40 Days of Shutdown Dramatics for a "Pinky Promise"
Democrats just fought the longest shutdown in history to protect insurance company profits. They say it's about "compassion."
A Note: Okay, let’s talk about ACA subsidies and government shutdowns. WAIT! Please don’t go to sleep yet. Stay with me. Because what just went down in Washington was less “boring policy debate” and more “political drama where everyone loses except insurance company executives.”
The setup: 40 days of shutdown. Democrats blocking funding bills fourteen times. Republicans offering alternative plans. Media spinning narratives. And the resolution? A literal pinky promise with zero guarantee of passing.
Yes, I know the spin is “Democrats caved” and gave the Republicans a win. Meanwhile, when it comes to Republicans, “cruelty was the point.”
My hot take: Compassion is the cover. It’s about protecting corporate profits while claiming moral superiority. Let’s dig into how we got here and how Democrats have been selling the American people a lie.
Well, after 40 days of what became the longest government shutdown in American history, Washington finally found a way to do what it does best: to kick the can down the road. Again.
A group of centrist Senate Democrats just blinked. After blocking clean funding bills fourteen times while fighting to preserve enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, they agreed to a deal that reopens the government until late January with nothing but a Republican promise to hold a vote on those subsidies likely by mid-December.
That’s right. A promise. A “pinky swear,” as one progressive Democrat called it. After weeks of Rep. Katherine Clark calling suffering families “leverage” and Senator Chuck Schumer bragging that things were getting “better and better” politically, Democrats got exactly nothing except a vote with zero guarantee of passing.
Throughout this drama, Democrats kept calling Republican positions “cruel.” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused them of “visiting a healthcare crisis on the American people.” Senator Amy Klobuchar said constituents were “standing on a cliff.”
But here’s the truth: Democrats just spent 40 days fighting to preserve subsidies that go straight into insurance company pockets. The same companies that have tripled their profits since the ACA passed. The same companies that keep raising premiums, knowing taxpayers will cover the difference.
President Trump proposed taking that money away from what he called “money sucking Insurance Companies” and sending it directly to Americans so they could buy their own healthcare.
And Democrats called that cruel.
The Debate
When Republicans used shutdown tactics in 2013 and 2018, it was “extortion” and “holding Americans hostage.” But when Democrats do it to protect insurance company profits dressed up as compassion? That’s just “fighting for families.”
So now the government reopens. Federal workers finally get paid. And in January, when the stopgap funding expires again, we’ll do this whole dance one more time—right before those enhanced subsidies disappear on January 1st, setting up the perfect election-year crisis for the Democrats to tout for the 2026 midterms.
But this fight was never about compassion. It’s about protecting a system that enriches corporations while claiming moral superiority. And it’s about time we talked about what the Affordable Care Act really accomplished: making the illusion of affordability politically profitable while insurance companies laugh all the way to the bank.
The Foundation Was Always Cracked
Let’s rewind to 2010. The Affordable Care Act passed with exactly zero Republican votes, pushed through on procedural maneuvering and promises that would make a used car salesman blush.
President Obama promised premiums would drop by $2,500 per family. He promised that if you liked your plan, you could keep it. He promised affordable healthcare for everyone.
By 2013, PolitiFact named “If you like your plan, you can keep it” their Lie of the Year. Not “misleading statement.” Lie. Of. The. Year.
What actually happened? Premiums didn’t drop by $2,500. They rose by more than $3,000. Networks shrank. Deductibles soared.
Now, ACA defenders will jump in with their favorite talking point: “But we bent the cost curve! National healthcare spending growth slowed from 6.9% annually pre-ACA to 4.3% after!”
Here’s what they won’t tell you: that moderation happened almost entirely in public programs like Medicare and Medicaid—government-run programs where Washington could control costs by fiat. Meanwhile, private insurance costs kept climbing. Congressional testimony from 2013 showed premiums for young, healthy people were set to jump by an average of 149 percent.
From 2010 to 2023, Medicare spending per enrollee grew 50.3%. Medicaid grew 30.3%. Private insurance costs? Up 80.4%.
They fixed the problem on paper. They ignored the issue in people’s bank accounts.
The ACA didn’t collapse the healthcare system. It cemented it in place. It locked in high prices, guaranteed customers for insurance companies, and created an endless stream of government bailouts. Typical Democrat MO, pretty on the outside. Crumbling underneath.
Psst! Enjoy this? Subscribe to It’s Meseidy. Independent analysis for people tired of being lied to. Get exclusive deep dives and Friday Desk Notes for 30% off annual subscriptions.
