If there’s one thing you can count on when Congress plays chicken with the government’s lightswitch, it’s that the American people become little more than collateral damage in a larger (and let’s face it, increasingly boring) power struggle. Enter The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, stage right, bounding into the shutdown sophistry by demanding Republicans kneecap “temporary” ObamaCare subsidies—right now, while Democrats are supposedly “extorting” the nation by holding out for their renewal.

The WSJ editorial doesn’t just whisper for legislative sabotage, it bullhorns: “Do taxpayers — many of whom pay for their own coverage at work — want to underwrite baby boomer early retirement?” It’s classic Murdochian tabloid therapy. If you’re sitting at home, binging reality TV or trying to hold life together with a $2,000 deductible, congrats: you’re either the moocher or the mark, depending on which boardroom the Journal is catering to today.

Their argument, as always, is laced with that signature Wall Street perfume: the government’s lost control, the market knows best, and anything less than full capitalism is just communism with extra syllables. Somehow, the focus is never on the very real millions who rely on those subsidies to not die in debt. That’s just awkward for the donors.

This isn’t about reform. It’s about leverage. Power. The urge to crush perceived Democratic gains with a smile buried in an op-ed page. And as the shutdown drags American lives through the mud, you can almost hear the editorial board clinking glasses at the thought of another partisan “win” in a war only the insulated care about natively.

Let’s get real. The ACA is not perfect. Premiums are too damn high in some markets, the insurance lobby is still richer than most oil sheiks, and doctor networks are as thin as congressional gun safety resolve. But we’re a decade out from its signing, and the ACA is still the only lifeline left for millions not lucky enough to be grandfathered into a union job or stuck in a cubicle till death.

WSJ’s line is fierce: “[I]t’s still a product few deem worth buying unless they’re protected from the cost.” Yeah, no shit. That’s true of all health insurance, folks. The free market will not magically lower your prescription costs, it will just decide how bankrupt you get before you die.

Yet here we are, arguing about whether the “temporary” pandemic-era ACA subsidies should survive past the next round of Congress’s bi-annual yard-sale budget tantrum. Millions of Americans—working class, middle class, and plenty of struggling upper middle class—are about to get rolled in the crossfire:

• Without these subsidies, out-of-pocket costs for insurance would become astronomical for anyone not earning six figures. (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2024)
• Those “early retirees” the WSJ hand-wrings about? In reality, most recipients are wage workers who lost employer plans when COVID tore up the jobs market—and many still haven’t landed employer-provided coverage since. (Kaiser Family Foundation 2024, see link below)

The ACA, for all its bitter flaws, dramatically cut the uninsured rate. That alone makes it harder for the right to burn it to the ground without sounding, you know… monstrous. But nuance is for the weak, apparently.

Only in America could healthcare for millions be held hostage to a government “shutdown.” The term is a joke; most of the country has no clue what a shutdown does except make TSA agents even crankier and delay their passport renewal for another six months.

But within the Beltway echo chamber, a shutdown is a golden opportunity to squeeze out political concessions that the sprawling, bellowing body of government would never otherwise cough up. Enter The Wall Street Journal editorial board’s fantasy: GOP lawmakers walk into budget negotiations, large scissors in hand, snip the pandemic-era ACA subsidies, and emerge with a scalp for the donors.

In practice, what does ending these subsidies mean?

• About 3 million Americans could lose affordable coverage, according to nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates. (2024 CBO report)
• Premium spikes ranging from 20% to 50% in some states for those dropped from ACA markets. (KFF, NBER)
• Hospitals bracing for more uninsured ER patients—passing the bill back to the rest of us, because, sorry, you still need stitches when you’re broke.

Does this sound like drawing a line in the sand for American values? Or more like running a $4.5 trillion government via hostage note because you think your base will cheer? If you guessed #2, congrats, you win a MAGA hat lined with IOUs from every working-class voter the party left uninsured for the photo op.

The people you never see on Fox News primetime—the nurses juggling two jobs, gig workers patching together side hustles for a shot at a deductible, that waitress who caught COVID twice but can’t score a full-time gig—are the real losers here.

When the Wall Street Journal paints ACA subsidies as some coddling handout for lazy boomers, it’s not just disingenuous—it’s cruel. These supports aren’t letting a bunch of poolside retirees scrounge off the government, they’re stopping working people from dropping off the insurance rolls completely, or worse, bankrupting their families to treat a broken leg.

The editorial’s rhetorical trick is to pretend the only taxpayers who matter are the ones with employer insurance. Never mind the millions hustling in the gig economy, or who got their hours cut during the pandemic and lost their coverage at the same time they lost their last ounce of optimism.

But in the end, the casualties aren’t Murdoch’s golf buddies or the WSJ editorial team. It’s the people who now have to make horrific choices—insurance or groceries, medical care or missing rent. And that, apparently, is just the cost of “staying competitive” in modern America, at least if you’re not among the ultra-insured class.

