Image Source: Pixabay
 

The key item for Thursday is a Republican proposal by Senators Cassidy and Crapo.

Trump Says Money Should Go to People, Not Health Insurers

BREAKING 🚨 President Trump: “I don't want to give insurance companies any money. They've been ripping off the public for years. Obamacare was set up to take care of insurance companies, not to take care of Americans. I love the idea of money going directly to the people, not to… pic.twitter.com/LDiqRfybvq

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) December 10, 2025

Please note the irony. Trump says there is “virtually no inflation” and “affordability is a scam,” while complaining about huge jumps in health care premiums.

Of course it’s all Biden’s fault (or Obama’s fault), ignoring the inconvenient fact that Trump had 4 years to do something, the first two with full control of Congress.

And what has Trump done in 2025? But here’s the new solution ….

Money for the People!

Reuters reports Trump Says Money Should Go to People, Not Health Insurers

The subsidies, which help offset premium costs for the plans, also known as Obamacare, are set to expire at the end of the year, potentially impacting up to 24 million individuals reliant on the program.

A recent poll by health-research firm KFF found that about one-fourth of Obamacare enrollees would forgo coverage in 2026 if the subsidies expire and premiums double. Most beneficiaries want Congress to extend the subsidies, the poll found.

Republicans, under an agreement reached last month to end a record 43-day government shutdown, promised Democrats a vote on healthcare subsidies.
Late on Monday, Republican Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho, who chair two committees with oversight of healthcare, unveiled legislation they are seeking as an alternative to the Democrats’ three-year extension of the expiring Obamacare subsidies.

It would direct up to $1,500 into health savings accounts for individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level. It also would bar the funds from being used for abortion or “gender transition services,” according to a summary released by the two senators.

They said the measure also would contain a provision to lower insurance premiums by 11% in 2027 and would reduce federal Medicaid funding to states that provide healthcare coverage to “illegal immigrants.”

Critics say the proposal could disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals while forcing lower-income Americans to shift toward short-term or high-deductible insurance plans.

They warn that many low-income consumers, who currently pay little to nothing for coverage, could face significant new out-of-pocket costs if the subsidies lapse. Currently, no Obamacare participant pays more than 8.5% of their income on premiums, but that limit will end if lawmakers do not extend the subsidies.

Vote Coming Up Thursday

The Hill reports Senate to Vote Thursday on GOP Health Care Plan

The Senate will vote Thursday on a Republican proposal to replace enhanced health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Act with health savings accounts that would receive federal contributions to pay out-of-pocket expenses, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) announced Tuesday.

The Senate was already set to vote Thursday on a Democratic plan to extend the expiring subsidies for three years, and Thune’s decision will give Republican colleagues the opportunity to vote for a GOP alternative. He was under heavy pressure from Senate Republicans who warned that failing to advance a Republican plan would be a catastrophe.

“We also will have a vote. Our members have decided that we’re going to vote on a Crapo-Cassidy proposal,” Thune announced after a Senate Republican conference lunch meeting Tuesday.

He said the plan from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has support from a majority of Senate Republicans and argued it would reduce health insurance premiums and save the federal government nearly $30 billion.

“It actually does make health insurance premiums more affordable. It drives down, according to the Congressional Budget Office, premiums by double-digit levels. It delivers the benefit directly to the patient, not to the insurance company. And it does it in a way that actually saves money — to the taxpayer,” he [Thune] said.

CBO Fact Check

There is no publicly available full Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost estimate or detailed analysis of the Cassidy-Crapo bill as of December 9, 2025.

The proposal was only introduced yesterday (December 8), and CBO scoring for new legislation typically takes days to weeks, involving complex modeling of premium impacts, enrollment shifts, and fiscal effects.

The CBO has, however, has previously released an analysis of the Democratic proposal to permanently extend the enhanced premium tax credits, estimating it would increase deficits by nearly $350 billion over the 2026-2035 period but also increase the number of people with health insurance by approximately 3.8 million in 2035.

Finally, prior CBO analysis does indicate there would be a jump in the number of uninsured if subsidies stop. Confirming, the KFF foundation estimates 25 percent would drop insurance. That would be a jump of about 6.25 million in the number of uninsured.

Given there is no official CBO score, we can safely give Thune the “Lie of the Day” award.

I suspect Thune is using the logic about reducing expenses in 2027 from 2026. But his comments could be anything.

Regardless, we do not have a CBO score and may not for some time. With that lie out of the way, let’s return to The Hill.

Competing Plans

GOP senators were divided over what plan to put forward. While Cassidy and Crapo championed a plan to convert the enhanced insurance premium subsidies into health savings accounts for Americans who buy their insurance on the ACA marketplace, other GOP lawmakers had different ideas.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), for example, has a plan to let the enhanced premium subsidies to expire and allow states to replace the original ACA premium tax credits with contributions to Trump Health Freedom Accounts, according to an analysis by KFF, a health policy research group.

