The U.S. federal government has been in a partial shutdown since October 1, 2025, after Congress failed to pass funding legislation before the fiscal year ended on September 30. This isn’t the first rodeo—Congress hasn’t passed a full-year budget on time since 1997, relying on continuing resolutions (CRs) as stopgaps. But this one is heated because it’s tangled up with expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, immigration rhetoric, and partisan finger-pointing.
A CR temporarily funds the government at current (FY2025) spending levels to avoid a full shutdown. The House passed a “clean” version on September 19 (H.R. 5371) extending funding through November 21, 2025, with no major changes—just keeping the lights on while negotiations continue. It also adds $88 million for security related to threats against officials. The Senate has rejected this multiple times (54-44 on October 3, 55-45 on October 1), mostly along party lines, needing 60 votes to advance.
Democrats have countered with their own short-term CR (through October) that includes extensions for ACA subsidies. No deal yet, so non-essential services are halted: 2 million federal workers furloughed or unpaid, national parks closed, and programs like WIC (nutrition for low-income families) strained.
This shutdown stems from the FY2025 full-year CR (passed in March 2025) that extended prior-year levels through September 30 without addressing ACA subsidy expirations set for December 31, 2025. Now, with open enrollment starting November 1, the clock is ticking.
Democrats’ Claim: “Millions Will Lose Health Insurance Without Action”
Democrats (Sens. Schumer, Warren, Kelly; Reps. Raskin, Pressley) argue the Republican CR is a trap—it funds the government short-term but lets enhanced ACA premium tax credits (from the 2021 American Rescue Plan, extended through 2025) expire at year’s end. Without extension:
- Premium spikes: Average marketplace enrollee premiums could double (up 75-100% out-of-pocket), per Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis. For a family of four earning $100,000, that’s ~$16,000 more annually.
- Coverage loss: Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects 4.2 million fewer insured by 2034, mostly low/middle-income folks (up to 400% of poverty level). Enrollment has boomed to 24 million under subsidies (doubled since 2020), but expiration could reverse that.
- Why tie it to CR? Dems say it’s urgent—open enrollment is imminent, and shutdown delays fixes. They frame it as Republicans prioritizing tax cuts for the rich (via Trump’s agenda) over “life-saving care” for kids and families.
The BS
Dems exaggerate by lumping in unrelated GOP proposals (e.g., Medicaid reform measures, fraud and waste reduction, which Democrats call “cuts”) The current CR doesn’t cut anything—it’s neutral. Democrats are using the shutdown as leverage for a permanent subsidy extension (~$335 billion over 10 years, per CBO), which Republicans see as bloating Obamacare. Also, 80% of subsidy benefits go to Trump-won states, so it’s not just a “blue-state” issue.
Republicans’ Claim: “This Is the Same Clean CR as Last Time—Dems Want Free Healthcare for Illegals”
GOP leaders (Speaker Johnson, Sen. Thune, Rep. Jordan) call their bill a “clean CR” identical to prior ones (the March 2025 full-year CR or December 2024 extension), funding at Biden-era levels with no “poison pills.” They accuse Dems of shutdown over unrelated demands:
- No changes: Matches FY2025 topline ($1.6 trillion discretionary: $893B defense, $708B non-defense), per CBO. Last CR (March 2025) was similar—passed House 217-213, Senate 54-46.
- Dems’ “real agenda”: Claims Dems want to “reinstate free healthcare for illegal aliens” by reversing Medicaid rules (work requirements, verification). VP Vance and Press Sec. Leavitt tweeted this; Sean Hannity amplified it.
The BS
Federal law bars undocumented immigrants from ACA subsidies, Medicaid (except in emergencies), or Marketplace plans. Dems’ CR doesn’t change that; it’s about citizen subsidies (I’ll get to that). GOP knows this but uses it as red meat and while the CR is “same as last time” structurally, ignoring subsidies is a change from status quo—prior CRs kicked the ACA can down the road without this cliff. Polls (Harvard CAPS/Harris, Oct 1-2) show 65% want Dems to take the clean CR, but 47% blame the GOP more than Dems (30%). However, it should be noted, there’s a meaningful distinction between what’s legally allowed and what’s actually happening on the ground. Immigrants in the United States illegally do receive some taxpayer-funded medical care in the U.S., primarily through emergency services, and that does come from public dollars, but Republicans amplifications are misleading the public on this point.
