The Democrats tend to be dishonest, even when naming their bills. Obamacare, officially called the Affordable Care Act (ACA), is becoming so unaffordable that, by the Democrats' own admission, only federal subsidies can help ensure that families can have access to healthcare.
As we said in an editorial this week, the Democrats are willing to shut down the government until they get $1 trillion in additional spending to extend subsidies to families making up to $310,000 in a city like New York.
If families in the uppermost income brackets cannot buy healthcare, how can their 2011 boondoggle be called the Affordable Care Act?
Compounding the problem is another misnamed bill passed during the Biden administration. The Inflation Reduction Act had nothing to do with reducing inflation. It spurred spending and drove up the costs of everything, including healthcare and college tuition.
When corporations and organizations, such as colleges and universities, recognize that a limitless federal subsidy is directly handed to customers, they have little incentive to contain costs. Why should they?
They can continue to increase prices and test the will of federal lawmakers, who are always ready to borrow and spend to keep these programs alive.
It was the Inflation Reduction Act that extended Obamacare premium subsidy tax credits to literally any family, without any income limits. The only limit was the price of the plan itself.
As long as a family's 8.5% contribution would be lower than the cost of the plan, the government will chip in and pay the difference. (We illustrated this in the editorial, which is how we came up with the $310,000 figure.)
If insurance companies in the New York marketplace increase the cost of the plan, the Democrats would like the federal subsidies to continue, potentially bringing in even more upper-income families into the system.
For such a completely flawed idea, the Democrats are not even asking for temporary funding to extend these credits. They want to make the extensions permanent.
It is no wonder that America has a $37 trillion debt burden, with the cost of servicing the debt being higher than the spending on national security. Let us not forget that the American national defense budget is larger than the combined budgets of the next ten countries in line.
The principal architect of the Obamacare bill, other than former President Obama and his close advisors, was former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She represents a safe San Francisco congressional district, which reelected her by an 80-to-20 margin last fall. Pelosi is the force behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in prolonging the shutdown.
At 85, her dominance in Democratic Party politics is so strong that some Democrats are beginning to denounce her publicly, an idea that was unthinkable when she ran the Beltway mafia during the Obama administration.
Saikat Chakrabarti, AOC's campaign manager when she first ran for Congress, is now running against Pelosi in the Democratic primary.
Scott Wiener, a prominent California State Senator, also announced last week that he will run. Even diehard liberals are tiring of Pelosi's means and methods.
At its core, the ACA seemed an elegant solution to America's healthcare crisis. Many Americans found buying private health insurance so expensive that they decided to risk not buying insurance at all. If they got sick, they could always go to the emergency room. State compassionate laws would guarantee that care was provided even if the patient did not pay for it.
A country of America's size and population, however, cannot rely on emergency care alone. So, how could the government incentivize citizens to buy expensive health insurance?
One solution was to bring down the cost of healthcare through the marketplace using the fundamental laws of economics. A single customer has little buying power over a large insurance company. But if we can get 100,000 customers into a buying pool, the insurance company would be ready to not only offer a reasonable price, but also be delighted to expand their customer base.
If the marketplace opened up to multiple insurers, the situation would get better for everyone. Competition sets in where the suppliers of healthcare cost-adjust to the demand for healthcare.
Leave it to the Pelosi Democrats to mess up a straightforward idea. Rather than allow insurance companies to offer different products in the marketplace, the Democrats went all in Soviet-style.
The ACA had one product with a designated set of benefits for everyone. A single mother past motherhood still had to pay for maternity benefits, which she would never use.
The insurance companies, thrilled at the idea of expanding their customer base, balked. So, the Democrats piled on subsidies, first to insurance companies so that they would be compensated for their losses, and then to consumers so that they could buy healthcare.
If consumers thought that paying monthly premiums alone would get them coverage, they were in for a rude shock.
Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), deductibles and co-pays are key cost-sharing components of health insurance plans. A deductible is the amount a policyholder must pay out-of-pocket for covered healthcare services before the insurance plan begins to cover costs, typically reset annually. For example, a $1,500 deductible means you pay that amount before insurance kicks in. A co-pay is a fixed amount paid for specific services, like $20 for a doctor's visit, after meeting the deductible.
When we ran the numbers this week, the second-lowest-cost Silver plan (SLCSP) of the benchmark Obamacare plan costs $26,292 per year for a family of four in New York City. These are just the premiums. For 2025 coverage, the average deductible across all ACA Marketplace plans in NYC is nearly $4,700 for an individual, according to ValuePenguin's analysis of NY State of Health data.
While each family member is likely to hit their deductibles based on how much healthcare they consume, assume that they all reach $1 below the $4,700 limit during 2025. The family would then have spent $45,088 on their healthcare (not including co-pays), and the insurance companies would still not have paid out a dime in benefits.
It is no wonder that the Democrats want subsidies to kick in. It is their surest path to gradually moving everyone toward universal coverage, or as AOC calls it, "Medicare For All."
📊 Market Mood — Tuesday, October 21, 2025
🟢 Futures Pause Ahead of Earnings Wave
U.S. stock futures eased slightly as investors took a breather after Monday’s rally and awaited a busy slate of corporate earnings. Technology and financial shares had led gains in the previous session, fueled by optimism that a prolonged federal government shutdown may end this week.
🟡 Shutdown and Trade Hopes Lift Sentiment
Signs of resilience in the banking sector and upbeat comments from White House adviser Kevin Hassett boosted risk appetite, with markets betting the government shutdown could soon be resolved. Expectations also remain high for progress in U.S.-China trade talks ahead of a planned meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi later this month.
🔵 Earnings Focus Turns to Netflix and Blue Chips
Investors are closely watching results from Netflix after the bell, alongside reports from GE Aerospace, Coca-Cola, Philip Morris, and RTX. Zions Bancorporation’s stronger-than-expected results helped ease fears over regional banks after last week’s credit concerns.
🟣 Oil Prices Steady Near Multi-Month Lows
Crude prices stabilized but remained near five-month lows as traders weighed supply glut fears and softening demand. Persistent concerns about the U.S.-China trade dispute’s impact on global growth continue to pressure energy markets.
Market round-up in 5 minutes. We bring you up to speed. Subscribe to TIPP Insights for $99/year.
📅 Key Events Today
🟧 Tuessday, October 21
No major economic releases scheduled.
Access our Featured Stocks and TIPP Top-20 archives — exclusive to paid subscribers. Subscribe now → $99/year.
