Tag: democratic party
Democrats Must Address Looming Cost Spike In Private Health Insurance

Democrats Must Address Looming Cost Spike In Private Health Insurance

Here’s the good news. The Democratic Party’s demand that Congress extend the Affordable Care Act premium subsidies in exchange for helping end the government shutdown is fracturing the GOP monolith.

In recent social media posts, Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) articulated what every legislator on the GOP side of the aisle knows but won’t admit. Out-of-pocket costs for ACA plans will skyrocket next year if the enhanced subsidies passed by the Biden administration during the pandemic are allowed to expire.

“This is a major crisis in America,” she said this week on NewsNation, a conservative cable news network. “We’re looking at a massive spike in health premiums. It’s going to crush people. They’re going to have to drop their health insurance. That will put a lot of people in danger of becoming bankrupt with health care bills, with hospital bills,” she said.

Even Donald Trump, ever the prevaricator, has begun toying publicly with opening negotiations with Democrats after Greene made her comments.

But she went further. It is not just the 24 million people on ACA plans who will get hit hard with average premiums more than doubling to more than $1900 a month (before subsidies) without the enhanced premium subsidies. “People with regular or private plans, their premiums are looking to go up a median of 18 percent. That’s brutal,” she said.

Always fast and loose with her facts, Greene’s claim that private health plan premiums will rise 18% is more than double what employer benefits consultants are predicting. But there’s no doubt huge spikes in employer premiums and employee co-premiums are coming. Both will likely to see near double-digit increases.

That’s the issue I want to address in today’s post because it represents a messaging minefield for Democrats, even if they win an extension of the ACA plan subsidies.

Where’s the rest of us?

During September, there was an interesting debate within the Democratic Party about what to demand from the GOP majority before giving them the votes needed to keep the government running beyond September 30th. Progressives wanted to focus on limiting the Trump regime’s flagrant violations of the law and constitution. Centrists, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), preferred putting health care — usually a winning issue for Democrats — front and center. The centrist majority won the day.

The political wisdom of the leaders’ decision now seems vindicated. As Jonathan Cohn wrote yesterday in The Bulwark (his post was headlined “The Democrats Are Winning the Shutdown Fight”):

“A big premium spike can be a political nightmare for the party in charge, as anybody who lived through the Obamacare rollout can attest. That’s the whole reason Republicans seem so uncertain about their current position—and why now even MAGA stalwarts like Greene are suggesting Republicans sign on to an extension. If nothing else, that would seem to give Democrats leverage to demand even more…
“Democrats actually do care passionately about making health care more affordable. If the subsidy boost lapses, the higher costs will mean real hardship for many millions, and 4 million more Americans with no insurance at all. Extending the subsidy boost would prevent most or all of that from happening. And insofar as Republicans are bound to support some kind of extension eventually—precisely because the blowback to the spike could be so strong—forcing a deal now, in this high-profile debate, would allow Democrats to claim (legitimately) it was their doing.”

Nowhere in his lengthy article did Cohn discuss the employer-based insurance market, which covers 164 million working Americans and their families. If the Democrats say nothing about their looming health care cost increases, it will be a huge mistake.

Should Democrats win on the ACA issue, it will no doubt be great news for the 24 million Americans whose health insurance comes through plans sold on the exchanges. Just seven percent or about 1.7 million purchasers pay the full cost of their plans. The rest receive subsidies based on income that limit their out-of-pocket premiums. The lowest wage workers pay nothing at all.

For most, the total cost of the plan is irrelevant. The federal government picks up most if not all of any increase in the total cost of the plan.

But that won’t be true for the far larger employer-based insurance market — the half of all Americans whose health plans come through an employer, group or union. Their plans receive no direct subsidy. The employer share — on average about 75 percent of a family plan — is tax deductible as is any employee premium, usually deducted from paychecks. But the employee share paid through co-pays and deductibles is not unless their medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income; they itemize deductions; and their total deductions exceed the standard deduction. Even then, the deduction is only the amount over 7.5 percent of AGI.

Both employers and employees will bear the full upfront cost of the expected large increases in premiums on tap for next year. A month ago, Mercer, a leading benefits consulting firm, projected average employer premiums could rise nine percent next year based on preliminary results from its annual survey of nearly 2,000 employers. It predicted actual increases would be closer to 6.5 percent because of steps employers will take to hold those costs in check. That’s still twice the overall inflation rate.

Smaller employers will be hit hardest of all. A recent issue brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation found the median proposed premium increase for 318 small group insurers who offer ACA-compliant plans was 11 percent.

What’s behind rising costs?