The WSJ’s editorial doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s part of a larger feedback loop—right-wing media tells Republican lawmakers what “the base” supposedly wants, lawmakers perform outrage for the cameras, Fox News does the play-by-play, and somehow, nothing meaningful for real people actually gets done.

Since the Trump era, the GOP has leaned on its own echo chamber like an aging boxer propped up by friendly judges. The WSJ—always sharper and shadier than the primetime cable crowd—gives policy cover for MAGA-world’s hyper-partisan priorities, occasionally scolding Trump when he gets too wild, then swinging back to fomenting discord over anything the Democrats so much as glance at.

This time it’s subsidized health insurance. Next time it’ll be SNAP benefits, or education reform, or any measure that dares give regular people a sliver of help. What’s truly galling is the open cynicism: they admit these subsidies are popular, that the opposition is purely ideological, and that the real goal is to make Democrats look weak so the next election cycle is that much easier to game.

It’s class war, gift-wrapped in editorial prose. And it’s damn hard to out-snark them, only because the cruelty is so naked you start to think they’re trolling for sport.

Set aside the politics for a moment (if you can survive the hot take burn). Let’s talk dollars and sense—because health insurance in America is survival math, not just another column on Wall Street’s ledger.

Fact: According to KFF, the expanded ACA subsidies cut median benchmark plan premium costs by up to 25% for low and moderate-income families. For individuals, out-of-pocket premiums could go from $420/month down to $50-120/month in many cases—literally the only reason millions can afford coverage at all.

CBO estimates show that rolling back those “temporary” COVID-era subsidies would send premiums back up and throw an estimated 3 million off their plans, most of whom are over 45, working, but in industries that don’t offer employer plans. Think restaurant workers, temp contractors, home health aides, Lyft drivers, and—irony alert—lots of small business owners.

The kicker? Every uninsured person, when they end up at the ER, passes the bill on to the rest of us via higher hospital costs, higher premiums, and uninsured care write-offs. This isn’t “ending handouts”—it’s offloading costs onto communities that are already stretched to breaking.

Want a dark joke? The GOP has been “repeal and replacing” the ACA for more than a decade, and not once produced a serious blueprint that would actually cover more people, for less, with better outcomes. If you’re frustrated, you should be. Every poll since 2017 shows that even Republican voters want to keep the major coverage provisions of the ACA, minus the name. But the party in D.C. can’t say that on camera for fear of being primaried.

Every year, Republicans circle back to the same script: “Obamacare is broken,” they say, then sabotage the market, defund marketplaces, or sue to strip away protections for pre-existing conditions. Repeal the subsidies now, in the middle of a shutdown, and it’s not policy making—it’s a tantrum designed to hurt people till someone blinks.

Meanwhile, insurance companies just keep on winning. Profits are up, provider networks shrink, and the uninsured rate only goes down when subsidies are boosted to pull more people into the pool.

If the GOP ever had a workable plan, you’d hear it. Until then, get ready for another round of “Affordable Care Act Death Match: This Time It’s Personal, but Only If You’re Broke.”

It takes a special kind of cynicism to use a shutdown to punch at policies you could never repeal during regular session. But that’s the strategy. Why? Because for lawmakers and lobbyists, the stakes aren’t personal. Their insurance is paid, their families are safe, and the drama is just cover for next quarter’s fundraising letters.

For everyone else, the consequences are immediate, sharp, and deeply unfair. Subsidies dry up, insurance premiums explode (especially for 45-65 year-olds, the “pre-Medicare danger zone”), and the safety net tears in full view.

Meanwhile, as the Hill bluntly reports, the WSJ, owned by Murdoch, is never really happy—if the ACA dies, it’s proof the government failed. If it survives, it’s always, “more expensive, more bloated, and more unpopular.” It’s a rerun with a meaner script every time.

The sad reality: those scripting these fights never pay the price. K Street and the op-ed pages will move onto the next “crisis” before the ink is dry on the next round of denied claims.

If you need proof that Washington is broken, look no further than this never-ending soap opera: a shutdown is supposed to be rare; now, it’s a governing style. And the first bargaining chip? Your health coverage.

The WSJ doesn’t give a damn about regular Americans. Its op-ed pages are a reflection of billionaire insecurities and an endless appetite for culture war over class war—because, god forbid, people making under $70,000/year catch a break. When lawmakers play along, only two things are for sure: the insurance lobby wins and the taxpayer at the bottom gets reamed.

Don’t fall for the hype: If Democrats fold, millions lose coverage. If Republicans “win,” the most vulnerable pay. If everyone caves, insurers just hike next year’s rates to cover the uncertainty. What’s new? Absolutely nothing. The only thing weirder than this cycle is thinking it’ll end any other way.

Fight for your coverage. Demand facts, not spectacle. And vote like your life literally depends on it—because, in this broken system, it probably does.

Read more:

• WSJ urges Republicans to end ObamaCare subsidies during shutdown – The Hill
• The GOP’s ObamaCare Opportunity – Wall Street Journal