The Bottom Line – Separating the BS from the Reality
That’s what you’re hearing and that’s what many Americans know, though many more really don’t know or seem to care. That said, here’s the stuff NO ONE is reporting or explaining to the American people. Not the GOP, not the Democrats, not the media. The big question is why, but let’s get to the heart of this issue first.
The Democrats’ push to extend the enhanced ACA premium tax credits (PTCs) includes households earning six figures (well above 400% of the federal poverty level, or FPL), and if these subsidies expire after December 31, 2025, the biggest hit will be to those same higher-income folks, who will lose eligibility entirely. Lower-income enrollees (under 400% FPL) will still qualify for subsidies, but the amounts will likely shrink. This is based on the original ACA rules from 2010, which the temporary enhancements (via the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act and its 2022 extension through 2025) modified. I’ll break it down step by step, with examples for context.
Quick Background on the Enhancements
- Original ACA Rules (Pre-2021 and Post-2025 if No Extension): PTCs are available only if your household’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is 100%–400% of FPL (minimum $15,060 for an individual in 2025; $31,200 for a family of four). Above 400% FPL, no subsidies—full premium on you. The subsidy caps your contribution at a sliding scale (up to 9.83% of income for 300%–400% FPL brackets in 2025), but premiums have outpaced this, making coverage unaffordable for many even in that range.
- Enhanced Rules (2021–2025): No upper income limit—anyone above 100% FPL qualifies if the benchmark plan (second-lowest-cost Silver plan) costs more than 8.5% of their income. This boosted subsidies across the board: bigger amounts for low/middle-income folks and new eligibility for those over 400% FPL (six-figure earners). Result? Enrollment doubled to ~24 million in 2025, with ~3 million of those being new higher-income users.
The extension Democrats want would keep this no-cap structure going, costing ~$335 billion over 10 years per CBO estimates.
Does the Extension Include Six-Figure Earners? Yes—And That’s the Point of the Fight
Under the enhancements:
Eligibility: No cliff at 400% FPL. A single person earning $100,000 (about 664% FPL in 2025) or a family of four at $150,000 (480% FPL) qualifies if premiums exceed 8.5% of income.
How It Works:
- The subsidy covers the difference between the benchmark premium and 8.5% of your Modified Adjusted Gross Income. For example:
A 40-year-old individual in an average-cost area with $100,000 income might pay $714/month ($8,568/year) out-of-pocket under enhancements (8.5% cap), with the feds subsidizing the rest $9,000/year for a $600/month benchmark plan? Typical benchmark is ~$500–$600/month pre-subsidy for that age; subsidy fills the gap. - About 1–3 million enrollees above 400% of the poverty level, often middle to upper class professionals, self-employed, or in high-cost states rely on this now per Kaiser data.
Without extension, these folks get zero subsidy in 2026, facing full sticker-price premiums that could jump 75–100% effectively (from capped to uncapped) and this what has Marjorie Taylor Greene’s shorts in a knot along with other Republicans who worry about ticking off those higher earning voters.
The Bigger Question: Why Won’t the Media, (R)s, or (D)s Explain What the ACA Premium Tax Credits Do?
The enhanced ACA premium tax credits (PTCs), extended through 2025, don’t just benefit low-income folks but also middle and upper-middle-class households earning six figures and sometimes well over $100,000. Yet, neither the media, Democrats, nor Republicans are loudly highlighting this. The reasons come down to politics, messaging strategy, and media incentives, all shaped by the current CR standoff and broader narratives.
Democrats frame the ACA and its subsidies as a lifeline for low-income and working-class families, emphasizing equity and access for the “neediest.” Highlighting six-figure earners risks diluting this message and alienating their base, who might see it as “subsidizing the wealthy.” Polls show 65% of Dem voters prioritize aid for those under 200% of the poverty level ($31,200 for a family of four).
Highlighting six-figure benefits could backfire on the GOP. Many voters in red states use these subsidies. Attacking them risks alienating their own base, especially small-business owners or self-employed professionals.
There’s the Ugly Truth Separated From All the BS Covering It Up.
Media could clarify this but avoid it because it’s less sexy than “government shutdown chaos” or “healthcare crisis.” Plus, outlets are wary of being seen as “taking sides” by diving into who benefits, though I believe reporting the full story here would benefit the public not the politicians.
Bottom line: Obamacare was poorly designed for cost control and middle-class affordability. It overpromised big savings ($2500 a year), and doctor choice but underdelivered for the majority of folks like you and me, stuck with higher premiums, less choice, and a tax burden for others’ coverage.
Good intentions don’t erase bad outcomes. Obamacare has delivered far more bad than good.
