In 2024, that amounted to $60,240 for a one-person household. That figure increases depending on the number of people in the household.

    Congress renewed these enhanced subsidies in 2022 through the end of 2025, so they are now poised to expire.

    The subsidies proved popular. The number of people receiving them increased from 12 million in 2021 to 21.4 million in 2024, according to an analysis of federal data by KFF, a health care think tank.

    Where does the 75% figure come from?

    Using 2024 federal data, KFF calculated the average annual premium for enrollees who received enhanced subsidies. The government paid $5,727 of the total premium under the original Affordable Care Act subsidy rules. Another $888 came out of the beneficiary’s pocket.

    The enhanced subsidy provision covered the final portion, $705. If the enhanced subsidy disappeared and the enrollee had to pay both the $888 and the $705 amounts, that would total $1,593. That’s about 79% more than the same person was paying with the enhanced subsidies in place — close to Klobuchar’s 75% figure.

    On Sept. 30, two days after Klobuchar’s remarks, KFF released a new estimate that showed an even higher out-of-pocket increase of 114%, superseding the group’s previous 79% figure.

    Will the out-of-pocket hit be “twice as much in the rural areas”?

    There are at least two ways to interpret Klobuchar’s statement: that she was comparing rural enrollees’ costs with people living elsewhere, or comparing their costs with what they paid before.

    Klobuchar’s office told PolitiFact that the senator referred to rural enrollees’ out-of-pocket costs doubling compared with what they would pay with a continuation of enhanced subsidies. (That aligns with what Klobuchar has said in other settings.) 

    This is accurate, according to an analysis by the Century Foundation, which describes itself as a “progressive, independent think tank” and which Klobuchar’s office told PolitiFact is the source of her talking point about rural impact,

    The Century Foundation analysis concluded that out-of-pocket insurance costs in rural counties would increase on average from $713 to $1,473 — a 107% increase, or slightly more than a doubling. 

    By contrast, the increase for people in urban counties was 89%.

    But there’s less evidence to support the interpretation some might have drawn from Klobuchar’s statement: that rural enrollees would experience a hit twice as big as enrollees elsewhere. The Century Foundation analysis found that’s not the case.

    In its August analysis, the Century Foundation separated out the impacts of expiring subsidies by several demographic factors, including whether a county is predominantly rural.

    The group found that enrollees in rural counties would, on average, see out-of-pocket increases of $760 from expiring enhanced subsidies, compared with $624 for all counties and $593 for urban counties. That means the rural increase would be 22% larger than the increase for enrollees overall, and 28% larger than the increase for urban enrollees. 

    That amounts to a disproportionately large increase for rural areas, but not twice as much.

    Our ruling

    Klobuchar said people with Affordable Care Act insurance will see a “75% increase in premiums starting Nov. 1,” if enhanced subsidies are not extended, including “people who are farmers out there — twice as much in the rural areas.”

    A KFF analysis found that the disappearance of enhanced subsidies would increase out-of-pocket health care costs by an average of 79%, which is close to 75%. (KFF subsequently raised its estimate to 114%.)

    A Century Foundation analysis found that the increase in out-of-pocket costs for Affordable Care Act insurance wouldn’t be twice as big for rural enrollees, which is one way to interpret Klobuchar’s comment. The rural cost increase would be 22% bigger than for enrollees overall and 28% bigger than for urban enrollees.

    However, the way Klobuchar’s office said she intended the statement — that rural enrollees would pay twice as much out of pocket for their coverage than they did before an expiration of the enhanced subsidies — is accurate, because the study found that costs in rural counties would increase by 107%.

    The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Thune says a shutdown can still be avoided if Democrats ‘dial back’ their demands

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune is rejecting Democratic demands on health care as unserious but says a government shutdown is still “avoidable” despite sharp divisions ahead of Wednesday’s funding deadline.

    “I’m a big believer that there’s always a way out,” the South Dakota Republican said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. “And I think there are off-ramps here, but I don’t think that the negotiating position, at least at the moment, that the Democrats are trying to exert here is going to get you there.”

    Thune said Democrats are going to have to “dial back” their demands, which include immediately extending health insurance subsidies and reversing the health care policies in the massive tax bill that Republicans passed over the summer. Absent that, Thune said, “we’re probably plunging forward toward the shutdown.”

    It’s just the latest standoff in Washington over government funding, stretching back through several administrations. President Donald Trump was the driving force behind the longest shutdown ever during his first term, as he sought money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall. This time it is Democrats who are making demands as they face intense pressure from their core supporters to stand up to the Republican president and his policies.