Follow the Money
Since 2010, the top five insurance companies have tripled their profits. UnitedHealth alone made $22 billion in 2023. Hospital mergers exploded post-ACA, driving up prices by reducing competition.
The government writes the check. Insurance companies cash it. Real people hold the bag.
Want to see the magic trick? When proponents celebrate slowing national healthcare spending growth, they’re celebrating victories in government programs that don’t help the families watching their premiums and deductibles skyrocket. Out-of-pocket spending hit $1,514 per person by 2023, up from pre-ACA levels.
Want proof the “Affordable” Care Act isn’t working? ABC News recently reported on families drowning in the very system Democrats claim saved them.
People like Astrid Storey in Colorado, a thyroid cancer patient whose premiums jumped from $1,400 to $1,900 per month. She’s now contemplating leaving the country just to afford cancer treatment.
Nathan Boye in Florida has diabetes. His premiums are about to soar from $28 to more than $700 a month. He’s considering going without insurance altogether. A diabetic is considering dropping coverage because the “Affordable” Care Act made it unaffordable.
Doug and Shadene Butchart in Illinois are watching ALS treatment costs climb above their entire Social Security check. Her premiums are jumping to $2,000 per month. Combined with an $8,000 deductible and $10,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, her healthcare costs more than they live on.
ABC News found these families. But wait until you hear how they framed the story.
These aren’t hypothetical victims. These are real people trapped in a system that was supposed to help them, but instead made insurance companies rich while families choose between medication and mortgage payments.
The Media Mask
Remember those families I just mentioned? Here’s the kicker: ABC documented Astrid’s cancer struggle, Nathan’s diabetes crisis, Doug and Shadene’s ALS nightmare, and then framed the entire story around Republican threats to subsidies.
They found the evidence. They told the stories. But they couldn’t connect the dots. Why are premiums exploding under a law called the “Affordable Care Act”? Why do these families have fewer choices than before 2010? How does guaranteed corporate money and reduced competition equal skyrocketing costs?
Never asked. Because asking means admitting the ACA itself might be the problem.
And that’s just another example of the selective journalism we’ve been witnessing. Because if you think the ACA’s fifteen-year journey has been covered honestly, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
When Republicans used shutdown tactics to fight the ACA in 2013 and 2018, legacy media broke out their opinion polled outrage. “Hostage-taking.” “Reckless brinkmanship” “The cruelty is the point.”
Fast forward to 2025. Democrats block clean funding bills fourteen times. Chuck Schumer says things are getting “better and better” politically while federal workers miss paychecks. Katherine Clark calls suffering families “leverage.”
Desk Notes | The Shutdown Where Republicans Want Clean Funding
Okay, I’m going to do something I don’t usually do, make myself vulnerable and put something out there that commits me to actually doing it. Which is terrifying because once it’s in print, there’s no pretending it didn’t happen.
And the media? Crickets. Or worse, framing it as a “principled defense of healthcare access.”
But selective outrage is just the opening act. The real magic is the narrative inversion that happens every single year.
Rising premiums? That’s proof we need more subsidies, not evidence the ACA failed. Deductibles doubling? Better extend those tax credits instead of asking why underlying prices keep climbing. Insurance companies are posting record profits while families can’t afford medication. Must be because we haven’t thrown enough taxpayer money at the problem yet.
Every year, the ACA gets more expensive and less effective, and somehow that’s treated as proof it needs more money. It’s the policy equivalent of “the beatings will continue until morale improves,” except with better PR.
The media isn’t investigating why costs keep rising despite a law literally called the “Affordable Care Act.” They’re not connecting guaranteed customers, reduced competition, and skyrocketing prices. They’re not asking why Democrats designed a system with built-in subsidy cliffs that create predictable crises.
Here’s the truth: many legacy journalists supported the ACA from day one. They championed it. Calling it a failure would mean admitting they and their favorite president were wrong for fifteen years. And we have become all too familiar with the media’s inability to admit being wrong. The ACA wasn’t just a law. It was a story about progress and compassion. The press still treats it like sacred text.
So we get coverage that launders bad policy into moral theater. Rising costs become stories about Republican cruelty. Subsidy cliffs become stories about Democratic compassion. Families trapped in the middle become props rather than evidence of policy failure.
Americans never get the full story. They hear about vulnerable people losing coverage. They don’t hear that Democrats built a dependency system instead of fixing actual cost drivers.
How McCain’s Thumbs-Down Locked In Failure
With media coverage protecting the ACA, Republicans needed to be smart, strategic, and united to offer a real alternative.
