Democrats and Republicans clashed over several issues during the government shutdown, which came to an end late Wednesday night. However, the enhanced subsidies for the Affordable Care Act—more commonly known as Obamacare—were by far the most prominent point of contention.

But why was that the case?

After all, if the situation were truly as straightforward as either side presented, then it shouldn’t be this controversial. So, with that dilemma in mind, let’s take a closer look at what’s really going on with the enhanced subsidies, and why they are emblematic of a much bigger problem.

To begin, it’s important to distinguish between the enhanced subsidies that will expire at the end of the year and the subsidies that have been around for more than a decade.

What are the enhanced subsidies?

Initially, the designers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) thought asking participants to spend 2–10 percent of their income on premiums would make the program affordable for those who needed it. Where a person fell on that spectrum depended on their income level, with those just above the poverty line paying 2 percent while middle-income Americans would pay closer to the 10 percent cap. The remaining difference between the premiums set by insurers and what the individual or family had to pay was subsidized by the government.

We’ll take a closer look at the numbers in a minute, but for now, it’s important to understand that these subsidies remain in place. However, in 2021, Congress determined that more help was needed.

Back then, COVID was still a problem, and the economy had not recovered from the pandemic. At the same time, enrollment in the ACA had never reached the levels expected by its authors—or the levels necessary to make it financially viable. Yet Republicans had failed repeatedly to replace it with anything better.

So, Congress decided to throw more money at the problem and passed “enhanced” subsidies that redefined what was affordable, from 2–10 percent of one’s income to 0–8.5 percent.

The most significant change was for those who earned 150 percent or less of the federal poverty level (FPL). For them, coverage essentially became free, and their enrollment swelled in response.

However, reports of how much those rates are likely to increase have less to do with those at the bottom end of the income spectrum than with those toward the top of the scale.

Who is truly covered?

In addition to making health coverage free for those toward the bottom of the income spectrum, the enhanced subsidies also removed the cap on who was eligible. As such, anyone who wanted to sign up for the program could do so and pay no more than 8.5 percent of their annual income for coverage.

That’s currently set to revert to the original 400 percent of the FPL, which would be an annual income of roughly $62,600 for a single adult or $128,600 for a family of four. Anyone over that level will have to pay the full price, meaning most in this category will likely either look for alternative options or forgo health insurance altogether. And if enough people leave the system, it will drive up the prices for those who remain.

You see, the vast majority of the population already gets their health insurance covered through other means. Roughly half of the country—160 million—get coverage through their work, while Medicare and Medicaid cover another 120 million. That leaves about 40–50 million who fall somewhere in the middle.

Of that 40–50 million, about half are currently enrolled in the ACA, which is still a big jump from the 11 million who took part before the enhanced subsidies started. If the numbers go back to what they were in 2020, then it will make it even more expensive for those who remain, since most of those who leave will be the ones who tend to be healthy enough to see insurance as more of a luxury than a necessity and are cheaper to insure as a result.

So, what should the government do? As you might expect, there are lots of ideas, but there appear to be very few viable solutions.

Can Congress find an answer?

The Democratic side of Congress has made its position clear for quite some time. They want the enhanced subsidies extended for at least a year and were willing to shut down the government for a month and a half to try to see it done. Conversely, President Trump wants to take the money sent to insurance companies and give it to Americans to help them purchase their own healthcare. And some Republicans are trying to find a way to do just that.

Others in the Senate are open to negotiating an extension of the enhanced subsidies, but want to tie stronger abortion restrictions to the legislation. Still more would prefer a system where subsidies exist, but everyone has to pay something. Of the options proposed so far, something akin to this last solution seems most viable.

Given that nearly 12 million enrollees have never filed a claim—three times as many as before the enhanced subsidies—accusations of fraud and “gaming the system” have risen steadily in recent years. It’s unclear whether that increase is truly due to fraud—though there is evidence that some have signed up without knowing it—or simply a healthier segment of the population choosing coverage.