    Democrats have shown little signs of relenting, just before spending runs out Wednesday. Their position remained the same even after the White House Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday released a memo that said agencies should consider a “reduction in force” for many federal programs if the government closes — meaning thousands of federal workers could be permanently laid off.

    Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the OMB memo was simply an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted the “unnecessary firings will either be overturned in court or the administration will end up hiring the workers back.”

    Thune stopped short of criticizing the White House threat of mass layoffs, saying the situation remains “a hypothetical.” Still, he said no one should be surprised by the memo as “everyone knows Russ Vought,” the head of the Office of Management and Budget, and his longtime advocacy for slashing government.

    “But it’s all avoidable,” Thune said. “And so if they don’t want to go down that path, there’s a way to avoid going down that path.”

    One way to avoid a shutdown, Thune said, would be for enough Democrats to vote with Republicans for a stripped-down “clean” bill to keep the government open for the next seven weeks while negotiations on spending continue. That’s how Republicans avoided a shutdown in March, when Schumer and several other Democrats decided at the last minute to vote with Republicans — to great political cost when Schumer’s party then revolted.

    A seven-week funding bill has already passed the House.

    “What would eight Democrats be willing to support?” Thune asked. “In terms of a path forward, or at least understanding what that path forward looks like.”

    Republicans in the 100-member Senate need at least seven Democrats to vote with them to get the 60 votes necessary for a short-term funding package, and they may lose up to two of their own — Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky both opposed it in preliminary votes last week. A competing bill from Democrats also fell well short of 60 votes.

    Thune suggested some individual bipartisan bills to fund parts of the government for the next year could be part of a compromise, “but that requires cooperation from both sides,” he said.

    Democrats say they are frustrated that Thune hasn’t approached them to negotiate — and that Trump abruptly canceled a meeting with Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York that had been scheduled for this week. Trump wrote on social media, “I have decided that no meeting with their Congressional Leaders could possibly be productive.”

    Thune said he “did have a conversation with the president” and offered his opinion on the meeting, which he declined to disclose. “But I think the president speaks for himself, and I think he came to the conclusion that that meeting would not be productive,” Thune said.

    Still, he says he thinks Trump could be open to a negotiation on the expanded health care subsidies that expire at the end of the year if Democrats weren’t threatening a shutdown. Many people who receive the subsidies through the marketplaces set up by the Affordable Care Act are expected to see a sharp rise in premiums if Congress doesn’t extend them.

    Some Republicans have agreed with Democrats that keeping the subsidies is necessary, but Thune says “reform is going to have to be a big part of it.” Democrats are likely to oppose such changes.

    By Monday, when the Senate returns to session, lawmakers will have just over 24 hours to avoid federal closures.

    Thune said he intends to bring up the bills that were rejected last week. “They’ll get multiple chances to vote,” he said, before a government shutdown begins at midnight Wednesday.

    He said he hopes “cooler heads will prevail.”

    “I don’t think shutdowns benefit anybody, least of all the American people,” Thune said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Gov. Stein requests $13.5B more from Congress for Hurricane Helene recovery

    [ad_1]

    FLAT ROCK, N.C. — North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein on Monday requested $13.5 billion more from Congress in recovery aid for Hurricane Helene almost a year after the historic storm, saying additional help is needed from Washington to address record amounts of damage and to get funds to the region quicker.

    The proposal also asks the federal government to distribute an additional $9.4 billion in federal funds that the state has already requested or is expecting but first needs additional action from U.S. agencies.

    Stein’s administration says $5.2 billion in federal funds have already been allocated or obligated to western North Carolina for Helene relief, in contrast to the estimated $60 billion damage and costs incurred from the September 2024 storm and related flooding. Officials said there were over 100 storm-related deaths in the state.

    “We are grateful for every federal dollar that we have received because it brings us closer to recovery. But we need more help,” Stein during a news conference at Blue Ridge Community College in Henderson County, about 30 miles south of Asheville. “The next stage of recovery is going to require a new commitment from Congress and from the administration to not forget the people of western North Carolina.”

    Stein, who said he plans to take his request to Washington on Wednesday, has tried to find a balance between building rapport with President Donald Trump’s administration on recovery activities and criticizing delays. On Monday, he cited “extra layers of bureaucratic review” slowing down reimbursements to local governments. More relief money has been permitted for distribution in recent weeks.

    “Recovery costs money, more money than any city or county in western North Carolina can manage even from a cash flow standpoint,” Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer, who co-chairs an Helene recovery advisory commission, said Monday.

