Clock Ticking: Congress Deadlocked as Health Premium Hike Looms

Paul Riverbank, 12/16/2025With Congress deadlocked and time running out, millions of Americans face soaring healthcare premiums. Lawmakers debate extending subsidies or embracing market reforms, but a solution remains elusive as public anxiety mounts.

Just this Sunday, Senator Bill Cassidy, who’s both a lawmaker and a practicing doctor, appeared on cable news trying to hammer home what’s at risk. Sitting under television lights far from his native Louisiana, Cassidy gestured toward what he sees as common ground. “Let’s give families money in their pockets for unexpected bills, and make premiums less brutal to match,” he suggested—then, almost with a hint of exasperation, “Why not both?” Cassidy has floated a blend of direct support (possibly $5,000 per family) and extended tax credits. His pitch: time is nearly up, but the bigger fixes could roll out by 2026 if Congress can just land a deal now.

You don’t need to spend much time outside the Beltway to get a sense of just how grim people are feeling about health care. New polling from West Health and Gallup sketches the picture in numbers: nearly a quarter of Americans call the whole system ‘in crisis.’ Maybe even more haunting—just 16 percent are content with what they pay for care, which is a record low. It’s seldom you find this much agreement in politics, but the message is unmistakable: Cost, not just coverage, is burning a hole in people’s household budgets.

Inside Congress, the standoff is following its own script, though not always in neat partisan lines. Lawmakers like Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey known for his maverick streak, framed the impasse with a holiday metaphor: “They’ll be stuffing coal into stockings back home,” he warned, trying to nudge colleagues into action with a discharge petition—a rare parliamentary move that, if successful, would force a vote regardless of party leadership. As of today, the petition hasn’t crossed the threshold, leaving the issue dangling.

There’s no shortage of alternatives floating about. Plenty of Republicans insist the entire debate on subsidies only masks a health system in need of deeper overhaul. Senator Rand Paul makes a typical case, arguing that loosened rules on cross-state insurance and beefed-up Health Savings Accounts represent the “genuinely conservative” answer. In his telling, if people could buy plans from anywhere and sock away more tax-free dollars, the market would finally get a jolt; individual choice would have its day.

That vision, though, looks very different from the “clean extension” pitched by most Democrats, who want three more years of premium tax credits, plain and simple. Rep. Richard Neal, a veteran on the Ways and Means Committee, didn’t mince words: “It only takes four Republicans to step up. Anything else is a sideshow.” Neither approach has seen easy progress. In fact, the House GOP did manage to move a health bill recently—yet it sidestepped the expiring subsidies altogether, a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by anxious constituents.

Back in the Senate, parallel bills—one aimed strictly at extending subsidies, another laced with new HSA incentives—both stalled. As if to underline the dysfunction, ‘discharge petitions’ haven’t advanced further. Democratic leadership has resisted Republican add-ons, preferring not to muddy the legislative waters.

Beneath all this political maneuvering are the voices of regular Americans, who find themselves facing real choices if premiums surge: Do they cut back elsewhere or risk going uninsured? That sense of vulnerability has led to a growing chorus—nearly two-thirds by some polls—supporting a more active government role in guaranteeing coverage for everyone. What’s less clear, however, is whether that means more subsidies, tougher regulations, or something entirely different. The lines blurring between what counts as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ reform adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the policy debate.

Whether lawmakers manage to hash out a late-night compromise—or opt for yet another temporary fix—remains very much in doubt. All anyone can say with certainty, at this point, is that the clock is running down, and the people who will feel the effects first are the ones farthest from the negotiating tables.

It’s another tense week on Capitol Hill—and if you talk to folks across the country, there’s real anxiety in the air. Most people aren’t poring over legislative calendars, but the news from Washington filters down quickly when health insurance is on the line. This time, the stakes are high: Unless Congress acts in the coming days, millions could see their Affordable Care Act premiums shoot up overnight.Just this Sunday, Senator Bill Cassidy, who’s both a lawmaker and a practicing doctor, appeared on cable news trying to hammer home what’s at risk. Sitting under television lights far from his native Louisiana, Cassidy gestured toward what he sees as common ground. “Let’s give families money in their pockets for unexpected bills, and make premiums less brutal to match,” he suggested—then, almost with a hint of exasperation, “Why not both?” Cassidy has floated a blend of direct support (possibly $5,000 per family) and extended tax credits. His pitch: time is nearly up, but the bigger fixes could roll out by 2026 if Congress can just land a deal now.You don’t need to spend much time outside the Beltway to get a sense of just how grim people are feeling about health care. New polling from West Health and Gallup sketches the picture in numbers: nearly a quarter of Americans call the whole system ‘in crisis.’ Maybe even more haunting—just 16 percent are content with what they pay for care, which is a record low. It’s seldom you find this much agreement in politics, but the message is unmistakable: Cost, not just coverage, is burning a hole in people’s household budgets.Inside Congress, the standoff is following its own script, though not always in neat partisan lines. Lawmakers like Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat from New Jersey known for his maverick streak, framed the impasse with a holiday metaphor: “They’ll be stuffing coal into stockings back home,” he warned, trying to nudge colleagues into action with a discharge petition—a rare parliamentary move that, if successful, would force a vote regardless of party leadership. As of today, the petition hasn’t crossed the threshold, leaving the issue dangling.There’s no shortage of alternatives floating about. Plenty of Republicans insist the entire debate on subsidies only masks a health system in need of deeper overhaul. Senator Rand Paul makes a typical case, arguing that loosened rules on cross-state insurance and beefed-up Health Savings Accounts represent the “genuinely conservative” answer. In his telling, if people could buy plans from anywhere and sock away more tax-free dollars, the market would finally get a jolt; individual choice would have its day.That vision, though, looks very different from the “clean extension” pitched by most Democrats, who want three more years of premium tax credits, plain and simple. Rep. Richard Neal, a veteran on the Ways and Means Committee, didn’t mince words: “It only takes four Republicans to step up. Anything else is a sideshow.” Neither approach has seen easy progress. In fact, the House GOP did manage to move a health bill recently—yet it sidestepped the expiring subsidies altogether, a fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by anxious constituents.Back in the Senate, parallel bills—one aimed strictly at extending subsidies, another laced with new HSA incentives—both stalled. As if to underline the dysfunction, ‘discharge petitions’ haven’t advanced further. Democratic leadership has resisted Republican add-ons, preferring not to muddy the legislative waters.Beneath all this political maneuvering are the voices of regular Americans, who find themselves facing real choices if premiums surge: Do they cut back elsewhere or risk going uninsured? That sense of vulnerability has led to a growing chorus—nearly two-thirds by some polls—supporting a more active government role in guaranteeing coverage for everyone. What’s less clear, however, is whether that means more subsidies, tougher regulations, or something entirely different. The lines blurring between what counts as ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ reform adds yet another layer of uncertainty to the policy debate.Whether lawmakers manage to hash out a late-night compromise—or opt for yet another temporary fix—remains very much in doubt. All anyone can say with certainty, at this point, is that the clock is running down, and the people who will feel the effects first are the ones farthest from the negotiating tables.