Mercer health research director Beth Umland cited the usual suspects for the biggest increase in health care costs since 2010: The high cost of cancer treatments and weight-loss drugs; higher-than-usual price increases enabled by provider consolidation; higher health care worker wages driven by rising inflation in the general economy; and the “buildout of AI-based platforms that help providers optimize billing.”

The KFF brief echoed that analysis. It cited higher prescription drug costs and utilization, rising labor expenses, and overall economic inflation. “Some insurers also note declining enrollment and worsening risk pool morbidity as factors leading to higher projected costs next year,” the brief said.

The daily news in the health care trade press is filled with stories of insurers and providers battling over who should be forced to absorb some of those rising costs. Insurers are increasingly resorting to the “just say no” form of prior authorization and receiving pushback from both providers and patients. Modern Healthcare (where I used to be editor) reported this morning that insurers Aetna and Cigna are imposing their own version of the two-midnight rule (don’t ask) by forcing hospitals to accept out-patient rates for emergency room visits deemed routine care, no matter how long they stay in the hospital.

There’s going to be a lot more of those ER visits next year should the ACA subsidies not be extended, since an estimated four million people are expected to drop coverage. That will force many folks to use hospital ERs instead of primary care physician practices for their routine care. And, given that those dropping coverage will be fairly low income, most will postpone or fail to pay those ER bills, which leads to higher prices for everyone else who uses hospital services. Hospitals invariably raise prices to make up for uncompensated care.

And how will employers mitigate some of those rising costs (thus whittling the expected nine percent increase down to 6.5 percent), according to Mercer? “The survey found that 59 percent of employers will make cost-cutting changes to their plans in 2026 — up from 48 percent making changes in 2025 and 44 percent in 2024,” Umland wrote. “Generally, these involve raising deductibles and other cost-sharing provisions, which can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs for plan members when they seek care.”

In other words, workers will see their out-of-pocket co-pays and deductibles rise sharply in addition to a 6.5% average increase in their co-premiums, which are taken directly out of their paychecks. Workers with chronic health care needs could see their annual medical expenses rise at three times the overall inflation rate — perhaps even into double digits.

Only a tiny share of those increased costs will be mitigated by a Democratic win on ACA subsidies. Nor will a win do anything to help the millions of people who will be thrown off Medicaid, whose uncompensated expenses when they also show up in ERs for routine care will also be reflected in higher private employer/employee insurance bills.

For a majority of Americans, any Democratic Party claim that they “saved” health care by their strong stance during the shutdown negotiations will ring hollow in the face of their still rising out-of-pocket expenses.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health care and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News

If Voters Blame Republicans For Shutdown, Why Are They Angry At Democrats?

If Voters Blame Republicans For Shutdown, Why Are They Angry At Democrats?

With the government shut down, polls show Americans are angrier at Republicans than Democrats. That’s good news for Democrats, right?

It’s complicated. Yes, voters are upset with President Donald Trump and the GOP—largely because they’ve flatly refused to even negotiate on health care protections for millions—but Democrats aren’t getting a free pass. Despite their efforts to cut a deal, many of their own voters remain frustrated and give their leaders low marks.

“Republicans have historically been more loyal. That has wavered in a couple of elections, but it’s been generally true,” Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University, told Daily Kos. “The other advantage is that the Republicans currently have a president in office, and presidents have often fared better than Congress. So, in part, it’s a ‘president effect.’”

Still, you’d think Democrats would get more credit—especially now. In the days leading up to the shutdown, the party pushed for stronger health care protections. Their proposal would roll back the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s tax and immigration law, and it would extend enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of this year. At a moment when polls show Democratic voters want their leaders to fight harder, this was Democrats putting up a fight.

But so far, that fight isn’t resonating.

“When a party loses an election, they become less popular, including with their own supporters,” said David Hopkins, a political scientist at Boston College. “Their own supporters get very upset and say the party ‘blew it.’ Their voters are in a bad mood and want someone to blame, so they’ll blame the leadership of their own party for squandering the election and causing all these bad things to happen now that the other side is in power.”

Polling data backs that up. Since the last election, views of congressional Republicans have remained fairly stable, but Democrats in Congress are viewed far more negatively in comparison, according to YouGov’s tracking data.

That’s the paradox: Democratic voters demand tougher resistance to Trump, but they’re sour on their party even when it does exactly that.

The numbers are rough. A new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll shows just 26 percent of voters approve of how congressional Democrats are doing in office. And a whopping 64 percent of voters disapprove, up from 58 percent in July—and 42 percent of Democrats disapprove. Republicans in Congress do only slightly better, with 37 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval among voters.

In other words, Democrats trail Republicans by 11 percentage points on approval, even though voters overwhelmingly blame the GOP for the shutdown. That contradiction speaks volumes.