    The Democratic governor and his Helene recovery office has often cited a bar chart they say shows relatively meager financial assistance received so far from the federal government as a percentage of total storm-related costs compared to what was provided for other recent U.S. hurricanes.

    “Western North Carolina has not received anywhere near what it needs, nor our fair share,” he said.

    About $8.1 billion of the $13.5 billion that Stein is requesting would go to the state’s already approved disaster recovery block grant program. More than one-third of that portion would help rebuild or replace thousands of homes and businesses, provide rental assistance and perform storm mitigation activities.

    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development already has awarded $1.65 billion of these block grants to the state and to Asheville. Other block grant money requested Monday would go to fund forgivable loans for small business, the construction of private and municipal bridges, and support for homeless individuals.

    Other newly requested funds would include nearly $1.6 billion to increase reimbursements to rebuild major roads, including Interstate 40 and I-26; and $1.75 billion toward “Special Community Disaster Loans” to help local governments provide essential services.

    The state legislature and state agencies already have provided another $3.1 billion toward Helene recovery since last fall.

    It’s unclear how Monday’s broad proposal — addressed to Trump and North Carolina’s congressional delegation — will be received by the president and Congress in full. When Stein made a pitch for supplemental recovery funds from the federal government earlier this month, a White House spokesperson said the request was evidence that he is unfit to run a state.”

    Meanwhile, the region’s tourist economy received a boost on Monday when the National Park Service announced that a 27-mile stretch of a popular scenic route has reopened with the completion of two projects that repaired damage from a landslide. The opening also provides transportation access to the adjoining Mount Mitchell State Park that features the tallest peak east of the Mississippi River.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The House Republican risking GOP backlash to save Obamacare subsidies

    [ad_1]

    Among all the troublemaking members House Republican leaders have to deal with, Rep. Jen Kiggans isn’t on their list of problem children. That might be changing.

    A former Navy helicopter pilot, nurse practitioner and mother of four, the 54-year-old Virginian is seen in the Republican Conference as something of a model member, hailing from one of the toughest swing districts in the country. She is viewed by her peers as personable and a team player. Of all the places Mike Johnson might have gone on the eve of the 2024 elections, the speaker chose to spend time with Kiggans — a strong show of leadership support for a freshman.

    But Kiggans, now in her second term, has decided to stick her neck out on what’s shaping up to be one of the most politically explosive policy fights of the fall: the battle over extending boosted Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies that are due to expire on Dec. 31. Congressional budget forecasters are predicting major premium hikes if the subsidies sunset, which would force millions of people to drop health insurance coverage.

    Twelve Republicans and seven Democrats are backing legislation that would enact a one-year extension of the subsidies, which are implemented in the form of enhanced tax credits. Kiggans is the lead sponsor and the GOP face of the effort.

    In an interview, she called an extension good politics — and good for her constituents.

    “In six weeks or so, people will get a notice that their health care premiums are going to go up by thousands of dollars,” said Kiggans. “And at the end of the year … for people that either have this type of insurance and work in small businesses, are self-employed, you know, I worry about their access to health care.”

    The latest Capitol Hill clash over preserving health care policies enacted by Democrats, however, is shaping up to be a central battle in government funding negotiations ahead of a Sept. 30 shutdown deadline — and driving a rift inside the GOP in ways that echo party infighting over scaling back Medicaid in President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” The dispute is also now pitting centrists like Kiggans against conservatives who have fought for years to undo the Affordable Care Act. And it carries major political stakes for Republicans as they gear up for their fight to keep control of the House next year.

    The Democrats’ 2010 health law first provided for tax credits to help make premiums more affordable under the new insurance plans. But the 2021 Covid relief package supercharged those credits, making them more generous for people with lower incomes but also accessible to individuals making up to $600,000 a year. It’s that “enhanced” version of the credits that will expire at the end of the 2025 without congressional action.

    One senior House Republican, granted anonymity to share their private view of Kiggans’ support for the subsidies, suggested she’ll be given latitude by her colleagues and leadership to follow her instincts on the credits’ fate: “Kiggans does her homework, and she understands her base or constituency and what needs to be done.”

    Still, she’s finding herself caught in the middle of warring factions that could test the positive relationships she’s built during her short time in office, while also putting her political future at risk.

    She’s going up against a swath of hard-liners who in the coming days plan to ramp up their coordinated campaign against any extension, in part by arguing that the subsidies are used to cover abortions. Conservatives also say the tax credits are too expensive, and they are generally loath to support any policy tied to the Affordable Care Act.

    Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview Thursday it would be “awful” if Johnson capitulates to demands from moderates like Kiggans to extend the enhanced ACA credits. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the hard-line contingent, called the subsidies “free giveaways to insurance companies.”

    Mindful of the intraparty fissures around this issue, Johnson has so far been careful not to say whether he endorses an extension, and certainly isn’t tying it to a government funding package needed to avert a shutdown before Oct. 1. Republicans who support Kiggans’ crusade privately believe their best bet for victory is securing the extension in a second funding measure at the end of the year, but Democrats are making this linkage a condition of their support for the immediate stopgap spending measure.

    “There’s a range of opinion on it,” Johnson said in a brief interview earlier this month. “It doesn’t expire until the end of the year, so we have time to figure it out.”

    Kiggans has a track record of breaking with her party on some big issues but not tanking legislation to gain leverage. For instance, she was among the most vocal critics of the GOP megabill’s targeting of clean energy tax credits that are benefitting her district, but she still voted for the new law. She said this past week she didn’t plan to shut down the government to get her way on the ACA tax credits, either.

    “I represent a big military district,” she explained, “and people who rely on those federal paychecks.”

    But Democrats, who see Kiggans’ seat as a prime pick-up opportunity in 2026, accuse her of being duplicitous.

    “Jen Kiggans cast a decisive vote to rip away health care from 350,000 Virginians, and just this week three health care clinics in the Commonwealth were forced to shutter as a direct result of her vote,” said Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, in a statement that referred to Kiggans’ vote for the GOP megabill.

    “Kiggans wants to trick voters before she is up for reelection, then sell them out right after,” Cousin added. “She is everything wrong with Washington politicians.”

    Kiggans is working to thread the needle. She said she agrees with fellow Republicans that the credits are expensive and need to expire eventually. But she also made the case that her party needs to create “a longer runway” to discuss how to soften the blow of phasing out the enhanced credits completely.

    “It’s time to end these tax credits, but when it comes to health care, it’s not quite as easy as letting them expire, especially when it’s something at the end of the calendar year,” Kiggans said. “And I’m not alone. There’s people on both sides of the aisle that feel the same way. And these are common-sense members of Congress that care about health care.”

    Democratic co-sponsors of her bill include Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, the co-chairs of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition. Among the Republican supporters are Reps. David Valadao of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona and Mike Lawler of New York — some of the most endangered incumbents of the election cycle.

    But senior House Republicans have questioned the strategy Kiggans and her group is pursuing, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly about private conversations. These Republicans are, in particular, critical of the rollout of her bill, which did not include any of the reforms Kiggans acknowledged are needed to the larger program.

    This “clean” extension, many in the GOP feel, could put Republicans in a tough spot, including Kiggans’ fellow frontliners who have not signed onto her effort.

    “Full credits with high wage earners is too far for most Republicans,” said one of the senior House GOP Republicans, referring to how Kiggans’ bill would fully extend the premium tax credit for one year rather than to put new income limits on an extension, as some Republicans have suggested doing.

    Some vulnerable GOP incumbents who haven’t yet signed onto Kiggans’ bill also acknowledged an income cap and other reforms will likely be part of any compromise.

    “We want to make sure that affordability is maintained as best as possible for people,” Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R-Pa.) said in an interview, while adding, “I know there are some concerns that some have expressed about high-income individuals being eligible.”

    Kiggans said the value of her one-year extension bill is that it would, indeed, force a discussion about how to either continue the subsidies responsibly or wind them down in a thoughtful way. She advocated for a scenario where members could come to the table and hash out a long-term solution, recalling the consensus-building exercise that took place around making changes to Medicaid as part of the megabill.

    “That took a lot of meetings, a lot of late nights, a lot of discussions with people who happen to have skin in the game,” said Kiggans.

    There are plenty of Republicans who believe Kiggans should stay the course and leadership should follow, warning an expiration of the premium tax credits could cost the GOP dearly in the midterms.

    A July poll by veteran GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio found that Republicans have an “opportunity to overcome a current generic ballot deficit” in 2026 if they allow an extension. Letting them expire, according to that same survey, would cause an expected three-point deficit for a generic Republican to plunge to 15.

    Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that “everybody’s voice is being heard” on whether to extend the ACA subsidies.

    “I think we’re having internal discussions now about, kind of, where we are as a conference and what’s feasible and what’s not feasible,” Hudson said in a brief interview last week. “I’ll wait and see how that develops before I say anything publicly.”

