
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money.
The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market.
The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance.
Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year.
Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government.
This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion.
A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion.
Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost.
The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward.
Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees.
Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire.
In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy.
In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened.
Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Boston Globe
a few seconds ago
- Boston Globe
Was Trump right to send National Guard to Washington, D.C.?
David Bumcrot Belmont Heather Mac Donald cites several shooting incidents in Washington, D.C., including two heinous crimes involving the shooting deaths of innocent young children. Nowhere does she mention how Republicans block every effort at enacting gun-control legislation. Also left out is the number of convicted felons that President Trump has pardoned. Let's stop pretending this isn't just Trump's attempt to initiate martial law. Advertisement Robyn King Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Ipswich In Trump's political theater, Washington becomes a prop President Trump's National Guard deployment to Washington, D.C. is less about public safety and more about political theater. D.C.'s violent crime rates have fallen sharply since 2023. Cherry-picking a few brutal crimes to paint the city as in crisis ignores the data and serves a narrative, not the truth. If homicide rates alone justified military involvement, other US cities — some worse off than D.C. — would already be occupied by federal troops. The National Guard's limited 'command presence' won't fix longstanding issues of gun violence, juvenile crime, or car theft. Lasting reductions come from targeted policing, intelligence-driven enforcement, and community partnerships — not a 30-day show of force. Advertisement Worse, the move undermines D.C.'s elected leadership and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach. Washington's majority-minority residents have endured decades of over-policing. Imposing military oversight without an emergency inflames mistrust, chills cooperation with police, and treats citizens like subjects. Real safety is built, not staged. This deployment is a political stunt masquerading as crime control — and Washington deserves better than to be used as a prop in someone else's campaign. Paul Swindlehurst Londonderry, N.H. For this administration, an easy distraction It seems our president has found the secret for making the Jeffrey Epstein controversy go away: Invade Washington, D.C. It's amazing how short the media's attention span is. They are so easily distracted by the next outrageous thing President Trump and his representatives do or say. There is no follow-up, no accountability — essentially just narration and public relations. Former Trump adviser Steve Bannon was so right: 'Flood the zone,' and you can do anything. Patricia Fabbri Lynnfield
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why Investors Were So Fired Up About First Solar Stock on Friday
Key Points Data center operators are unhappy with potential changes to federal incentives for green energy solutions. A group of them are lobbying the Trump administration to leave these incentives alone for now. 10 stocks we like better than First Solar › The solar industry has struggled mightily for years to achieve meaningful growth and post net profits. During the Biden administration, the green energy sector as a whole received something of a break in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, with a slew of tax incentives for building out alternative-energy solutions. In its attempt to reverse this, President Donald Trump has tasked his administration to make the current subsidies harder to obtain. Thankfully for green energy companies, a theoretically influential lobbying group stepped in on Friday to push back against this effort. Numerous solar stocks popped on the news, including First Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR), which rose a sturdy 11% by market close. A mighty lob by a lobbying group The business grouping behind Friday's pushback is the Data Center Coalition. News broke that the coalition sent a formal request to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to maintain the subsidy policy as it is, rather than changing it. The organization -- which lists as members Amazon, Oracle, and CoreWeave, among other prominent tech companies -- told Bessent that any regulatory roadblock limiting green energy solutions will hamper the development of artificial intelligence (AI). Many data center operators are currently building out their facilities to handle the vastly increased resource demands of AI. To do so, they require more energy, hence their support of renewable sources like solar. Does the silence speak volumes? Bessent hasn't yet publicly responded to the coalition's lobbying effort, nor has anyone else in the Trump administration. But investors seem convinced that they've not only digested the letter, they're taking it seriously, since the organization behind it has many prominent members who drive the U.S. economy. Should you invest $1,000 in First Solar right now? Before you buy stock in First Solar, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and First Solar wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $663,630!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,115,695!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,071% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 185% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Eric Volkman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, First Solar, and Oracle. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Why Investors Were So Fired Up About First Solar Stock on Friday was originally published by The Motley Fool

USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Over 300 protests held Saturday against Trump redistricting push
Pro-democracy activists and labor groups held hundreds of rallies and other events across the United States on Saturday, Aug. 16, protesting the Trump administration's push for Texas to redraw its congressional map in favor of Republicans. Former Congressman Beto O'Rourke was among those who spoke on Saturday in Texas, from which dozens of Democratic state lawmakers fled to deny Republicans the quorum needed to vote on a redistricting plan that President Donald Trump had demanded. "They do this because they are afraid," O'Rourke told an audience on Saturday, speaking of those attempting redistricting. "They fear this power they see here today." More: Obama calls Texas GOP redistricting an 'assault' on democracy Drucilla Tigner, executive director of pro-democracy coalition Texas For All, told Reuters pro-democracy and labor groups held over 300 events attended by tens of thousands of people in 44 states and Washington, D.C. Many of the more than 50 Texas Democrats who fled the state have been staying in Illinois, also the site of protests on Saturday. The Texas lawmakers in Illinois are out of reach of civil arrest warrants that could be acted on within Texas. The Texas Democrats kept the map from coming to a vote during a special session Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called that ended Friday. Abbott immediately called a second special session. Abbott said that redistricting plans, legislation to increase flash flood safety in the wake of deadly July flooding, and other legislative work remain undone because Democrats are absent. California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday, Aug. 14 unveiled a redistricting plan in his state that he says would give Democrats there five more Congressional seats, possibly offsetting any Republican gains in Texas. The Texas House Democrats said in a written statement on Thursday that they will only return to Texas if their state's special legislation is ended and once California's redistricting maps are introduced.