They were none of those things.
Republicans campaigned for years on “repeal and replace,” holding symbolic votes but never agreeing on what “replace” actually meant.
Enter John McCain, July 2017, just after 1:00 AM. Recently diagnosed with brain cancer, his face still scarred from surgery, he strode to the front of the Senate chamber and delivered a swift thumbs-down that killed the Republican repeal bill.
McCain said he wanted “regular order,” full debate, committee hearings, and amendments. Noble, right? Except Washington’s regular order is dysfunction. And some speculated that his vote was also fueled by his bitter feud with President Trump, who had publicly mocked McCain’s war hero status and whom McCain had openly despised, perhaps not wanting to hand Trump a signature legislative win. But here’s what that dramatic gesture really accomplished: McCain’s thumbs-down didn’t just kill repeal—it eliminated the last realistic chance for comprehensive reform before subsidies became politically untouchable. That moment transformed healthcare from a policy debate into a dependency program, making future reform exponentially more difficult.
The GOP killed the individual mandate but offered no structure to replace it. They sounded like bean counters arguing about budgets while Democrats owned “compassion.” They were fiscal hawks in a moral debate.
McCain’s vote was framed as a principle, but the result was paralysis. His defiance made him a Washington establishment hero, while leaving families trapped in a broken system. That gesture didn’t just stop repeal; it greenlit unlimited subsidies masquerading as compassion.
Here’s the uncomfortable truth Republicans need to own: this failure happened during Trump’s first term. But let’s be clear about what really went down. Trump came to Washington promising to drain the swamp, and the swamp fought back—wearing Republican name tags. The establishment GOP that controlled Congress wasn’t interested in disrupting the status quo. They were comfortable with the theater of opposition, voting to repeal Obamacare dozens of times when Obama could veto it, but suddenly getting cold feet when they actually had the power to follow through.
McCain wasn’t alone in his resistance. He was just the most dramatic about it. The old GOP establishment, the Romney wing, the Bush holdovers, the country club Republicans, more worried about their next cocktail party than their constituents’ premium payments, actively undermined Trump’s reform agenda at every turn. They preferred losing gracefully to winning disruptively.
Today’s Republicans need to learn from that spectacular failure. The new breed in power can’t afford to play the same games. You can’t campaign on change and then govern like you’re protecting the furniture in your grandmother’s sitting room. The 2026 cliff isn’t just a Democratic trap—it’s a test of whether the GOP has finally figured out how to own the affordability message instead of letting Democrats monopolize compassion while enriching insurance companies.
The choice is simple: Either articulate a vision of healthcare freedom that sounds like actual care for actual people, or watch another generation of Republicans get steamrolled by Democrats weaponizing dependency. No more McCain-style establishment paralysis. No more prioritizing decorum over results. The families drowning in premiums don’t need another round of political theater—they need Republicans who finally learned the lesson.
The Subsidy Machine
With Republicans incapable of offering an alternative, Democrats doubled down: not fixing the ACA, but hiding its failure under mountains of taxpayer dollars.
The American Rescue Plan in 2021 supercharged ACA subsidies under COVID-19 coverage. The Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 extended them through 2025. Democrats knew these were temporary band-aids. They just pumped more money into the system.
These subsidies cost taxpayers $350 billion. But here’s the real kicker: each subsidy extension doesn’t just cost $350 billion; it locks in higher baseline costs for the next generation. Today’s $888 premium becomes tomorrow’s $1,904 without subsidies, creating an escalating dependency spiral where each generation inherits exponentially higher healthcare costs. When premiums rise, taxpayers eat the increase. Insurance companies keep raising prices, knowing the government covers the difference.
When those subsidies expire this year, premiums for subsidized enrollees will jump 114 percent, from $888 to $1,904 annually. That’s not affordability. That’s dependency.
Critics will point to the 22 million Americans facing doubled premiums as evidence against reform. But this crisis itself proves the ACA’s fundamental failure—after 15 years and hundreds of billions in subsidies, we still haven’t achieved genuine affordability. The question isn’t whether the transition will be difficult, but whether we continue building a house of cards or finally construct a sustainable foundation.
The media reports each subsidy extension as compassion rather than an admission of failure. “Democrats fight to preserve coverage” sounds better than “Democrats design perpetual crisis to justify perpetual spending.”
Real compassion means solving problems, not financing them indefinitely. When Nathan Boye faces $700 monthly premiums for diabetes care, the compassionate response isn’t another taxpayer-funded band-aid—it’s asking why insulin costs more in America than anywhere else and fixing the underlying market distortions.
Freedom vs. Dependency: The Reform Democrats Won’t Try
Voters aren’t stupid, even if politicians treat them that way. People don’t need more subsidies. They need lower actual prices.
Real affordability doesn’t come from more government money. It comes from more freedom. Here’s what actual reform looks like:
Open markets across state lines. Let people buy plans from anywhere, forcing insurers to compete on price and quality. Insurance companies operate in protected territories like medieval fiefdoms. Break those walls down.
Expand Health Savings Accounts. Let families control their own healthcare dollars, tax-free. When people spend their own money, they shop around. When they shop around, prices drop.
True catastrophic coverage. Affordable, flexible plans that cover the big stuff without mandating coverage for services people don’t need.
Price transparency with enforcement. Make hospitals post actual prices. You can compare prices for TVs, cars, and groceries. Why not medical procedures?
Site-neutral payments. Stop letting hospitals charge $500 for procedures that cost $50 at urgent care just because they can slap “hospital” on the building.
Tort reform. Reduce defensive medicine and frivolous lawsuits. Doctors ordering unnecessary tests to protect against lawsuits isn’t good medicine. It’s expensive insurance.
Market-based reforms aren’t partisan talking points; they’re economic necessities. Even Democratic economists acknowledge that subsidizing demand without addressing supply constraints inevitably leads to price inflation. The choice isn’t between Republican “heartlessness” and Democratic “compassion;” it’s between sustainable solutions and unsustainable spending.
And reform doesn’t require throwing millions off coverage overnight. A set period for phase-in could implement interstate commerce and price transparency immediately while gradually expanding HSAs and catastrophic coverage options, giving Americans real choices before subsidies expire.
This isn’t about taking healthcare away. It’s about giving people real choices instead of expensive mandates. It’s about Republicans finally learning to articulate freedom in a language that sounds like care, not just costs.
The 2026 Cliff
So the shutdown is coming to an end, for nothing? Not so fast, here’s why Democrats were willing to let federal workers suffer: they’re setting up the perfect trap for 2026.
Those enhanced subsidies expire on December 31, 2025, creating a perfect election-year crisis. When premiums spike in 2026, Democrats will blame Republicans for “taking away healthcare.” The media will amplify stories like Astrid Storey’s $1,900 monthly premiums without mentioning that Democrats designed this cliff precisely to create election-year leverage. Don’t let them rewrite history—they built this time bomb deliberately.
Unless the GOP can own the narrative, explaining they want to lower actual prices instead of shifting costs to taxpayers, they’ll lose. Again. The current shutdown is just the preview. The real battle comes when 22 million people see their subsidies disappear and premiums double overnight.
Democrats designed it this way. The temporary subsidies. The built-in cliff. The election-year timing. It’s strategy, not incompetence.
The test: Can Republicans finally articulate freedom in a language that sounds like care? Can they point to real people and say, “This is what happens when government picks winners instead of empowering choices”?
Or will they watch from the sidelines as another generation gets locked into dependency disguised as compassion?
The Foundation That Can’t Hold
Obama built a healthcare law on political concrete. Pretty on the surface, crumbling underneath. Fifteen years later, Democrats are still patching cracks with taxpayer dollars, calling it compassion while enriching corporations.
The current shutdown exposed the truth: this was never about healthcare. Federal workers going without paychecks while Democrats fight to keep subsidies flowing to insurers tells you everything about priorities.
If Republicans want to win this fight, they need to stop arguing about the paint job and start rebuilding the foundation. Real competition. Real transparency. Real choices. Real honesty about what went wrong and who’s been covering it up.
Here’s the economic reality no one wants to say out loud: healthcare costs cannot indefinitely outpace wage growth and GDP expansion. The current subsidy model doesn’t change this fundamental math; it just determines whether costs become unaffordable for families now or taxpayers later. Economic reality always wins eventually. The only question is how much damage we inflict postponing the reckoning.
The 2026 cliff is coming. The subsidies expire. The premiums spike. The crisis hits right before midterms. How conveniently predictable.
The question is whether anyone will finally tell the truth about it.
Questions for the reader: Have you been caught in the ACA’s premium spiral? Has your insurance company sent you a letter explaining why your coverage is about to cost more than your mortgage? Drop your story in the comments. Let’s have a real conversation about what’s actually working and what’s not.
Psst! Before you go!
Enjoy this? Subscribe to It’s Meseidy. Independent analysis for people tired of being lied to. Get exclusive deep dives and Friday Desk Notes for 30% off annual subscriptions