    Kiggans insisted her party can’t afford to wait.

    “Republicans need to lead on this issue,” she said. “And we can.”

    Cassandra Dumay and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Uncle Sam is investing now. What could possibly go wrong?

    [ad_1]

    When President Donald Trump announced in August that the federal government took an equity stake in Intel, he bragged that taxpayers had “paid zero” for part of a company now “worth $11 billion.” In reality, taxpayers paid plenty: $8.9 billion in subsidies with potentially more to come. The government simply dressed up the giveaway as an investment, which some leaders see as only the beginning.

    If you’re not deafened by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s cheers, you’ll hear economists from the right and the left expressing alarm. Politicians picking winners, subsidizing favored firms, and now grabbing government ownership stakes create the market distortions that conservatives once decried.

    Also, acting as both regulator and shareholder generates conflicts of interest on an epic scale. Will Washington regulate Intel as forcefully as the company’s competitors or tilt the field? The question answers itself.

    As troubling as the deal is, some policymakers now say it should be only a “down payment” on a U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF). National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett recently told CNBC that “many, many countries” have SWFs and suggested that the Intel stake moves America in that direction.

    This idea is terrible.

    More than 90 countries operate SWFs, but look closer. These funds exist in one of two environments: undemocratic regimes like China and the United Arab Emirates (UAE); or in resource-rich countries like Norway and Kuwait whose governments generate consistent budget surpluses, often from oil and gas revenues that they then invest.

    As my Mercatus Center colleague Jack Salmon explains in a detailed Substack post, Norway has the world’s largest fund. Over the past 15 years, it’s also run average surpluses equal to nearly 10 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Singapore, often cited for its model SWF, runs an average fiscal surplus of 3.6 percent. The petroleum-rich UAE posts surpluses of about 3 percent.

    The United States has no surplus, running average deficits of 7 percent of GDP over the same period. Gross U.S. debt is roughly $37 trillion, with Congress flirting with adding another $116 trillion over the next 30 years if it doesn’t reform entitlement programs.

    Washington doesn’t have spare revenue; it borrows to pay bills, such as growing interest on debt we already owe. To propose borrowing even more to play the role of investment manager is fiscal madness.

    SWF advocates argue that the government can exploit a supposed “free money” arbitrage by borrowing at the risk-free rate (via Treasury securities) and then investing at the higher market rate. That premise collapses under scrutiny.

    First, the interest rates tied to this process aren’t permanently low; they rise when debt looks unsustainable, as America’s debt surely does. Second, even if borrowing costs appear lower than investment returns, private investors already pursue these opportunities. The U.S. capital market is not short of money. There’s no gain for society when the government simply displaces private investors and leaves taxpayers to shoulder both risk and additional debt.

    SWFs are political institutions and unlike private investors, governments are never disciplined by profit and loss. As then–presidential candidate Barack Obama once warned in 2008, they can be “motivated by more than just market considerations.” Their portfolios, as Salmon documents, have become playgrounds for lobbying, regulatory capture, and ideological crusades.

    In Australia, successive governments have redirected the “Future Fund” toward politically convenient projects. In New Zealand, the “Superannuation Fund” has been divesting from politically disfavored investments. South Korea’s fund has been repeatedly reshaped by bureaucratic infighting.

    Strictly speaking, these three are not classic sovereign wealth funds, but that distinction is irrelevant here. Once governments pool and invest large sums outside normal budget processes, the money becomes politicized. The evidence is overwhelming that funds become crony-capitalist tools vulnerable to shifting political winds and mission creep. They don’t insulate politics from markets; they inject politics into every investment decision.

    An American SWF would entrench rent seeking on a scale unseen since New Deal corporatist experiments. Picture trillions invested directly into equities and bonds, with Washington deciding which industries deserve support. Imagine policy decisions about energy, tech, labor standards, and even foreign relations warped by the government’s financial stake.

    Once Uncle Sam starts acquiring slices of corporate pies, the temptation to steer regulation to protect his portfolio will be overwhelming. And to those on the right who think Republicans have the proper values to pull this off, remember that you won’t always be in power.

    We don’t need another subsidy machine disguised as investment. We have something better: the U.S. economy itself. The best way to strengthen it is not through bureaucrats buying equities but by enacting structural reforms to strengthen every sector for every worker and consumer. That means lowering regulatory barriers, restraining spending, and fixing entitlements.

    COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

    [ad_2]

    Veronique de Rugy

    Source link