Washington Journal (12/12/2025) pits Congress over expiring ACA subsidies—Senate votes 51-48 to reject extensions, with Amy Klobuchar blaming Republican inaction and Karoline Leavitt defending HSAs—while House GOP plans face internal pressure from moderates like Fitzpatrick. Callers clash: Republicans demand free-market reforms, Democrats push for immediate fixes, and Independents cite personal struggles under the ACA’s strain. Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon warns of Venezuela tensions, criticizing Hegseth’s "Signalgate" handling and NATO skepticism, while Malik accuses oil-driven pretexts. Casten counters with ACA’s bipartisan roots, calling GOP restrictions "junk insurance," and slams Trump’s unconstitutional Venezuela strikes as potential war crimes, exposing deeper partisan divides on health care and foreign policy. [Automatically generated summary]
Coming up live on Washington Journal this morning, along with your calls and comments, we'll talk about escalating tensions with Venezuela, the future of ACA subsidies, and other news of the day.
First, with Nebraska Republican Congressman Don Bacon and with Illinois Democratic Congressman Sean Caston.
You have already seen how the public feels about this, whether it is the Virginia and the New Jersey governors' races, whether it is the statewide Georgia races, including a recent legislative race there.
They said enough.
They want us to be working together to do something about their health care.
And we have given them the opportunity so many times.
The straight extension, straight extension.
And we would like to do a lot more, believe me, reverse the cuts from the big, beautiful betrayal of the bill when it comes to Medicaid, do something more on my legislation for negotiation of prescription drugs so we could do that faster.
Public option, you name it.
There's a lot of choices here.
But right now, we have an immediate crisis.
And as Senator Schumer pointed out, this is not a January thing.
It's going to be set by then.
This is not a February thing.
This is a now thing.
And they not only rejected this three years, despite four of them, including a very conservative Republican, voting with us today, they also rejected a two-year.
They also rejected a very clear vote on a simple one-year extension that basically would have been the same amount of money as they sent to Argentina.
So I don't know how they explain to that soybean farmer in Minnesota that it was more important for them to send money to Argentina for one of the president's buddies than it is to help people with their health care.
75% of the people on these plans are in red states.
Minnesota's Senator Democrat Amy Klobuchar arguing for an extension of the Affordable Care Act enhanced tax credits.
Do you agree with her and her political calculation there following the vote in the Senate?
Now, four Republicans did join Democrats on that test vote to move to the extension of the ACA subsidies.
They were joined.
Democrats were joined by Senator Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, and Alaska's two Republicans also voted with them, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan.
Now, listening to the Republicans, here is what White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said about what happens next with health care subsidies and what role the president will play.
We are working, the president is working with his health care policy team here at the White House, as well as Republicans on Capitol Hill to find a solution.
unidentified
He said he's working to find a solution.
He wants to see a solution to lower health care costs.
He does.
But these subsidies are expiring at the end of the year.
So what is the plan and what is he going to do to put this in place in the next two, three weeks?
You'll hear more from the president and from the White House on that very soon.
As for wanting a solution to lower health care costs, I'm glad you said it because the president is doing just that.
He has made unprecedented progress towards lowering health care costs in this country and drug prices.
He's secured numerous most favored nation drug price deals with many more to come.
As you know, the One Big Beautiful bill, the Working Family Tax Cut, significantly expanded access to health savings accounts for those on Obamacare, again, a Democrat written program and approved program, which has led to higher health care costs in this country.
So it goes back to the issue of affordability.
Democrats are now pretending they want a solution to this issue, but they created the problem.
The president and Republicans are currently coming up with creative solutions and ideas to lower health care costs for the American people, and you'll continue to hear more from them on that.
The White House Press Secretary promising more from the President and Republicans on this issue.
Now, these ACA tax subsidies, enhanced tax subsidies that were put in place during the COVID pandemic, expire December 31st, about three weeks away from the expiration of that.
We want to know what you want lawmakers to do here in Washington.
Do you want them to extend these ACA enhanced tax subsidies?
Or do you want, as you just heard from Caroline Levitt, an alternative proposal?
And what is that?
Republicans, dial in at 202-748-8001.
Democrats, 202-748-8000.
And Independents, 202-748-8002.
Now, next week in the House, from Politico's reporting, House GOP leaders expect to release a health care overhaul today, ahead of a vote plan for next week.
That's according to Majority Leader Steve Scalise in an interview with Politico.
The Louisiana Republicans said GOP leadership is finalizing whether to take up a series of bills or one comprehensive piece of legislation.
Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Thursday the House will likely take one vote next week.
The plan is not expected to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire at the end of this month.
Scalise said it's unlikely that the plan would put more money into individual health savings accounts in contrast with a Senate Republican plan that would give people funds directly.
That was one of the votes yesterday in the U.S. Senate that failed.
Scalise cited budget scoring issues as a reason why House Republicans were not expected to include the provision in their plan.
He said it may incorporate a new policy that would increase the flexibility of health saving account contributions.
Now, going to Punch Bowl News, this is what they say.
House GOP's high-stakes day on health care.
Speaker Mike Johnson and the House Republican leadership team will meet this morning with the GOP's quote five families to discuss a plan to give moderates a vote on the Obamacare subsidies next week.
The huddle is crucial because it could weigh heavily on how Johnson is able to navigate an incredibly fraught scramble over health care that has splintered his conference.
The five families is composed of the leaders of the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee, the Republican Governance Group, the Main Street Caucus, and the Problem Solvers Caucus.
Johnson is planning to put a Republican health care bill on the floor next week with extended health savings accounts, with expanded health savings accounts, cost-sharing reductions, and association health plans.
The GOP leadership is considering giving moderates an amendment vote on extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies without adding abortion funding restrictions.
The amendment would mostly resemble Representative Brian Fitzpatrick's bipartisan bill extending the subsidies for two years with reforms.
This could, they report, theoretically smooth passage of the underlying GOP health care bill.
Let's turn to all of you.
Alice in Colorado, Republican, it's your turn to tell these lawmakers as they debate what to do next on these health care subsidies.
What do you want them to do?
unidentified
Yes, I'm a Republican, but we can't afford Obamacare, the Democratic Obamacare.
I believe we should all have national health care.
Then people aren't fighting or lying about what if they can qualify for it.
I really believe that, and the way we can afford national health care, is that we should be paying higher income tax and having a flat tax and no deductions.
By the way, I just want to tell you, I listen to Colorado to C-SPAN because you don't have commercials other than you advertise your shows.
I love C-SPAN on all the time and listen to some programs and then switch back to C-SPAN.
And the other thing is on Sunday, Kimberly, the lovely black gal, she is so, so good with her responses and she's fair.
Well, House Republicans say they're going to unveil something today for a vote next week in the House.
That follows two votes in the Senate yesterday.
Both proposals rejected.
First was a Senate Republican health care proposal put forth by Senators Cassidy and Crapo.
It replaces expiring ACA-enhanced subsidies with health savings accounts, deposits up to $1,500 into these accounts for individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level.
Bars the funds from being used for abortion or gender transition services.
This is from Reuters reporting, and it extends expiring ACA-enhanced subsidies.
Excuse me.
Then there was the Senate Democrat health care proposal, which would have extended expiring ACA-enhanced subsidies for three years and continue to cap out-of-pocket premiums to 8.5% of income.
These two proposals needed 60 votes to get over the filibuster.
It was a cloture vote, a test vote.
If they had reached the 60 votes, then they would have moved to debate and final vote on the proposals.
They couldn't get there yesterday in the Senate.
Now the action is in the House next week.
We want you to tell these lawmakers what you want them to do on these health care subsidies.
Yeah, as a Republican, do you think you would have ever said three years ago, five years ago, 10 years ago, that you're in favor of universal health care?
Yes, because I experienced dealing with corporations, and all they care about is getting our money away from us and giving us, and that's how it works.
That's the system.
That's why we shouldn't allow corporations to run our health care.
Keith, a Republican in Zanzibille, Ohio, with his thoughts.
Mark, Lancaster, Ohio, Independent.
Mark, what do you want the lawmakers to do, as well as the president here?
What do you want to hear from them on these health care subsidies?
unidentified
Lady that took the call, and I wanted to mention something first, because we're talking about the health care.
You know, my wife worked for a hospital.
This is all true.
Works for a hospital in Circleville, which is about 28 miles from Lancaster.
And she ended up leaving the hospital because they talked her into it and working for a company in Alpharetta, Georgia.
She worked by the phone.
She released medical records, believe it or not.
The company had a conference call when Obamacare came about.
And at home, I was listening, I was on the extension.
They were telling these employees about their health care.
It was new health care.
I got on the phone.
And I said, what are you offering as new health care?
They cut off a conference call right then.
And at the end of the year, they were told if they filed for Obamacare, they would be fired.
Well, at the end of the year, when the IRS, they have to fill out an IRS statement saying they provide insurance every month of that year, they lied about it.
It was fictitious.
They act like they did.
My wife was paying $500 a month after that, after Obamacare started, just for basic insurance.
And she probably netted $1,700 or $1,800 a month.
So $500 of her $1,700 net income went to insurance.
Early this week, we introduced legislation drafted by the chairman of the relevant committee, Senators Crapo and Cassidy, to make structural reforms to the individual health insurance market.
In contrast, the Democrat bill, our bill would actually lower, as I said, Obamacare premium costs.
And it would redirect government savings from the bill into health savings accounts for eligible Obamacare enrollees earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level, paired with some affordable insurance plans.
These accounts would help individuals to meet their out-of-pocket costs.
unidentified
And for many individuals who don't use their insurance, who barely use it, it would allow them to save for health care expenses down the road.
So we have two paths here, Mr. President.
One, a plan to start addressing the spiraling health care costs in Obamacare and make structural reforms that would drive down premium prices.
Two, a proposal for a three-year extension of the status quo.
So you tell me who's serious about actually addressing the affordability of health care.
Two paths rebuffed by senators yesterday in the Senate.
They did not get the 60 votes needed to pass either one of those proposals that the Senate Majority Leader John Thune was outlining on the floor this morning.
Your reaction to what's next for health care.
What do you want to see these lawmakers do?
Mark in Pennsylvania, Republican.
Good morning to you.
unidentified
Good morning, Greta.
What I'd like to see them do is anybody that's taken over $100,000 in Congress from these drug health care companies not recuse themselves from voting on this because they're all bought and paid for, every single one of them.
The guy that just was on $900,000.
Hakeen Jeffries, $1.2 million.
Chuck Schumer, $3 million.
This was on Como last night.
And you can look up these things online.
It's disgusting how much money they give all the people that are on the committees and could pass the bills and everything.
How much money they're all bought and paid for.
What I'd like to see them do is extend the subsidies and also give it to the senior citizens, too, like they do to people who are working.
Because senior citizens can be charged 20% every year, right?
Other Social Security check.
And most of us are getting under the poverty level for our Social Security checks.
They don't do anything for us.
You never hear them mention anything about senior citizens getting taken over to Kohl's.
But all they care about is this one group of people, which is about 7% of the population.
It's not the whole country getting a deduction on their health care.
It's only 7%.
I don't understand why they're so laser-focused on that.
But, you know, instead of working to save everybody some money, which is really what they need to do, they're more worried about this group.
You're talking about the 22 million Americans who have these enhanced tax credits.
The KFA group estimates that without an extension of these enhanced tax subsidies, these folks are going to see their premiums double in 2026.
On average, around 114% increase, is what they estimated.
And, Mark, you're saying go ahead and extend these tax subsidies for these folks, which make up about 7% of the American population, is what you're saying, Mark.
So, do you agree with Brian Fitzpatrick, who represents a district in your state?
He's a moderate Republican, and he's saying, let's go ahead and extend these for two years along with some reforms.
unidentified
Well, Brian never puts out any definitive stuff he's going to do.
He talks in generalities.
You can call his office anytime you want, which I have, and he'll never give you any type of details on what these cuts will be or changes.
So, I don't really support him in pretty much anything he does because of that.
He never gives you anything, and then he votes against whatever he says he's going to do anyway down the line.
But what the problem is, like you just said, I don't believe those numbers you just gave me because if you look at the subsidies that these individuals get, it's nowhere near hundreds of percent of the bill.
It's very small.
Half the people on the ACA get full coverage with no money out of their pockets at all.
Half that's 10 million people.
The other, there's like supposedly 7 million people that don't even use the insurance.
And they give these subsidies to people that are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
They need to be cut off.
People who are non-citizens need to be cut off.
And then they need to cut down the administration costs because that's where most of this money's going.
It goes about 50 to 60 percent of the health care dollars go right into the pockets of the health care company for administration costs.
It's not going for health care.
Okay, and if they're really serious about fixing this problem, that's what they'll go after.
But they're not.
They'll never mention any of this because that's the real truth.
We pay more for administration costs in this country than any country on the face of this earth.
And that needs to be changed.
But these people aren't serious because they're all being bribed.
Every single one of them gets hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars in donations from these drug companies.
There are two discharge petitions in the House right now.
They're bipartisan, offered by a Republican and Democrat.
Discharge petition, if they get 218 signatures on that discharge petition, it allows them to go around the speaker and put legislation on the floor.
Take a look at the two different proposals.
The first one, offered by Representative Jen Kiggins, a Republican, and Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, it would extend the ACA tax credits for one year with income limits and fraud protections.
Brian Fitzpatrick, his proposal, who he has teamed up with Jared Golden, a Democrat of Maine, a centrist, on this proposal, it's a two-year extension with income limits, expands access to health savings accounts.
So those are the two pending discharge petitions.
Now, in order to get to 218, they would need the majority of Democrats to sign on.
Both of these proposals have a handful of Republicans who have signed on, but they would need the majority of Democrats to do so as well.
From Politico's reporting, moderate House Republicans are talking with GOP leaders about possibly setting up an amendment vote that could add an extension of expiring Obamacare subsidies to a health care package expected to move across the floor next week.
GOP leaders have been skeptical of such a move, but they're currently working through whether it could pass muster with House Republicans.
And it's under discussion as Centrist House Republicans grow desperate to hold off the expiration of the subsidies that more than 20 million Americans use.
Those leadership conversations also include whether to include Texas rep August Fluger's bill redirecting the tax credits into health savings account contributions as part of the GOP health package next week.
Other options are under consideration as GOP leaders continue working on a plan Thursday with Senate Majority Leader Steve Scale saying in a brief interview he wants to file the bills today.
So look for more news out of Congress on whether or not extending these ACA subsidies is part of the debate in the U.S. House next week.
The expiration December 31st.
Sarah, Maryland and Independent, good morning to you.
What do you say?
unidentified
Yeah, hey, good morning.
You know, I work with health insurance.
I'm a broker.
And the thing is, the enhanced subsidies that are disappearing are definitely hurting people.
So I give you one simple example.
I have a couple, and they're both in their one is in their late 50s, the other one is in their early 60s.
And the cost for the insurance with the enhanced subsidies in 2025 was about $7,000 for the year because they got this enhanced subsidy, right?
Next year, because the enhanced subsidy is gone, there's this cliff.
That's what everybody's talking about.
There is no subsidy for them anymore based on their income with $85,000 or $90,000 a year.
So now they're spending $1,500, excuse me, $15,000 a year just to have basic insurance with the Bronze APL.
When you call the Bronze Plan basic, explain that.
Why?
unidentified
Well, the Bronze Applant comes with $6,000 to $10,000 deductibles.
So if something major happens to you and you end up in the hospital for three weeks, you are going to be out of $10,000.
Some of the Bronze Applies do have basic co-pays for, for example, for specialists, you may pay $110 for going to see your primary care doctor.
It may be $35.
But the point is, if you had cancer or something really serious happening for somebody that makes, let's say, $95,000 in income, they're spending $15,000 on premium.
Then, God forbid, if something serious happens or they have chronic conditions and they need to, you know, end up in a hospital or they need expensive medications, for each one of them, they're going to be out of another $10,000.
And when you add all of that together, their $90,000 income, $35,000 of that could be spent just on health care premiums and out-of-pocket liabilities.
And it is for most people, they just can't do that, you know?
Sarah and Maryland Independent, you are echoing the argument by Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, Republican.
He, and along with his colleague, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, they joined Democrats.
There were two of four Republicans who joined Democrats on their vote to extend the enhanced tax credits.
Also, Susan Collins of Maine, Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri.
Those four voting along with Democrats to move to legislation that would have extended the tax credits for three years.
They failed to get the 60 votes needed.
Now, Politico caught up with Senator Dan Sullivan and asked why he would have voted with Democrats.
And he said it's because he wanted to get to legislation so that they could debate.
Politico notes this.
Alaska has a higher cost of living than most other states and is projected to have among the highest premium spikes next year if the subsidies expire.
For example, a 40-year-old on an average benchmark plan making $32,000 a year will see their monthly premiums increase from $15,000 to $129, according to an October analysis from the Health Research Policy Organization KFA, KFF, KFF.
People who earn more than four times the poverty level will be hurt the most if the boosted subsidies expire because they will no longer qualify for any help.
If the enhanced subsidies expire, the original ones from the 2010 Obamacare law will remain, but eligibility for those was capped by income.
So that is the heart of the debate.
In the Senate yesterday, rejected two proposals to deal with the expiration of these enhanced ACA subsidies.
Listen to the Democratic leader Chuck Schumer criticizing the Republican proposal that was also voted on and rejected on the Senate floor yesterday.
I say to my Republican colleagues, our bill is the last train to leave the station.
It is the only realistic option before the Senate today that solves the health care crisis.
If Republicans don't climb aboard, there won't be another chance to act before premiums skyrocket next year.
Now, Republicans have dithered long enough.
Democrats are fighting to lower costs for the American people while Republicans are fighting among themselves.
And let me say this about the Republican bill.
The Republican bill is not true health care reform.
It is not a health care plan whatsoever.
It is junk insurance.
The Republican bill is simply junk insurance.
For a while, it actually looked like the Republicans wouldn't put up a bill at all.
But after that became too embarrassing an option for them, they used scotch tape and glue to come up with this ridiculous proposal that can't be taken seriously.
The Republican plan does nothing, nothing, to extend the tax credits for even a day.
Our bill, of course, extends them for three years.
Under the Republican plan, the big idea is essentially to hand people about $80 a month and wish them good luck, say you're on your own no matter what happens.
And to even qualify for that check, Americans would be forced onto bare-bone bronze plans with sky-high deductibles, $7,000 or $10,000 for an individual and tens of thousands for a couple.
So the deductibles are so high that even that is not paid for by the $80 a month.
And then Americans are stuck and have nothing, nothing, nothing.
Senator Chuck Schremer, Democrat of New York, on the floor yesterday, right before senators voted on two proposals.
You heard him criticizing the Republican plan offered by Senator Bill Cassidy and Senator Crapo that would have replaced these subsidies with health savings accounts, enhanced health savings accounts, money for them directly to the consumer to help with their medical costs.
Each of those proposals failed, 51 to 48 not getting the 60 votes needed to advance.
Listen to Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican of Louisiana, on the floor, pushing back on criticism of their plan.
Now, it's been said that somehow Republicans are supporting junk insurance.
And you got to laugh.
Mr. President, you got to laugh.
Republicans are using the same plans on Obamacare that Democrats fought for.
We are merely taking the framework set up on a unanimous partisan vote by Democrats to create these plans on Obamacare, and that's the one we're using.
So for some to call those junk plans, kind of like saying we gave the American people junk, I would argue the Republican Party is making these better.
Look at this.
Under the Democratic plan, there's a $6,000 deductible.
Imagine the housewife who has to take her child into the urgent care center and knows she doesn't have the money.
This is a cartoon, but in that cartoon, there's real stress and anxiety for that mama who cannot afford the care she knows her daughter needs.
Look at this one, the Republican plan.
She's got money in her pocket.
She's got money in her account.
She's got money in her pocket for the insurance out-of-pocket.
And if she starts off with money in her purse to pay for that need, why can't people see that's where the American people are?
If the average American family has less than $1,000 to spend and our plan puts thousands in their account to pay for the health care they know they need, what is the objection to that?
Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of Louisiana, talking about the proposal from the GOP to create health savings accounts rather than these enhanced tax credits for the ACA.
It would deposit up to $1,500 into HSAs for individuals earning less than 700% of the federal poverty level, $1,000 for 18 to 49 years old, years old, and then $1,500 for those 50 to 64.
That's how their proposal would have worked.
Both the Republican plan and the Democrats' effort to extend these enhanced tax credits for three years failed in the U.S. Senate.
From Punch Bowl News, Senate takes a back seat.
Most of the bipartisan negotiations have been centralized in the Senate over the past several weeks.
But after the chambers failed votes on partisan proposals Thursday, key senators now see the House as being in the driver's seat.
And from Politico, this morning, House GOP leaders could unveil plan this weekend.
House GLP leaders expect to release a health care overhaul today, ahead of a vote planned for next week.
Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise said GOP leadership is finalizing whether to take up a series of bills or one comprehensive piece of legislation.
Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Thursday the House will likely take one vote next week.
We are in our first hour of the Washington Journal getting your take on what Washington should do next on these health care subsidies.
John in Gold Beach, Oregon, Democratic Caller.
Let's hear from you, John.
unidentified
Yeah, I was just wanting to share my experience with the ACA.
I had prostate cancer and I had to go through an extensive surgery, which cost $62,000.
And with the ACA, the insurance company had taken that down to $28,000.
I have to admit that I called a couple of days ago, and normally I wait for the 30 days to call in, but I had a, you used my commercial, you used my commercial for C-SPAN on air, so I thought maybe you'd let me through.
Well, again, they're nonprofits, but the costs seem to go up.
unidentified
So if you're just dealing with the Medicare for all, then the insurance companies could fight for the 20%, which is still a considerable amount of money, because even if you have Medicare, you're still on the hook for 20%.
Angela in Oklahoma City, that's what she would like lawmakers in Washington to do.
Brent in Louisiana, Republican.
What do you say?
unidentified
Well, I'm just reading off of the website about the ACA Affordable Care Act and concerning the what's called essential benefits that has to be included.
One of those benefits is pregnancy.
So what the insurance companies are charging for, they're charging pregnancy for everybody that has one of these plans.
During our targeted enforcement operations against criminal illegal aliens, individuals that are in that area may be detained until we verify who they are and then they are released.
This has been done for years and every single law enforcement operation that has always happened.
We follow the same protocols and we continue to do that.
We have never once detained or deported an American citizen.
We have not held them or charged them.
When we find out and verify their identity, then that is when they are released.
You also asked about ICE agents going far enough.
Sir, I will tell you that every single ICE agent, CBP agent, federal law enforcement officer that's out there doing their work every day, none of them will rest until our communities are safe.
None of them will rest until terrorism.
unidentified
Secretary Noam and our children and our grandchildren can grow.
Let me reclaim my time here, please.
Let me reclaim.
Secretary Nomi, it is a fact that you ignored federal court orders in March and in May of this year.
Madam Secretary, your incompetence and your inability to truthfully carry out your duties of Secretary of Homeland Security, if you're not fired, will you resign?
President Trump talking about the Indiana Senate yesterday rejecting his plan and Republicans to pick up seats by redistricting mid-decade in that state.
Now, we covered the Indiana Senate debate.
You can find it on our website at c-span.org.
Related to that, in the New York Times this morning, did Texas Republicans overplay their hand on redistricting?
With Hispanic voters showing signs of souring on President Trump in special elections this year and concerns mounting over the cost of living, Democrats believe they could hold on to as many as three of the redrawn seats in Texas, two in the Rio Grande Valley, and possibly a third centered in and around San Antonio.
The party is also looking at flipping a Republican seat in the valley, little changed in its partisan makeup by the new map where a popular music star is running as a moderate Democrat.
So that from the New York Times this morning.
Ashley, in Calverton, New York, an independent.
Ashley, we're talking about the extension of the Affordable Care Act in enhanced tax credits.
What do you say on this?
unidentified
Well, as a nurse, I've had a lot of historical perspective.
I was a nurse for 44 years, and I can tell you that once the government got involved in the early 90s, that's what really exploded costs.
As far as Obamacare goes, it made corporations out of hospitals, and it corporatized doctors.
Doctors don't have independent practices, and the government goes aggressively after those who try to be independent to force them by constantly auditing them on their Medicare or Medicaid insurance people.
They don't want people to have private insurance.
They don't want people to have independence.
And they want to control health care.
When you control health care, you control the population.
And they also box out a lot of preventative medicine.
They box out naturopathy.
And all these things are comprehensive as a total look at the patient.
Right now, one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing for any of these people.
And it's very, very sad.
And it's a mess.
Go back to competitive medicine, privatize it again, give people their health savings accounts, make it tax-deductible, make it so you can take it year to year, and then things will get better.
But the corporatization is what keeps costs higher.
I want to talk about, you know, I've been listening to one of your callers a few calls back, and he was complaining that not enough people who have the ACA are utilizing it.
And I'm like, my head almost exploded because it defeats the whole understanding of the whole insurance pool.
I mean, if we think about what's driving a lot of the costs up, you know, particularly for the government, I mean, the government is paying for the most costly segment of society that's utilizing medicine.
Medicare is for the elderly.
Veterans benefits, we may have to pay for our soldiers who got wounded or are ill or who need constant care.
Medicaid is covering mom in the nursing home or the developmentally disabled with receiving necessary services.
Imagine if someone has cerebral palsy and they need particular wheelchairs and around-the-clock help in order to survive.
So meanwhile, the corporate interests are covering the, I guess it's not people who aren't sick, but the least sick and the least costly among us.
It's a crazy kind of system.
I am a firm believer that we do need a national system.
That could come in many different flavors.
Even if you look around the world, countries that have socialized medicine, they're not all similar.
And there's countries like England, they hire all the physicians and the providers, but countries like Canada will have a single payer system or a single payer system.
There's just different ways of setting it up.
And I don't think there's a perfect solution that's going to satisfy everyone.
But I will say this: you know, the Republicans are constantly complaining about the budget, the debt, and how much we're driving up costs.
If you look at what the real drivers of cost of this country are the medical programs and, you know, in all of our society.
Okay, Catherine Randall here in Washington, D.C. Randall, good morning to you.
unidentified
Funny is you kind of chimed in when the guy was talking about costs going up and you specifically put it on the government.
But the plans would, the costs would be going up anyway.
The government is addressing a problem, which government should do.
And this goes back to the origins of the ACA.
When Obama spent 18 months working on it and with Chuck Grassley, it's really a Romney care.
When he gets it done, the Republicans all pull back.
So you only got that because of the Democrats.
And the other part is the Republicans have not worked to enhance it and improve it, but they've worked to get rid of it.
But they don't have the same passion for caring about the American people as they do for billionaire tax cuts, which had no problems.
You have Elon Musk leaves the government with all kinds of contracts, one I'm totally $450 billion.
No problem with contracts for him, a non-compete contract.
This is the problem.
They don't care about the American people because here's the thing.
People are in excess.
We, when they're talking about bringing in people from other countries to give them jobs, because they don't really value the American people we have, they don't care.
From their perspective, we're only there to serve them.
And when we're not serving them, we have no value.
We should not be invested in their school, education, or anything.
I just wanted to give you a little background and talk a little bit about this medical issue.
So I'm a physician and I've been a physician for 25 years from before ACA started to the present.
And some of the information the callers are putting out are not factual.
And that, you know, that's one of the big problems with this argument: we need to really go back and be factual.
So the drivers of cost for healthcare have multiple factors.
And one of the big factors is the explosion in the technology and the number of studies that are demanded, the variety of procedures, and really the lifespan of the population has expanded over that 25 years, making health care extremely expensive.
Some of that is driven, and I think we were listening to the farmers' union yesterday.
But I think if you ask other people within the medical community, they would echo the farmers' union and saying that it's the middlemen who are driving up unnecessary costs within the health care system.
And the same for the auto industry.
So when you're paying your, you know, your senior board members and your CEOs 30 to 40% of the profit of a company, it's going to drive up costs.
But more importantly, one key reason the ACA was formed was that hospitals were going out of business and people's care was being basically segregated into state and county run public hospitals for people who didn't have good insurance or who had no insurance and they felt their health care was not as good as the private hospitals.
And then private hospitals could pick and choose which patients they took and generally get more extensive care, more extensive care at a higher cost.
All right, Tammy, I have to leave it there because I want to go to Donna, who's in St. Louis, Missouri, an independent.
Donna, what do you say?
unidentified
Well, three things.
First of all, Hawley, our senator, our fist-pumping senator, he only voted for it because he knew the bill was going to pass, what wouldn't pass, and now he's getting praised for it.
Secondly, remember the Republicans in the budget are giving the richest people billions in tax cuts, $40 billion to bail out Argentina, and now they're taking away the health care for $22 million.
Lastly, I'm 77, and I believe Congress should at least lower the Medicare age to 50.
These people have been paying up the wazoo for decades for Medicare, and yet if they manage to stay alive in this country with its anti-middle-class policies, I think they should be put on Medicare.
Coming up, we'll talk with two lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about the future of those expiring ACA subsidies and other news of the day.
In about 30 minutes, Democrat Sean Kasten of Illinois joins us, a member of the Joint Economic and Financial Services Committee.
But first, we'll talk to Republican Don Bacon of Nebraska.
He's on the Armed Services Committee and we'll talk about rising tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela.
Before that conversation, we want to note that today marks 25 years when the Supreme Court ended the recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Both men spoke the following day.
Here's a portion of then Vice President Gore's concession speech and George W. Bush acceptance speech.
unidentified
Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd President of the United States.
And I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time.
I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we've just passed.
Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, partisan feeling must yield to patriotism.
I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.
Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside.
And may God bless his stewardship of this country.
Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road.
Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen.
Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved as it must be resolved through the honored institutions of our democracy.
The 25th anniversary today, when the Supreme Court ended the recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
You can find more on our website at c-span.org.
Joining us this morning is Congressman Don Bacon, Republican of Nebraska.
He's a member of the Armed Services Subcommittee and also sits on the Agriculture Committee.
Congressman, I want to begin with the economy.
The Associated Press out with a new poll that found only 31% of U.S. adults now approve of how President Trump is handling the economy.
Paired with that is the front page of USA Today with the headline, Poll finds inflation taking a heavy toll.
President downplays affordability concerns.
We also saw Newt Gingrich telling the Hill newspaper that if the economy doesn't turn around, it's not going to be good for Republicans in the midterm elections.
What role should Congress play in the strikes that we're seeing from this administration in the Caribbean and Latin America against alleged drug runners on these boats?
You know, I've been in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we took out people trying to run away from a strike that were terrorists.
I don't think this is the same case, but I would love to have people that are very smart on this legally and give us the pros and cons.
I think we're in a gray zone.
It looks to me like these two people were trying to survive.
That does not look good for the rules of war.
Now they're trying to make the case back there was still cocaine on the remnants of this boat and that other folks are coming in to rescue them and they're going to get the cocaine back.
We should dig into it.
And I think it would be wise to get the retired or the four-star general or admiral that was the southern command.
The opposition leader who won the Nobel Peace Prize, the opposition leader in Venezuela, the headline in Wall Street Journal this morning is that she hails the U.S. help, saying that the moves like seizing the oil tanker are key in fight for democracy in Venezuela.
I am very reluctant to be supportive of an invasion of Venezuela.
I think it's hard to pressure Maduro and maybe compel a regime change internally with our pressure on sanctions and cutting off the funding from, you know, by taking these boats, taking off the funding that Maduro is relying on.
But again, we don't know what the president's doing because they've said very little.
But when he got confirmed, I said we should give him a chance and prove himself because at that point, we want him to be successful.
But I thought he failed during Signalgate.
All he had to do was say, I made a mistake.
I was wrong.
And he refused to do it.
He blamed the journalist.
Now he's saying he was totally exonerated in the report.
I read the report.
He was not.
He put sensitive information before a strike on an unclassified application that Russia and China very likely monitor.
And two hours before the strike said, this is when the aircraft are taken off.
This is two hours before we're going to hit the targets.
That could have gotten to Yemen and could have undermined the mission and put our folks at risk.
But there's other things that concern me as well.
His rules of engagement with the media, I think, are wrong.
We have bases in our districts.
They're not allowed to talk to congressmen right now unless we get the questions that we want to ask pre-approved through the Pentagon.
We also know the rules of engagement with the media, right?
So you've got media rules, congressional rules.
I think they're both amateurish.
But what concerns me the most is his positions on NATO, Ukraine, him and his Undersecretary for Policy, again by Mr. Colby, they come off as being very anti-NATO, and they have, I think, been undermining our support of Ukraine at every step.
And this is going to damage us for way beyond their tenure in power.
You know, the NATO countries have been, we've had great relations with them for 75 years.
It's been our foremost alliance to hold the peace.
And I see this administration and Secretary of Defense Hexaf at the lead undermining that alliance.
And it's a shame because it's going to hurt us for many years to come.
We'll go to our first call here from Missouri City, Texas Independent caller, Malik.
Good morning.
unidentified
Hi, you know, this morning, I have three points I'd like to make.
First of all, the House of Representatives, along with Donald Trump and the Republican Party, have not passed, introduced, or even spoken about any bills to address affordability.
In fact, their strategy is to just repeat lies over and over again, hoping their supporters will regurgitate those lies, such as gas is $1.97 a gallon.
There's nowhere in the country where gas is $1.97 a gallon.
In fact, the year-to-year average is only $0.06 lower than last year.
Also, secondly, this so-called war on drugs and striking these boats in Venezuela is just completely false.
We have no evidence that these people are carrying drugs.
And in fact, if this were a true war on drugs, wouldn't we revert back to the draconian sentencing measures that black people suffered under the Rockefeller drug laws when three grams of crack cocaine got you 10 years of minimum mandatory sentencing in federal prison?
This is not a war on drugs.
This is the prelude to an invasion of Venezuela because they have oil.
This is Iraq 2.0, and we're being walked into it slowly by a band of buffoons such as Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, and the rest of the cabinet who have done nothing for the American people but spread propaganda and nonsense.
Well, Maduro is definitely an ally of Putin and Cuba and China, right?
They are not our friends, that's for sure.
And by the way, our president should realize Russia is not our friend, but he acts like it too often.
And I just find them in a very appeasing mode with Putin when it comes to Ukraine.
But with Venezuela, again, as I mentioned earlier, I think the president needs to tell the American people and Congress, this is the plan, this is what we're trying to do, because right now, we really don't know.
Here's another headline to share with all of you from theson.com.
Seething tyrant raging Maduro vows to break America's teeth after U.S. seizes the Venezuelan ship as Trump shrugs.
I assume we keep the oil.
Let's go to Tyrone in New York, Democratic caller.
unidentified
My call.
And thanks for coming on and asking questions.
My question is: part of the Republican Party, I call it the Confederate Party, that has been calling for the destruction of our government from when they said they want to make it small enough to drown in the bathtub to the other gentleman Bannon talking about deconstructing the administrative state.
These people have been working progressively to make our government, as they said, small enough to drown in the bathtub.
And if you want to drown something in the bathtub, that means you want to kill it.
They complain about the Affordable Care Act when they have worked, done nothing but work against trying to make sure this thing don't operate the way that it's supposed to.
Now, I know you are a Republican, and I know you see this stuff that goes on inside your own party.
And I'm wondering, how is it when you see Donald Trump come out and say, you know, we want people from Norway, and they're actively trying to stop legal immigration?
They're grabbing people when they're trying to get legal status in this country.
They break the immigration laws.
They try to make sure that they don't work.
If I'm a thief, a robber, or a criminal, I'm going to try to make sure the legal system don't work the way that it's supposed to.
I'm a Reagan Republican, and Reagan Republicans believe in legal immigration.
We don't want illegal immigration.
We want to know who's coming here.
But when we have legal immigration and we bring in people that are nurses, high-skilled, and we need some low-skill or seasonal workers in our agriculture, it works for America.
Without legal immigration, our population would be decreasing.
We'd have a birth rate of 1.8.
Optimally, we want about 2.1.
And it would take legal immigration to make that possible.
And I hear from every major employer, they can't find enough workers.
So we should find, we should try to have a legal immigration that works for our economy and works for our country.
So I would give the caller that.
Also, a Republican principle, if you come from the Reagan side of the party, we do believe in federalism.
We believe in keeping power at the city, the state level, as much as we can.
Congress should be within Article 1, Section 8, with the authorities that are in the Constitution there.
But we've gone way beyond that.
And so if you're a Republican of the Reagan vintage, you want to bring us back down and do what the Constitution has asked us to do.
Now, I do think there's been some maybe over exaggeration from some of the folks in the administration, like Color said, we're drowning in the bathtub.
The Homeland Security Secretary, Christine Noam, faced criticism from Democrats yesterday at an oversight hearing on Capitol Hill about global threats, many of them saying she should resign.
Well, I wouldn't ask her to resign, but I would push her on a couple of areas.
One is CISA.
So right now we've been downgraded in our cyber defenses by people who have evaluated how we're doing.
So you look at Cyber Command, that's our military arm of cyber.
We've not had a commander there for nine months, roughly, because the administration fired the most, I would say the most effective, the most knowledgeable man we had on cyber because some crazy lady come into the White House and wanted him fired, and they fired him.
He was the right person to be leading Cyber Command.
They fired him eight and a half months ago.
They have not been able to find a replacement.
This is a command that we're fighting every day in cyberspace.
Russia and China are attacking us every day.
So we have this inertia right now going on in this four-star headquarters that runs our cyber.
On top of that, the Homeland Security, they run CISA, which is the organization that helps our private businesses, our infrastructure, our energy grid, defend against cyber attacks.
And they have cut it significantly, and it's also rudderless.
And so you take these two things combined, and folks who study cyber have downgraded our, you know, they said that our abilities have been diminished over the last year.
Let's get to ACA and these enhanced tax subsidies.
Where are you on the two discharge petitions offered by moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to extend the enhanced tax credits for a certain amount of time, but also with some reforms and maybe income limits?
Well, then that sounds like these ACA subsidies are going to expire on December 31st because the Senate just voted yesterday and they couldn't get to 60 votes.
I just wanted to make a comment about the debate over the health care subsidies and just health care in general.
That debate seems to me, I'm looking at it from a Republican perspective, but I think it happens on both sides where the plan for improving or changing health care, let's say on the Republican side, seems very discredited by Democrats in a way that doesn't look at what the advantages would be, but vilifies Republicans as if they're heartless, they're cruel, they want to take away health care from people.
I don't think that's the point.
I think the point is they have a better plan for how to make it work better.
And unfortunately, the problem in our country today is that both sides reduce the other side's point of view to a dehumanizing perspective.
We have a shirts versus skins mentality all over our country right now, but we surely do have in Congress and politically.
If you're on the shirts side, you're supposed to support everything your team does and you condemn the other team no matter what.
I don't think it works.
Sometimes our team is doing things that need to be called out.
That's why it's good to have some independent Republicans and Democrats.
Also, every once in a while, your opponent could come up with a good idea.
You may want to look at it.
I think we should have that mindset.
And our system of government, written by James Madison and, you know, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and the Federalist Papers, they've built a system of government that forces consensus.
And if you hate each other, it's very hard to get that consensus.
So I would agree with the caller.
I do think we have some proposals on how to make health care better, expansion of health savings accounts.
You imagine, say, you're working for C-SPAN, and they say for every dollar you put in, Greta, we'll put in two or three dollars.
Then you can go out and buy the insurance you want.
That's one proposal.
We have another proposal putting high-risk people in a separate pool and then subsidize their premiums down to normal.
And then the healthy pool, their rates would automatically just go down significantly.
That's another proposal.
So we have some ideas out there that we could look at, but we're not going to get this done before December 31st.
Therefore, we need these tax credits extended for a short one year or two years that's negotiable with some reforms.
And I just think we're going to get there because I don't see any other way out.
So I've been hearing a lot, and I just have to say that I think the real problem or the real issue is kind of the neglect on the behalf of our political leaders, whether it's, you know, in the House and the Senate or it's our president.
And just to give you a case in point, when COVID happened, toward the end, I think his final year, Donald Trump gave the American taxpayer an additional seven, maybe five to seven months to complete their taxes due to the epidemic.
The epidemic, as you know, lasted for years.
The following year, through the Ways and Means Committee, two congressmen, both bipartisan, Republican and Democrats, after consulting with accountants, asked the IRS to give American taxpayers two additional months.
All right, so Michael, what are you asking for today?
unidentified
Well, what I'm saying, I know it takes a minute to explain, but the following year.
And, you know, you would think after all the deaths and all the horrible things that happened with COVID that we would have congressmen and women that truly cared about the American people knowing how lives were disrupted.
Well, we should be very thoughtful, and that's why I go back to the district every weekend.
I mean, I've been doing this for nine years, going on 10 years.
You try to go back every weekend, and I try to go to as many local events where you hear from people's concerns, and you try to reflect that in Congress.
And one of the things that we did do during COVID is we put these tax credits on, and they were supposed to be temporary, but in a sense, now they're becoming permanent.
And so that's concerns on the Republican side, and the costs keep going up.
And so it gets back a little bit, just playing off what the caller said.
We've got to find something better.
We've got to find a little more deeper reforms in the long run here to lower these costs because they are unsustainable.
But I would tell my Republican colleagues, if we do nothing, a silvermer, say we're not going to do these tax credits, they're going to expire.
Well, that means the average person's premiums are going up about $2,000 a month.
That's not acceptable.
It's not their fault, right?
And it may not be our plan that we put in place.
It's largely done by Democrats, but we're in charge.
So we've got to find a way to at least temporary help and then find a deeper solution.
It's a pleasure to be on after my friend Don Bacon, and I'm sorry he's retiring.
We're going to miss him around here.
I don't think I share his optimism, unfortunately.
We know that the path to get through, I would agree with him that the path to get through requires 60 votes in the Senate.
To get 60 votes in the Senate, you're either going to have to have something like the extension of the A subsidies that just failed, or on the Republican side, there's just a lot of push to put a lot of poison pills, not provide women with access to full maternal health care services, and then you're going to lose Dems and not get the 60 votes.
It's unfortunately true that we got all of the benefits of the ACA on a straight party line vote when the Democrats controlled the Senate.
We got the extensions of the ACA subsidies that gave 20 million more Americans access to health insurance during COVID on a straight party line vote.
And I guess what makes me sad is to the point of one of your last callers with Mr. Bacon is that the ACA is a Republican idea.
It came out of the Heritage Foundation and was adopted by Mitt Romney and was a really good idea.
And when Obama came in and said, let's take this good idea that was created in the Republican Party and let's make this a national idea, all of a sudden it then became a partisan idea, but it's still a good idea, right?
We still need to find some way to address the health care needs of folks who don't have private health insurance from their employer, aren't old enough to qualify for Medicare, aren't veterans who don't qualify for the VA, aren't Native Americans so don't qualify for the Indian Health Care Service, aren't poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.
That's a big gap of people that the ACA was designed to fill in.
And every time we cut people out of that program, we cut huge chunks of people out of dignity, out of the ability to have a healthy life.
And it drives up the overall cost of our health care system.
So I'd love to be optimistic, but I really have a hard time seeing the Senate or the House getting to consensus on what's sort of blindingly obvious and should be bipartisan.
Speaker Mike Johnson this week saying there will be a vote on a health care proposal.
If moderate Republicans are able to secure a vote on these compromises that have been put forth by the likes of Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick and Congresswoman Jen Kiggins, who have teamed up with Democrats, if he allows a vote on their proposals that folks are trying to get a discharge petition on, do you think they could pass in the House?
Well, look, I'm all for Mike Johnson bringing votes to the floor.
Let's not have these conversations in back rooms.
I'm not sure I have something intelligent to add beyond what I said a moment ago.
It really, the devil's in the details.
If you have a clean extension of the ACA, and look, if they're concerned, if they think there's tweaks they want to make, okay, fine, but do a clean extension for one, two, three years.
Give time to have that policy conversation.
I think the idea that we're going to make major structural reforms to the ACA with everybody having time to think through what those are, whether that means means-adjusted payments, blocking out access to certain people who are currently eligible for the ACA, the idea that we're going to do that in seven days and really think through the details, I'm not sure I buy that.
So I think if there's a vote for a clean temporary extension, I think that probably could pass, could certainly get all Democratic support.
The more it's constrained, the less optimistic I am that that has the votes in the House.
One of the proposals by the problem solver caucus chair, Josh Gottheimer, along with Jen Kiggins, a Republican, one-year extension, income limits and fraud protection, so close to what you're talking about here for extending these enhanced tax credits.
What have you heard from your leader, Hakeem Jefferies, in the House about what leadership is thinking the next move is for Democrats?
I have not spoken directly to Hakeem or other leadership about that question.
I do just think there's a general question.
I mean, if you start saying we're going to put fraud protections and income limits, you know, for who?
How is that done?
We saw in the huge, the big, ugly bill that the Republicans passed earlier this year, we saw things that said they were putting in fraud protection for Medicaid.
What that did practically is made it really hard for people who are struggling, maybe can't access the necessary paperwork, maybe need social service support to fill out those forms.
Those people just fell out of the health care system.
I'm not saying fraud protection is a bad thing to do, but I'm just saying the devil is in the details.
And I think everybody in the Democratic Party from leadership on down is keen about not making major structural to our health care system without enough time to really think through those.
So just personally, I think we are better off with just a clean short-term extension and then get to trying to tweak this if we think there's appropriate and a good consensus to do so, but not try to do that between now and December 31st.
I listened to the debates about the health care, and what the Republicans are having trouble with, they're not explaining in English that the people can understand what their plan is.
I mean, if they explained it, maybe we could get on board with it.
But I knew more about it before they ever started than I do now.
I mean, they've got these plans, and they talk in politic language, and nobody understands what they're talking about.
Look, I mean, and I want to come back to the fact that I said before that this was originally a Republican idea.
If you look, every country in the world that has universal health care coverage, and there's a lot of different ways to have universal health care coverage.
Maybe that's a government-provided program, maybe that's a lot of public-private sector involvement.
Every country that has universal coverage has higher quality health care than the U.S. does and lower costs, which makes sense, right?
Because if you're uninsured, you still might get hit by a car, you still show up at the hospital, you still consume resources for those hospitals, you still would like to have preventative care, but you don't do it because you don't have insurance.
And now, all of a sudden, by the time you go to the hospital, you have really expensive and hard-to-diagnose needs.
So, the whole idea of this heritage plan back in the 90s for creating what became the ACA was let's fill in that gap so that everybody has coverage.
I don't think that's really hard to understand because everybody understands the need to get health care coverage.
Yes, the system's complicated.
But the fact that it became so partisan to defend the ACA meant that any conversation about how to tweak it gets caught up in a lot of gobbledygook that ultimately, the reason why Betty can't understand it is because it doesn't make any sense.
I just heard the congressman outline some significant facts regarding how uncompetitive we are relative to our country peers in terms of health care, where the universal health care in other countries seems to deliver more effective health care for all of their citizens at lower costs.
He's 100% right on that.
I agree with him.
And I would hope, and I would quickly summarize the following what I recommend we do, and that is we move, get an extension now as an interim measure to leave time to educate and promote legislation for a universal health care system funded as follows by direct issuance of a sovereign currency funding because we don't need to raise taxes.
We don't need to issue bonds.
We just need for Congress and the Senate and the President to initiate legislation to direct the U.S. Treasury to pay, to fund health care as defined by the head of our health care system.
Essentially, it's a single-payer health care system.
Yeah, so just so just quickly, and I've got to try to say this as succinctly as I can.
Universal health care coverage, there's a lot of ways to get there.
Single payer is one way to do that.
The British famously had the National Health Service.
Lots of countries have universal health care with mixed public and private systems.
I think given the structure of the U.S. system, lots of Americans do have health insurance.
Most of them don't like it very much, but lots of Americans have health insurance.
And really the goal of the ACA originally was to try to address those people who currently don't.
It didn't go all the way ultimately because, and this is a bit of a deep cut, if you recall, Joe Lieberman at the time, the senator objected to the public option that would have made sure that everybody ended up being in there, I'm sorry, the individual mandate.
So the ACA got a lot more people in, but not everybody.
There's some interesting academic research that the countries that still maintain a healthy amount of competition in the system, which you don't get in single payer, actually have better outcomes than the ones that go to pure single payer.
All of them have lower costs.
So, you know, I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, but I think within our political system, dealing first with the people who are currently uninsured is probably more efficient than saying, let's rip the whole thing down and start from scratch.
So the reason that these were temporary was not because they were intended to be temporary.
It was because when we brought this package forward to try to make them permanent, Joe Manchin said he would only support the package if they were temporary.
So this was Joe Manchin's decision to make them temporary, not some larger policy purpose.
I think what's important to recognize is if, you know, when we use the word subsidy, I think there's this assumption that, okay, government is paying money and they, you know, and that's just pure waste.
We don't talk about a lot of things government does that way.
Like, do we talk about the government subsidizing our military?
Do we talk about the government subsidizing our border security?
No, we recognize that when government does that, that gives us all the ability to do other things we wouldn't otherwise have to do.
And this goes back to the point about universal health care.
If you are paying for health insurance out of your own pocket, you're not taking a dime from the federal government for it, and you go to the hospital in an emergency and that emergency room is short-staffed or doesn't have enough beds or is full of people who aren't insured but have urgent needs in front of you, your quality of health care falls.
So the idea of government providing people with that access is it makes all of our health care systems better.
We should be, for totally selfish reasons, we should want to have a system where everybody has health care, access to health care.
And to put this in context, the Swiss that have the best health outcomes in the world spend two-thirds as much per capita as we do.
We spend a little over $3 trillion per year on health care.
So if you want a trillion dollars, subsidize health care.
That's where the math is, right?
So it's in our self-interest to make sure that everybody has access to health care.
How have insurance companies responded, though, to these enhanced tax credits?
And before they were enhanced during the COVID era, the subsidies or the tax credits given to those who are enrolled in ACA.
How have the insurance companies responded?
Because you've heard from the president Republicans that said they just, they have no incentive to lower their costs because of the way this is structured.
There's about 20 million Americans who have access to health care because of those ACA tax extensions that were done during COVID.
Those people didn't get access to health care because the insurance companies were mandated to provide them.
They got access to health care because the insurance companies who were involved in that program were able to lower their rates because of those subsidies, and more Americans were now able to afford buying into the ACA.
So it's an affordability issue that made access possible.
Anybody who was on the ACA is now seeing the flip side of that because if you got the notification from your insurance company and you were on the ACA, which was obligated to go out after November 1st, you invariably saw a huge spike in the premiums you're going to have to pay next year.
And I'm not saying insurance companies don't try to make money.
Every company tries to make money, that's fine.
But you're seeing the impact of the insurance companies saying, I could give you a lower rate when there was a subsidy.
In other words, that savings was passed on to you.
And now that the subsidy isn't there, I'm going to have to raise your rates.
And that's going to push, you know, if the math follows what it did last time, that's going to mean that 20 million Americans can't afford health insurance anymore and go off the system and get sicker.
So the idea that this was just a subsidy to insurance companies, there's no evidence that that's the case.
I have a question that I think is, you know, you go back to naming individuals who held this up, like Manchin would have to have it temporary.
But if that was temporary, that was years ago.
You know, every time you guys give a free benefit or free subsidies to somebody, you really think they're going to want to give it up?
If you know that was coming to an end, why didn't you take corrective actions and look at some type of logical plan that either would continue that or that we'd develop some other type of plan?
And here we are again at the 11th hour.
People are going to see big increases.
And both you sides, your Republicans and Democrats, act like a bunch of children.
You never get it together so you look at the betterment of what you can do for this country.
All you're concerned about is what you can do to get re-elected.
Well, I guess I first want to assure you, Bob, that as someone once said, walk around Washington, D.C. and look at the statues to politicians and note that they're all built after politicians die.
If your goal is to have glory and celebrity, this is not the line of work to do it.
unidentified
I don't think getting re-elected is the only reason to do this.
But on a more serious note, those extensions weren't that many years ago.
It was three years ago.
It was in COVID that that was put in place.
And What's unfortunately true is it's not a political issue, but it is a process issue, that under the rules of the Senate, virtually anything requires 60 votes, so a supermajority to get something to pass.
And one of the few exceptions to that is if you are doing what's called reconciliation, which is to say once a year, if you are doing something related to spending consistent with the annual budget, you can pass it on a simple 50 plus one vote majority.
And so when that was passed three years ago, if you recall, what Joe mentioned was the swing vote, the Democrats could pass things purely on a party line basis, but we had to have every Democrat on board.
You saw that more recently, the huge cuts to Medicaid, the huge cuts to food assistance.
That was passed on a straight party line vote.
And the one big beautiful bill, as Trump calls it, I don't think it's that beautiful, but that was passed on a straight party line vote as a set of Republican priorities.
What's happened in the intervening three years is there have been a lot of proposals.
My colleague from Illinois, Lauren Underwood, has been introducing bills every single term since she and I were elected in the 119th to make those expanded subsidies permanent.
There haven't been the votes in the Senate to do that because the Senate depends on supermajorities, except in that reconciliation process.
I'd love to have a conversation with you about how to reform Senate procedure, how to make the Senate more responsive to public will, because these sorts of things, as I think Bob notes, these are very popular with the American people.
They would rather we do things that are popular than get into long diatribes about procedure, but that requires changing the procedure, and until they change, we're left with these issues.
But again, it's only three years ago, and there's very broad consensus in the Democratic Party and has been for a while to bring it forward.
I mean, look, I pushed for permanent before and we settled on three years.
So, you know, of course there's always opportunities for extension.
I think the red line for me, as I mentioned earlier, is let's not be overly cute with a bunch of additional tweaks in there.
If we can get to a point where we have a clean extension of subsidies and that bill's on the floor and we've got a way to get that through, yeah, let's do it and get it done and live to fight another day knowing that the American people can go home with some confidence that their health costs aren't going to go through the roof and they're going to get sick when we, as decent legislators, could prevent them from getting sick.
I just don't know if that can get through the Senate.
Congressman, let's turn our attention to Venezuela and the actions by this administration, both the boat strikes, the seizure of that oil tanker, and the president not ruling out some sort of land invasion to rid the country of their leader, Maduro.
Is the actions so far that you've seen legal in your opinion?
No, and I have some serious concerns about what this White House is doing.
The argument that the White House can engage in war against another country without congressional consent, that is plainly unconstitutional.
What the White House has argued to date is that they have the right to target these attacks without congressional intent because they're going after non-state actors, specifically drug runners.
That's also pretty shaky.
They've essentially argued that because drugs can kill people, anybody who sells drugs is selling something that's deadly and therefore drug runners are at war on the American people.
If you want to pick a hole in that logic, ask if Venezuelans would have the right to conduct military operations against U.S. gun manufacturers that have the potential to kill Venezuelans, do kill some Venezuelans.
Does that mean Smith ⁇ Wesson is a terrorist organization?
I think you can quickly see how that falls apart.
As the Trump administration is now pushing closer to saying this is really a specific attack on Venezuela as a country, that becomes even more problematic without congressional approval.
And all of this is before getting to the point of what appears to have been, I haven't seen the video, but this idea of targeting that second hit on the boat, targeting people who had no means of attack, who were completely vulnerable, that sure looks like a war crime to me.
And there are huge problems.
I think the fact that Donald Trump, I believe yesterday, said that he was going to try to block support for the International Criminal Court unless the International Criminal Court agreed never to prosecute him or his team suggests, as I noted, that he's sort of like a football player who can hear the defender closing in and is nervous about the footsteps right now.
But these are people who I think are very concerned about their own guilt and complicity, and I'd be much more comfortable if they would come to Congress, provide open sharing of information.
If they want to declare war, make the case for us, and we'll see if Congress votes on it and approves it.
But they do not have the authority, as I understand the law, to do what they're doing right now.
Number one, I think it is very important that the Federal Reserve Board be independent of politics.
And so while I can have opinions on that, I'd prefer they acted independent of political pressures.
I think the Fed is in a very difficult situation right now because they have a dual mandate to keep unemployment low and to keep inflation low.
We have inflation in the economy right now that is substantially driven by tariffs.
And no change in interest rate makes a tariff move.
Changes in interest rate make demand and supply for goods move.
And so the Fed's a little bit squeezed on there.
I think you should understand what the Fed is doing therefore is not responding to inflation as much as it's responding to some jitters in employment markets and unemployment being a little higher than they'd like it to be.
We'll see what happens.
We'll see what happens going forward with the new jobs reports.
It's a little, I think it makes us all a little bit nervous that there's been a slowdown in data.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics was gutted by Doge and slowed down.
So I think the economy is not in a terrible place right now, but it certainly is in a very brittle place.
The congressman having to leave here this morning just before 9 a.m. Eastern Time because the House is about to gavel in early this morning for legislative business.
So we just have a few minutes left here on the Washington Journal on this Friday morning.
Until we see the House doors open, we'll continue with your calls.
Andre and Suitland, Maryland, an independent Andre, good morning.
unidentified
Well, China asked the congressman, why can't we have the same health care that they have, but evidently we got cut off saying he's gone now.
We'll continue to take calls here this morning until the House gavels in.
And we've heard that before from callers who, as part of this health care debate that's been happening this week and will continue next week in the House, is callers saying they would like the same health care as lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Terry in Virginia, Independent.
Terry, good morning.
unidentified
Yes.
Yes, I think they should extend a clean CR for two years.
And it took Obama two years to implement the whole thing.
And also, we're going to have a midterm election in between, and maybe those who get elected will be willing to work with each other.
There are resolutions in both the Senate and the House to stop President Trump from conducting an attack on Venezuela, which he has repeatedly said he's going to do for the purpose of removing Maduro from power.
unidentified
The resolutions are Congressional Resolution Number 64, introduced on December 1st, and Senate Joint Resolution 98, introduced on December 3rd.
As a consumer of news from many sources, including C-SPAN, all the networks, cable, nobody is informing the public about this legislation.
So the public is not aware and therefore won't be able to contact their rep or senator to demand that they support it.
An earlier vote in the Senate on the resolution failed by a very narrow margin.
So this time, let's inform the public so that we can do our civic duty to stop another military attack and more war.