However, insurance companies receive their premiums either way and have grown tremendously as a result. And when three-quarters of those enrolled can do so for free, the temptation for insurers to abuse that system can be hard to resist.

All of that to say, it seems clear that the current system isn’t working—or, at the very least, has some rather serious bugs—but finding a viable alternative remains elusive. Unfortunately, the temptation to treat symptoms rather than address the real problem is not limited to the government, and our walk with the Lord often suffers for the same reason.

Are you content with your sins?

One of Scripture’s most consistent teachings regarding the nature of sin is that if you don’t address its root cause, no other solution will work. Jesus addresses this tendency in the Sermon on the Mount, where he contrasts the law’s emphasis on right action with the demand to look instead at the motivations behind those actions (Matthew 5). However, the Gospels are hardly alone in preaching this truth.

We see it lived out in the examples of kings like Amaziah, Jotham, and others who worshiped God but failed to tear down the pagan altars throughout Israel. We see it in Paul’s encouragement to surrender our bodies as a living sacrifice to the Lord, dedicating every aspect of our lives and every minute of our day to him (Romans 12:1). And we see it in Christ’s warning to the church in Ephesus, whom he commends for enduring suffering and rooting out false teaching but denounces for abandoning their first love (Revelation 2:2–4).

The temptation to address the symptoms of our sins or to stop short of allowing the Holy Spirit to root out their true cause is often one of the most damaging impediments to a strong relationship with the Lord. Part of the problem is that we can make real progress, but it will never be enough if we find ourselves content with any fragment of that sin remaining in our lives.

So, are there any sins in your life where you’ve stopped short of a true solution? Is there some area where you’re holding back, contenting yourself with minor improvements while knowing the Lord has called you to something more?

Take some time right now to surrender those sins to God. Ask him to forgive you and help you know how to change in whatever ways are necessary to find true freedom in him. And ask him to help you recognize when those temptations return again.

Let’s start today.

Quote of the day:

“The more we let God take us over, the more truly ourselves we become—because he made us.” —C. S. Lewis

Our latest website resources:

• President Trump signs spending bill ending US shutdown
• https://www.denisonforum.org/podcasts/culture-brief/shutdown-ends-democrats-identity-crisis-pelosi-update-mlb-pitchers-indicted-nico-harrison-fired-ep-45/
• Two federal judges use AI to draft judicial decisions
• What can we learn from Africa’s growing church amid trial and persecution?
• A Veterans Day reflection on a debt we can never repay

Denison Forum

Late last night, President Trump signed into law a spending package that reopened the US government, drawing the record-long forty-three-day shutdown to a close. The package includes:

• Funding for the federal government through January 30.
• Full-year funding for the Agriculture Department, military construction, and the legislative branch.
• Language guaranteeing the reversal of federal layoffs initiated by the Trump administration during the shutdown and a moratorium on future cuts.
• Paychecks for federal employees, including air-traffic controllers, which will send thousands of furloughed government workers back to the job.

However, the bill postponed the issue that was central to the standoff until later this year: how to address the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. Democrats refused to fund the government without assurances that the subsidies would be extended; Republicans wanted to fund the government and then debate the subsidies.

The debate highlighted a strange feature in our federal governance. Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, so Republicans could presumably have outvoted them and passed the legislation they wanted. They did so in the House; the measure they approved yesterday and sent to the president for his signature passed 222 to 209, largely along party lines.

But they could not do so in the Senate, even though they hold a 53–47 majority. Only after eight senators (seven Democrats and one Independent) agreed to vote with the Republicans could they pass the legislation to the House, which then passed it and sent it to the White House.

The reason is the “filibuster,” a strange component in the Senate’s governance. You probably didn’t get up this morning hoping I would write on it. Nor did I. I had a very different article planned, but after reading today’s news of the government reopening and considering what led to it, I decided to write what follows.

The reason, as I’ll explain, has more to do with our souls than with our governance.

Why the “filibuster” is significant

On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” This occurred in the very first session of the US Senate. The Virginia senators utilized the right of unlimited debate, a tactic that came to be known as the “filibuster” (from the Spanish filibustero, which ironically means “lawless plunderer”).

By the mid-nineteenth century, filibusters became more common as a way for an individual senator or minority party to prevent legislation from proceeding. This led to demands for “cloture,” a method for ending debate and bringing a question to a vote.

In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule allowing for debate to be closed with a two-thirds vote. In 1975, the number of votes required for cloture was reduced to sixty, where it stands today. However, the Senate adopted new precedents in the 2010s to allow a simple majority to end debate on nominations; the sixty-vote practice remains for legislation.

Over the years, when a party has held the majority, some within it have called for abolishing the sixty-vote requirement to end debate. After all, the voters elected the majority; to allow the minority to block their legislative decisions seems undemocratic. Others have warned that when the other side regains the majority in the future, the current majority will be unable to block legislation to which they object.

This may seem like an “in the weeds” discussion of an arcane political practice, but the issue has very real and practical consequences. The fifty-three Republicans in the Senate could not pass legislation reopening the federal government without the support of eight Democrats (Republican Sen. Rand Paul voted against the bill). From food stamp payments to air traffic issues to furloughed workers, millions of Americans were directly affected as a result.

Why minority rights matter

The Founders created a democratic republic in which the minority has significant rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. If you are ever in the minority on a significant issue, you’ll be grateful for this arrangement.

For example, when the so-called Equality Act was adopted by the Democrat-led House a few years ago, it failed in the Democrat-led Senate because Democrats could not obtain enough Republican support for the sixty votes needed to overcome the filibuster. There were adamant calls by some Democrats to suspend the filibuster to pass the legislation by simple majority. However, Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema refused to do so, which ensured that the Act would not proceed.

Since I agree with those who consider the Equality Act “the most invasive threat to religious liberty ever proposed in America,” I am deeply grateful for this outcome.

Now to the larger purpose behind this “civics lesson” I didn’t intend to write this morning.

Why we have laws, and why they are not sufficient

The whole reason humans construct laws to govern our behavior is that we cannot be trusted to act morally without them. The oldest known surviving law code dates to 2095 BC and includes laws against murder, robbery, and kidnapping. From Cain and Abel to today, sinful people have behaved in sinful ways.

This fact pertains not only to citizens governed by our laws but also to those who construct them. Presidents, governors, mayors, legislators, and judges are no less fallen upon their ascension to office than the rest of us. Checks and balances that prevent leaders from exercising unaccountable power, as laborious and frustrating as they may be at times, are essential to protecting some of us from the rest of us.

Here we find yet another reason why the gospel is such “good news.” Human laws cannot change human hearts, but Jesus can. Unlike any other world religion, worldview, or system of government, he forgives every sin we confess (1 John 1:9), separates our sins from us “as far as the east is from the west” (Psalm 103:12), buries them in “the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19), and “remembers your sins no more” (Isaiah 43:25 NIV).

But Jesus not only forgives sins—he remakes sinners. When we make him our Lord, he makes us a “new creation” as the “children of God” (2 Corinthians 5:17; John 1:12). When we submit our lives daily to his Spirit (Ephesians 5:18), he sanctifies us and manifests the character of Christ in us (2 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 8:29; Galatians 5:22–23).

This is why living in the Spirit is the key to the abundant life of Christ. And it is why sharing Christ with our broken culture—however we can, whenever we can—is our greatest service to our fellow Americans.

Our nation’s future and flourishing depend not on human governance but on divine grace. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).

It never will.

Quote for the day:

“There is no greater communication of love than proclaiming the gospel of God.” —Alistair Begg

Our latest website resources:

• Shutdown ends, Democrats’ identity crisis, Pelosi update, MLB pitchers indicted & Nico Harrison fired
• Two federal judges use AI to draft judicial decisions: Why accountability is our first responsibility
• What can we learn from Africa’s growing church amid trial and persecution?
• A Veterans Day reflection on a debt we can never repay
• If spreading the gospel was as easy as ‘67’

Denison Forum