Scott’s Trump Health Freedom Accounts would be more widely available than the HSAs set up by Cassidy’s plan, which is targeted toward people who buy their insurance on the ACA marketplace.

Collins and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) on Monday unveiled a plan to extend the enhanced ACA premium tax credits another two years but end the subsidies for households with annual income of $200,000 or more. Their plan would also require that lower-income Americans pay a $25 minimum monthly premium payment to ensure “everyone has skin in the game,” according to a summary provided by Moreno’s office.

Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Jon Husted (R-Ohio) have each offered their own plans to address rising health insurance premium costs.

Given the divisions within his conference, Thune had not made a decision as of early Tuesday about whether to schedule on a Republican health care proposal.

He didn’t have many options, however, as the Cassidy-Crapo plan was the only one on the Senate calendar as of Tuesday morning, and therefore the only one that would be ready for a procedural vote on Thursday.

Politico also discusses Competing Health Care Plans

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has also proposed legislation on “Trump Freedom Accounts” which resemble an HSA but with several key differences. The accounts can be used to pay for plan premiums, which an HSA cannot.

Cassidy and Crapo’s legislation would give HSA funding to those earning less than 700 percent of the poverty level, $1,000 for people ages 18 to 49 and $1,500 for those 50 to 65.

However, to get the HSA an individual must purchase a bronze or catastrophic plan on an Obamacare exchange. The bronze plans offer lower premiums than other plan tiers but have higher out-of-pocket costs, such as deductibles and co-pays.

The average deductible for a bronze plan was roughly $7,000 last year, according to data from the nonpartisan health policy research organization KFF.

The legislation would expand eligibility for catastrophic plans, which currently are limited to people under 30, those who are otherwise not eligible for an Obamacare subsidy or who get a hardship exemption.

How Much Will 4.5 Million Florida Residents Pay for Obamacare in 2026?

Yesterday, I addressed the question How Much Will 4.5 Million Florida Residents Pay for Obamacare in 2026?

Here’s some interesting health care math on Obamacare in Florida.

How a Couple Making $90,000 in Combined Income Fares

• 2025: $7,644
• 2026 as Exists Now: $38,112
• New Affordable Program: $38,112 – $1,500 = $36,612

You have to admit this new affordability idea is nothing short of brilliant (assuming you are wearing a TWS or MAGA hat, and are not on Obamacare).

This is brilliant as well: “They said the measure would contain a provision to lower insurance premiums by 11% in 2027”

Wait Till Next Year 2027

2027 is a “wait until next year” kind of promise, about three weeks early.

But if Obamacare premiums rise by an average of 114 percent in 2026 (as per KFF), do we really want to brag about lowering them by 11 percent in 2027?

I have commented many times on the wait till next year idea.

On October 5, 2025, I noted Trump Adopts Chicago Cubs’ Perpetual Message, “Wait Till Next Year”

President Trump’s advisers are counseling him to refine his economic message with a pitch to voters aimed at easing their anxiety about weak jobs growth and stubborn inflation.

Their new mantra: Just wait until next year.

But “Wait Till 2026” is a fundamental mistake. When 2026 is bad, the message will have to change.

The beauty of a more Cub-esque “Wait Till Next Year” is the slogan never has to change.

Next year is now only 21 days away. So it’s fitting wait till 2027 is already creeping into the discussion.

President Trump Promised a Manufacturing Boom. Where Is It?

On December 9, 2025, I asked President Trump Promised a Manufacturing Boom. Where Is It?

The answer is China.

But that’s OK. In three weeks, wait till next year will be the brilliantly convenient response.

Republicans Own Health Care Now, What Will They Do With It?

On December 7, I asked Republicans Own Health Care Now, What Will They Do With It?

Republicans are no doubt quietly (MGT not quietly) seething over health care.

Republicans now own health care and will get the blame no matter what happens. Those who are simmering right now will be extremely angry when the actual bills have to be paid.

That starts January 1 for most and February 1 for others.

Expect the Health Care issue to blow sky high in early 2026, with a big Republican scramble on what to do.

Even if Republicans extend subsidies, people will be angry with 26 percent average premium hikes.

Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible

I cannot overly stress the importance of Health Care on the PCE, the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.

Please read and digest Health Care Inflation Bomb Makes the Fed’s 2 Percent Target Almost Impossible

Let’s discuss 2026 health care premiums and what they mean to the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation.

I expect a rise in the Health Care weight in the PCE. I also expect a net 1.5 percentage point increase in PCE inflation in 2026 due to health care.

These estimates stem from health care price hikes across the board (Medicare and corporate plans), not counting the huge ACA impacts.

The Fed’s PCE inflation target is 2.0 percent. If I am in the ballpark, health care alone rates to take up 1.5 percentage points of that target, again, not counting Obamacare!

Click above link for details and the math.

More By This Author: