Connect with us

Business

MAGA voters are losing patience with the GOP’s ‘concepts of a plan’ on health care as premiums soar

Published

on



The first caller on a telephone town hall with Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, leader of the House’s conservative Freedom Caucus, came ready with a question about the Affordable Care Act. Her cousin’s disabled son is at risk of losing the insurance he gained under that law, the caller said.

“Now she’s looking at two or three times the premium that she’s been paying for the insurance,” said the woman, identified as Lisa from Harford County, Maryland. “I’d love for you to elucidate what the Republicans’ plan is for health insurance?”

Harris, a seven-term Republican, didn’t have a clear answer. “We think the solution is to try to do something to make sure all the premiums go down,” he said, predicting Congress would “probably negotiate some off-ramp” later.

His uncertainty reflected a familiar Republican dilemma: Fifteen years after the Affordable Care Act was enacted, the party remains united in criticizing the law but divided on how to move forward. That tension has come into sharp focus during the government shutdown as Democrats seize on rising premiums to pressure Republicans into extending expiring subsidies for the law, often referred to as Obamacare.

President Donald Trump and GOP leaders say they’ll consider extending the enhanced tax credits that otherwise expire at year’s end — but only after Democrats vote to reopen the government. In the meantime, people enrolled in the plans are already being notified of hefty premium increases for 2026.

As town halls fill with frustrated voters and no clear Republican plan emerges, the issue appears to be gaining political strength heading into next year’s midterm elections.

“Premiums are going up whether it gets extended or not,” said GOP Sen. Rick Scott. “Premiums are going up because health care costs are going up. Because Obamacare is a disaster.”

‘Concepts of a plan’

At the center of the shutdown — now in its fourth week with no end in sight — is a Democratic demand that Affordable Care Act subsidies passed in 2021 be extended.

Trump has long promised an alternative. “The cost of Obamacare is out of control, plus, it’s not good Healthcare,” he wrote on Truth Social in November 2023. “I’m seriously looking at alternatives.”

Pressed on health care during a September 2024 presidential debate, Trump said he had “concepts of a plan.”

But nearly 10 months into his presidency, that plan has yet to come. Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told NBC on Wednesday, “I fully believe the president has a plan,” but didn’t go into details.

Republicans say they want a broader overhaul of the health care system, though such a plan would be difficult to advance before next year. Party leaders have not outlined how they’ll handle the expiring tax credits, insisting they won’t negotiate on the issue until Democrats agree to end the shutdown.

A September analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that permanently extending the tax credits would increase the deficit by $350 billion from 2026 to 2035. The number of people with health insurance would rise by 3.8 million in 2035 if the credits are kept, CBO projected.

Asked Wednesday on CNN whether Republicans have a plan to address the subsidies if the government reopened, House Speaker Mike Johnson said they had “proposals” that can be “ready immediately.”

“It’s a very complicated, very complex issue, that requires a long time to build consensus around,” he said.

A growing political issue

With notices of premium spikes landing in mailboxes now and the open enrollment period for Affordable Care Act health plans beginning Nov. 1, the political pressure has been evident in Republican town halls.

In Idaho, Rep. Russ Fulcher told concerned callers that “government provided health care is the wrong path” and that “private health care is the right path.” In Texas, freshman Rep. Brandon Gill responded to a caller facing a sharp premium increase by saying Republicans are focused on cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

Harris echoed a message shared by many in his party during his Maryland town hall, saying costs are “just going back to what it was like before COVID.”

But the number of people who rely on Affordable Care Act health insurance has increased markedly since before the pandemic. More than 24 million people were enrolled in the marketplace plans in 2025, up from about 11 million in 2020, according to an analysis from the health care research nonprofit KFF.

Sara from Middleville, Michigan, told Rep. John Moolenaar during his town hall that if health insurance premiums go up by as much as 75%, most people will probably go without heath care. “So how do you address that?” she asked.

Moolenaar, who represents a district he handily won last year, responded: “We have time to negotiate, figure out a plan going forward and I think that’s something that could occur.”

Some Republicans have shown urgent concern. In a letter sent to Johnson, a group of 13 battleground House Republicans wrote that the party must “immediately turn our focus to the growing crisis of health care affordability” once the shutdown ends.

“While we did not create this crisis, we now have both the responsibility and the opportunity to address it,” the lawmakers wrote.

Some Republicans dismiss projections that ACA premiums will more than double without the subsidies, calling them exaggerated and arguing the law has fueled fraud and abuse that must be curbed.

Many Democrats credited their ability to flip the House in 2018 during Trump’s first term to the GOP’s attempt at repealing Obamacare, and they’re forecasting a similar outcome this time.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say they trust the Democrats to do a better job handling health care, compared with about one-quarter who trust the Republicans more, a recent AP-NORC poll found. About one-quarter trust neither party, and about 1 in 10 trust both equally, according to the poll.

A looming internal GOP fight

Even as GOP leaders pledge to discuss ending the subsidies when the government opens, it’s clear that many Republican lawmakers are adamantly opposed to an extension.

“At least among Republicans, there’s a growing sense that just maintaining the status quo is very destructive,” said Brian Blase, the president of Paragon Health Institute and a former health policy adviser to Trump during his first term.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he’s working with multiple congressional offices on alternatives that would let the subsidies end. For example, he wants to expand the Affordable Care Act exemption given to U.S. territories to all 50 states and reintroduce a first-term Trump policy that gave Americans access to short-term health insurance plans outside the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Cannon declined to name the lawmakers he’s working with, but said he hopes they act on his ideas “sooner than later.”

David McIntosh, president of the influential conservative group Club For Growth, told reporters Thursday that the group has “urged the Republicans not to extend those COVID-era subsidies.”

“We have a big spending problem,” McIntosh said.

“I think most people are going to say, OK, I had a great deal during COVID,” he said. “But now it’s back to business as usual, and I should be paying for health care.”

__

Swenson reported from New York.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

You don’t hate AI because of genuine dislike. No, there’s a $1 billion plot by the ‘Doomer Industrial Complex’ to brainwash you, Trump’s AI czar says

Published

on



That disconnect, David Sacks insists, isn’t because AI threatens your job, privacy and the future of the economy itself. No – according to the venture-capitalist-turned-Trump-advisor, it’s all part of a $1 billion plot by what he calls the “Doomer Industrial Complex,” a shadow network of Effective Altruist billionaires bankrolled by the likes of convicted FTX founder Sam Bankman Fried  and Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. 

In an X post this week, Sacks argued that public distrust of AI isn’t organic at all — it’s manufactured. He pointed to research by tech-culture scholar Nirit Weiss-Blatt, who has spent years mapping the “AI doom” ecosystem of think tanks, nonprofits, and futurists.

Weiss-Blatt documents hundreds of groups that promote strict regulation or even moratoriums on advanced AI systems. She argues that much of the money behind those organizations can be traced to a small circle of donors in the Effective Altruism movement, including Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Skype’s Jaan Tallinn, Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin, and convicted FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

According to Weiss-Blatt, those philanthropists have collectively poured more than $1 billion into efforts to study or mitigate “existential risk” from AI. However, she pointed at Moskovitz’s organization, Open Philanthropy, as “by far” the largest donors. 

The organization pushed back strongly on the idea that they were projecting sci-fi-esque doom and gloom scenarios.

“We believe that technology and scientific progress have drastically improved human well-being, which is why so much of our work focuses on these areas,” an Open Philanthropy spokesperson told Fortune. “AI has enormous potential to accelerate science, fuel economic growth, and expand human knowledge, but it also poses some unprecedented risks — a view shared by leaders across the political spectrum. We support thoughtful nonpartisan work to help manage those risks and realize the huge potential upsides of AI.”

But Sacks, who has close ties to Silicon Valley’s venture community and served as an early executive at PayPal, claims that funding from Open Philanthropy has done more than just warn of the risks– it’s bought a global PR campaign warning of “Godlike” AI. He cited polling showing that 83% of respondents in China view AI’s benefits as outweighing its harms — compared with just 39% in the United States — as evidence that what he calls “propaganda money” has reshaped the American debate.

Sacks has long pushed for an industry-friendly, no regulation approach to AI –and technology broadly—framed in the race to beat China. 

Sacks’ venture capital firm, Craft Ventures, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

What is Effective Altruism?

The “propaganda money” Sacks refers to comes largely from the Effective Altruism (EA) community, a wonky group of idealists, philosophers, and tech billionaires who believe humanity’s biggest moral duty is to prevent future catastrophes, including rogue AI.

The EA movement, founded a decade ago by Oxford philosophers William MacAskill and Toby Ord, encourages donors to use data and reason to do the most good possible. 

That framework led some members to focus on “longtermism,” the idea that preventing existential risks such as pandemics, nuclear war, or rogue AI should take priority over short-term causes.

While some EA-aligned organizations advocate heavy AI regulation or even “pauses” in model development, others – like Open Philanthropy– take a more technical approach, funding alignment research at companies like OpenAI and Anthropic. The movement’s influence grew rapidly before the 2022 collapse of FTX, whose founder Bankman-Fried had been one of EA’s biggest benefactors.

Matthew Adelstein, a 21-year-old college student who has a prominent Substack on EA, notes that the landscape is far from the monolithic machine that Sacks describes. Weiss-Blatt’s own map of the “AI existential risk ecosystem” includes hundreds of separate entities — from university labs to nonprofits and blogs — that share similar language but not necessarily coordination. Yet, Weiss-Blatt deduces that though the “inflated ecosystem” is not “a grassroots movement. It’s a top down one.” 

Adelstein disagrees, noting that the reality is “more fragmented and less sinister” than Weiss-Blatt and Sacks portrays.

“Most of the fears people have about AI are not the ones the billionaires talk about,” Adelstein told Fortune. “People are worried about cheating, bias, job loss — immediate harms — rather than existential risk.”

He argues that pointing to wealthy donors misses the point entirely. 

“There are very serious risks from artificial intelligence,” he said. “Even AI developers think there’s a few-percent chance it could cause human extinction. The fact that some wealthy people agree that’s a serious risk isn’t an argument against it.”

To Adelstein, longtermism isn’t a cultish obsession with far-off futures but a pragmatic framework for triaging global risks. 

“We’re developing very advanced AI, facing serious nuclear and bio-risks, and the world isn’t prepared,” he said. “Longtermism just says we should do more to prevent those.”

He also brushed off accusations that EA has turned into a quasi-religious movement.

 “I’d like to see the cult that’s dedicated to doing altruism effectively and saving 50,000 lives a year,” he said with a laugh. “That would be some cult.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Credit card companies are jacking up annual fees for airport lounges

Published

on



For every passenger trying to decide if a $17 slimy ham and cheese croissant and their phone’s 34% remaining battery will sustain them for a four-hour layover, there’s someone smugly sipping a complimentary gin and tonic in a secret luxury lounge.

Once a refuge for frequent business travelers, airport lounges are increasingly becoming more popular (and crowded) with casual travelers, encouraging some companies to create even more exclusive spaces—or raise the barrier to entry:

  • Capital One opened its largest lounge (13,500 square feet) in June at NYC’s JFK Airport, complete with Ess-a-Bagels and a designated cheesemonger (as well as classic lounge amenities, like shower suites and a cocktail bar).
  • Over half of JFK’s overall Terminal 4 lounge space has been added in the last two years.

How much would you pay for exclusivity?

The increase in global airport lounge visits in 2024 (31%) has outpaced growth in air traffic overall (10.4%) compared to the previous year. And access isn’t cheap. United charges $750 annually for individual access to its airport lounge network. Amex recently announced that the annual fee for its Platinum card—which includes the perk of lounge access—is increasing from $695 to $895. And one of the most popular travel perk cards, the Chase Sapphire Reserve, just ratcheted up its annual fee from $550 to $795.—MM

This report was originally published by Morning Brew.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s $2,000 tariff ‘dividends’ would cost twice as much as the revenue coming in, budget watchdog warns

Published

on


President Trump’s recent proposal to pay Americans “at least $2,000 a person” from new tariff revenue—a policy he calls “tariff dividends”—is facing sharp criticism from a budget watchdog, who calculates that the plan will actually lose twice as much money for the country as the tariffs are generating.

Writing in a weekend post on Truth Social, Trump argued that tariff revenues could be redistributed directly to individuals in the form of annual payments, with “high income people” excluded from the payouts. The idea, pitched as a way both to reward taxpayers and possibly reduce the national debt, bears a strong resemblance to the structure of the COVID-era Economic Impact Payments, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

But the numbers reveal a steep fiscal challenge. The CRFB estimates that distributing just a single round of $2,000 payments to Americans—calculated to match the COVID payments, which included both adults and children—would cost the federal government around $600 billion per year. By contrast, the tariffs that Trump has championed have raised about $100 billion to date and, even accounting for pending legal cases, are only projected to raise about $300 billion annually going forward.

Deficits could skyrocket

“If tariff dividends are paid annually, deficits would increase by $6 trillion over ten years,” the CRFB writes, “roughly twice as much as President Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise over the same time period.” This means not only that the revenue from tariffs would fail to cover dividend payouts, but also that the policy would exacerbate America’s long-term fiscal challenges.

To put the numbers in perspective, if dividends were paid out on a “revenue neutral” basis—matching payouts to actual tariff revenue—the analysis estimates that payments could be made only every other year, starting in early 2027. Should the Supreme Court uphold current lower court rulings that have deemed some of Trump’s tariffs illegal, remaining tariffs would only cover the dividend payments once every seven years.

Debt implications

Beyond blowing past the revenue generated, diverting all tariff proceeds to pay these dividends would restrict the government’s ability to use tariff income for reducing deficits or paying down debt, as some administration officials have proposed. The CRFB warns that using all tariff revenue for rebates would push federal debt to 127% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2035, compared to 120% under current law. If $2,000 dividends were paid annually, that figure could jump further, reaching 134% of GDP over the same period.

Such projections come at a time when annual budget deficits are nearing $2 trillion and national debt is quickly approaching an all-time high, making fiscal discipline a top concern for watchdogs and policy analysts.

Trump’s proposal draws inspiration from pandemic-era Economic Impact Payments (EIPs), but those measures were carefully income-tested to phase out payments for individuals earning over $75,000 and joint filers over $150,000. The CRFB said its analysis used similar eligibility parameters for its cost estimate, suggesting that without strict limits, the fiscal hit could be even higher.

For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing. 



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.