Share of survey respondents who would blame a government shutdown on Democrats in Congress, Republicans in Congress and President Donald Trump, or both parties equallyChart by Andrew Mangan/Graphic by Datawrapper



“It’s one thing to say you think Sen. [Chuck] Schumer is less to blame than President Trump, and quite another to say you support the job that Sen. Schumer is doing,” Reeher said. “The dissatisfaction among Democrats has been festering for a long time—at least back to the first Trump presidency. Many were deeply dissatisfied with [Joe] Biden as the nominee in 2020, and with the way the latter half of his term was managed, especially the campaign disaster. One small tilt favoring the Democrats on a government shutdown is not going to erase all that damage.”

“The Republicans have been more loyal and are more focused on the president—that’s what these overall numbers are reflecting,” he added.

Shutdown politics rarely deliver big policy wins. From December 2018 to January 2019, Trump shut down the government, demanding billions of dollars to build a wall along the U.S.--Mexico Border—and got nothing. In 2013, Republicans wanted to defund the ACA, kicking off a 16-day shutdown that produced little tangible results for them. At best, shutdowns offer largely symbolic wins for a party’s base. At worst, they backfire.

“I’m a skeptic about shutdown politics, but I understand the choices of the Senate Democrats because what we’re seeing in the polls is what they’re hearing,” Hopkins said. “They feel pressure to have some dramatic moment, so that’s where we are. If history is any guide, we will not end up with a real victory they can tout to their supporters.”

Maybe the problem is that voters tend not to reward effort. Resistance without real wins fades fast, and even actual achievements barely register with an exhausted public. Or maybe it’s that many Americans don’t realize Democrats can’t fully stop Trump’s agenda when they don’t hold a majority in either chamber of Congress.

The Democratic Party’s approval rating usually gets an approval boost only after it actually wins power. According to Pew’s data, their peak approval in the past decade came in early 2021, right after winning a government trifecta. And a smaller boost happened in early 2019, after they regained control of the House and wielded real power to fight Trump.

Democrats also face a structural challenge Republicans don’t: a lack of a clear leader.

Former President Joe Biden remains unpopular and is largely invisible. Former Vice President Kamala Harris lost last year’s election and didn’t connect deeply with many voters. Former President Barack Obama is nearly a decade removed from office. And while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once embodied the anti-Trump resistance, her successors—House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer—are hardly household names, according to Pew.

Republicans, meanwhile, still have Trump. After his 2020 loss, GOP voters didn’t splinter the way Democrats have. Some denied he lost, and even those who didn’t deny the election results still rallied around him. No alternative figure emerged to take his place.

The good news for Democrats is that these feelings aren’t permanent. As Hopkins put it, politics is as much about emotion as logic, and Democratic voters are still angry and scared. The surest way to channel that energy outward instead of inward? Start winning again.

“It seems like the next election is a million miles away, but in reality, we have more elections than any other country and there’s one right around the corner next year,” Hopkins said. “If what you really want to do is constrain Trump’s freedom of movement to implement policies, the best way to do that is to put one house of Congress in the hands of the Democrats in 2026.”

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

'New York Times' Has Done Too Much For Trump And GOP -- But Still Never Enough

'New York Times' Has Done Too Much For Trump And GOP -- But Still Never Enough

Following months of mainstream media capitulation toward President Donald Trump and his administration, Trump filed a $15 billion lawsuit on Monday night against The New York Times.

In his suit, which absurdly cites his Electoral College victory and his status as a bestselling “author,” Trump accuses the Times of “smears” by accurately reporting on his statements and actions.

“The Times is a full throated mouthpiece of the Democrat Party,” Trump falsely alleges. The statement ignores decades of the Times furthering right-wing propaganda and elevating attacks on the Democratic Party and the left.

In a statement the Times said Trump’s suit “has no merit” and “is an attempt to stifle and discourage independent reporting.”

Trump’s suit against the Times shows that even when the paper bends over backward for him, he will still be resentful of accurate reporting. Since he was sworn in for a second term, there have been several instances of obsequious and downright false reporting from the Times in Trump’s favor.

The paper referred to the current era as “the age of Trump” in June, a month after taking his claim—which went against his entire history as a political figure—that he would pull back support for tax increases on the wealthy as an honest statement.

In perhaps the most dishonest moment for the “paper of record” in Trump’s second term, the Times in February portrayed a Black voter supporting Trump as merely an “artificial intelligence start-up worker,” without informing readers that the supporter also happens to be the communications director for the Houston Young Republicans.

To be sure, the Times has reported accurately on numerous Trump scandals, corruption, and bigotry, but the paper’s coverage—led by star reporter Maggie Haberman—has been friendly to Trump and often regurgitated his falsehoods without calling him out. In her reporting on Trump, Haberman has shied away from noting to readers when he has clearly lied, such as this 2018 report that instead said Trump “repeatedly refused to accept a number of seemingly agreed-upon facts.” In a 2020 story, instead of directly addressing Trump’s racism, Haberman’s reporting mentioned that he was merely “stoking white fear and resentment.”

