Tag: obamacare subsidies
ObamaCare Scare

The 'Obamacare Scare' That Forced Government Shutdown

There are many ways to debase a debate and guarantee a government shutdown.

The White House showed its way on Tuesday when Trump posted on social media a deepfake video portraying House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero while Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer says Democrats “have no voters anymore, because of our woke, trans bullshit” and “if we give all these illegal aliens health care, we might be able to get them on our side so they can vote for us.”

The Wall Street Journal editorial page weighed in with a deepfake economic spin to what other media outlets are calling a “vulgar” (Politico), “racist” (The Independent), and “falsely accusing” (New York Times) video. The Murdoch clan-owned Journal claimed that people who took advantage of the enhanced premium subsidies to buy health insurance (the Democrats’ sole demand for giving Republicans the votes they need to avoid a shutdown) did so to avoid paying for “affordable” health care coverage provided by their employees.

“Workers aren’t supposed to receive ObamaCare subsidies if they have access to ‘affordable’ coverage through their employers, but this rule is barely enforced,” the editorial complained. “Many workers could get employer coverage if the enhanced subsidies lapse at the end of the year, which would save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Don’t believe the Democrats’ ObamaCare scare.”

Its evidence? The paper cited a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report showing that take up of employer-offered plans is plunging, especially among low-wage workers. Nearly three-quarters of employers now offer health coverage, up from 71 percent in 2019, according to the BLS. Yet just 65 percent took advantage that offer in 2025, down from 73 percent in 2019.

Among workers in the bottom 25 percent of wage earners, take up was just 49 percent this year compared to 61 percent a half decade ago. And in the lowest 10% percent of income, take up was just 34 percent compared to 57 percent in 2019.

Why? “Perhaps because they can now get ObamaCare plans at no cost,” the opinion page speculated.

Let’s take a closer look at what the Wall Street Journal editorial page deems is “affordable” health care coverage that employers offer to their low-wage workers. The average cost of an annual health insurance plan in 2025 was $25,572 for family coverage and $8,951 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The average employee contribution to family coverage was 25% of the total or $6,296, according to KFF. For individual coverage, workers paid 16% of the total or $1,368.

Now let’s take a look at what low-wage households earn. In 2024 (BLS data on household income lags behind publication of monthly and annual wage data) families earning at or below $41,400 a year landed in the bottom 25% of all households. Those in the bottom 10% earned at or below $19,900 a year.

That level of income doesn’t make their employer plans affordable. It makes them prohibitive.

A family at the 25th percentile would be paying for an average family plan fully 15 percent of its annual income for coverage. Better-off families that itemize their deductions (lower wage workers almost never itemize) would be able to take half of that as a tax deduction. A better way to characterize Obamacare subsidies is as one way to help to level the playing field of our inequitable tax code.

Meanwhile, a family in the bottom 10 percent of households would be paying a prohibitive 32 percent of its income for health insurance through their employers. No wonder take up of employer-offered plans among low-wage workers is so low, and was so even before arrival of the Affordable Care Act. When you’re poor, paying your rent, food and transportation bills have a higher priority than buying protection against the possibility you’ll be thrown into bankruptcy should someone in your family might get sick in the coming year.

That’s not something an editorial writer who is paid not to understand the economics of health care will ever understand.

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.

Ron Johnson’s Obamacare Lawsuit Is Becoming Messy — For Him And The Far Right

Ron Johnson’s Obamacare Lawsuit Is Becoming Messy — For Him And The Far Right

As Republicans slowly retreat from their war on the Affordable Care Act, ultra-conservative Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson’s Obamacare lawsuit is threatening to turn into one more headache they would prefer to forget.

In January, Johnson filed a lawsuit against an Obamacare measure allowing the federal government to contribute to the premiums of lawmakers and their staff who acquire health plans through the exchanges. Since the filing, The Washington Post reports an additional 38 GOP lawmakers – including Tea Party senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) – have joined the suit, which is being represented by the nonprofit Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty.

After much speculation concerning just how the lawsuit would be financed, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report now reveals a retainer agreement reached between Johnson and the institute. The agreement specifies that Johnson will use campaign funds to pay for the lawsuit once the conservative organization submits its legal bills.

In an amusing twist, however, this arrangement has raised legal troubles for Johnson. According to the Associated Press, the liberal watchdog group One Wisconsin Now claims that the senator failed to file the necessary forms required by state campaign finance laws. The group’s executive director, Scot Ross, now wants Johnson to report the specific details of the agreement reached between his campaign and the Institute. Ross also plans on filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, which can easily become a huge nightmare for Johnson if One Wisconsin Now’s allegations are accurate.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has already asked a federal judge in Wisconsin to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Senator Johnson. As the Department points out, Johnson and other co-signers of the suit – some of whom have purchased their own private health insurance or have obtained coverage through a spouse’s plan – were never “directly injured” by the Obamacare measure and therefore lack legal standing to sue.

Further complicating the lawsuit is the opposition Johnson faces from other members of the Senate Republican caucus who think the lawsuit is frivolous and even potentially damaging to Congress.

With the exception of the lawmakers who joined the suit, the GOP has backed the Affordable Care Act measure that allows members of Congress and their staff to receive employer contributions to their health care plans. The concept behind the provision is certainly not new: Workers in the private and public sectors often receive similar health care subsidies.

From his home state, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) accuses Johnson – who calls the employer contributions “special treatment” — of dangerously negligence in his decision to file the legal action. “Success in the suit will mean that Congress will lose some of its best staff,” Sensenbrenner warned back in January.

The congressman’s greatest fear is that without employer subsidies, congressional staffers will leave their jobs and force legislators to replace them with “recent college graduates who are still on their parents’ insurance.”

According to The Hill, Johnson recently suggested that Sensenbrenner’s position on the lawsuit has softened. Yet others on the right are remaining mum — another sign that the Republican attitude toward health care reform is more nuanced and careful than a year ago.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Want to keep up with the news from Capitol Hill? Sign up for our daily newsletter!

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World