The debate over the future of health care policy is once again center stage in Washington — this time, with a government shutdown dragging into its second month, and Democrats drawing a red line over extending pandemic-era Obamacare subsidies that were never designed to last. At the heart of the dispute? A battle not just over spending, but over the story Americans are being told about what makes health care affordable.
According to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-KY) and Health Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), the math just doesn’t add up — and the narrative pushed by Democrats is missing key details.
Guthrie and Griffith told Breitbart News that Republican-backed reforms would have cut health insurance premiums by nearly twice the rate achieved under the Biden administration’s temporary Enhanced Premium Tax Credits (EPTCs). The GOP, they argue, has put forward plans rooted in reducing the actual costs of coverage — not simply throwing subsidies at insurers and calling it “affordable.”
Their argument is that Democrats are demanding permanent taxpayer-funded bailouts to prop up what they see as a failing structure. The EPTCs, first introduced in the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan during the pandemic, were extended through 2025 via the Inflation Reduction Act. But now, as the sunset date looms, Democrats are making their extension a precondition to reopening the government — turning a temporary emergency measure into a new entitlement.
And the numbers being cited are striking. According to the GOP lawmakers, some of the wealthiest Americans qualified for Obamacare subsidies under the EPTC regime:
-
A multimillionaire retiree in North Carolina reportedly received $17,000 a year in taxpayer subsidies.
-
Tax preparers in Texas advertised how millionaires could get near-free coverage.
-
Families earning upwards of $600,000 annually qualified for subsidized Obamacare plans.
“This is not health care for the working class,” Griffith noted. “It’s a handout to health insurers and a loophole for the wealthy.”
There’s also the matter of waste. The Paragon Health Institute estimates up to $26 billion in Obamacare enrollment fraud annually, enabled by the expanded credit system. And with no permanent reforms in place, Republicans argue that this kind of spending is both unsustainable and unjustified — especially when bipartisan solutions to lower premiums have been ignored.
One such reform includes the restoration of Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments, which directly reduce out-of-pocket expenses for middle- and lower-income individuals on Silver plans. In fact, former Obama CMS head Andy Slavitt once endorsed CSRs as a key driver of lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office projected that reinstating CSR payments — blocked by Democrats from inclusion in the Trump-era “Big Beautiful Bill” — could reduce benchmark Silver premiums by 12.7% and save $30.8 billion.
If Cost Sharing Reductions are paid, we can expect high double digit ⬇️ in premiums.
This would be middle class relief & good 4 budget. pic.twitter.com/wupay120Zo
— Andy Slavitt 🇺🇦 (@ASlavitt) July 29, 2017
Yet those cost-saving options were nixed by Democrats in the Senate, citing procedural constraints under the Byrd Rule — a move Republicans argue was politically motivated to preserve the narrative that Obamacare only works with ever-larger subsidies.
So while Democrats like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accuse Republicans of turning their backs on “everyday Americans,” Republicans fire back that it’s Democrats who refuse to engage on actual cost-reduction strategies — all while protecting big insurance and elite beneficiaries.
“The truth is,” Guthrie said, “Democrats haven’t even come to the table. They’re trying to hijack a shutdown to make a temporary pandemic policy permanent. Meanwhile, our plans — the ones they’ve repeatedly blocked — would have delivered far more premium relief for far more people.”
As the impasse drags on, the question isn’t just whether the government will reopen — but whether American health care policy will be shaped by economic sense or political theatrics