Trump’s suit is just the latest in a barrage of legal action against media outlets. He sued the Des Moines Register for conducting polls, he sued Facebook parent Meta for banning his account after he incited violence, and he is suing Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal for reporting on his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, among others.

Many of these outlets have settled with Trump, even after legal experts have made clear the suits lack merit and have been vehicles for extortion and bribery-style payments. CBS News’ parent Paramount is under investigation by congressional Democrats after the Trump administration approved a merger soon after Paramount decided to settle his suit. ABC News parent Disney also cut a big check to Trump over a specious claim.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

Can Democrats Come Back? They Already Are

During a summer when the popularity of Donald Trump fell to abysmal lows — and strong disapproval of his presidency achieved record highs — those dire warnings were mostly brushed aside. What received far more intense and sustained attention were the awful numbers registered by the Democratic Party, with analysts bemoaning its "historically" weak condition.

The occasion for all the funereal commentary was the release in late July of a Wall Street Journal poll that any honest Democrat had to find alarming. According to that survey, 63 percent of voters said they hold an unfavorable opinion of the party, while only 33 percent said their view of the party is favorable, the lowest rating ever for Democrats in a Journal survey. The party's net unfavorable was 19 points worse than the Republican Party, an unprecedented gap.

Such troubling findings can't be dismissed or waved away, even though the Journal poll was much worse than recent polls by other media outlets, which showed a mere 10-point ratings advantage for Republicans. Before we start putting up black crepe around the Democratic headquarters and drafting documents of surrender, however, there are some numbers that deserve our attention as well. For although the Democrats currently languish under a burden of public disfavor, those sour feelings may have almost no impact on their ability to defeat Republicans and achieve power again.

How can that possibly be? The real question in upcoming elections is not whether voters like the Democratic brand (or the GOP brand) but rather which party's candidate they will choose when marking their ballots. So far this year, despite the bad branding suffered by Democrats, the party is overperforming in dozens of special elections across the country and appears almost certain to win the two major statewide elections this November in New Jersey and Virginia. Polls in Virginia have showed Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger beating her Republican opponent by double digits, and her New Jersey counterpart Mikie Sherrill is ahead of the Republican by nearly as much in some polls.

Special elections are not necessarily predictive of a general election outcome, as we learned last year. Yet the results in many races this year have been startling, dating back to Wisconsin's state supreme court contest last April, when Elon Musk and right-wing organizations spent nearly $40 million to defeat liberal Democrat Susan Crawford. The Tesla zillionaire made news not only with his brazen attempt to buy the election but by declaring its outcome decisive "for the future of Western civilization."

All that money and publicity drove unusually high turnout for an off-year judicial election — which Crawford won by 10 points, a landslide humiliation for Musk and a repudiation for the Republican far right (including Trump).

The trend kicked off by Crawford's victory continued across the country over the ensuing months, including races and places considerably less hospitable to Democrats than the purplish Badger State. In Iowa, for instance, the Democrats have picked up not one but two state senate seats in specials this year — the first in January, when Democrat Mike Zimmer won in a district that Trump had carried by 20 points only two months earlier, and the second in June, when Democrat Catelin Drey won by 11 points in a district that Trump took by an equal margin last fall — a turnaround of 22 points in less than a year.

Such encouraging results for Democrats have been commonplace across the country in 2025. According to The Downballot, a website that compiles and analyzes election results across all nonpresidential races, Democratic candidates in 34 special elections this year have run about 16 points on average better than 2024 presidential nominee Kamala Harris in the same districts.

Does that mean Democrats will win next year's midterms? It is far too early to make any such happy prediction.

But even that grim Journal poll demands a deeper look before anyone descends into gloom. As pollster G. Elliot Morris, formerly of FiveThirtyEight, explains on his Substack, it is very possible for voters to say they disapprove of the Democratic Party — and then cast their votes for Democratic candidates. That same poll found Democrats ahead in the generic ballot for 2026, measuring which party voters plan to support in the midterm, by three percentage points.

"That's a six-point swing from their last poll in 2024," notes Morris, "and would be large enough for the Democrats to win somewhere around 230-235 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives." Depending on specific circumstances in the states, it might even mean a change in control of the U.S. Senate.

The negative atmosphere surrounding the Democratic Party and its public image arises from dissatisfaction and even anger among the voters in its own base, furious over the feckless leadership that led to the 2024 debacle and the hesitant response to Trump's first months in office. Their reaction is understandable and predictable after a national defeat — but their more recent victories are a signal of hope on the horizon.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World