The government shutdown continues into its second month, and Democrats would have you believe they’re fighting to keep ObamaCare affordable. But what is the average cost of ObamaCare premiums per month?

A new article published in The Wall Street Journal gives us the answer. The editorial board tells us, “The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) this week released a fact sheet on ObamaCare’s pricing next year, and here’s the most important line: “The average Marketplace premium after tax credits is projected to be $50 per month for the lowest cost plan in 2026 for eligible enrollees.” Nearly 60% of “eligible re-enrollees will have access to a plan in their chosen health plan category at or below $50 after tax credits.”

Fifty dollars a month for healthcare! Many people spend more than that for coffee each month at Starbucks! Makes you wonder if this is a misprint. But the editors go on to say, “You read that right: The majority of enrollees will continue to have a plan at $50 a month or cheaper, even without the extra pandemic-era subsidy that is expiring. That’s a pittance compared to what many Americans shell out if they’re insured through their employer, even accounting for the fact that employer plans tend to be superior in their choices and coverage. Taxpayers on average are “projected to cover 91% of the lowest cost plan premium in 2026 for eligible enrollees” in ObamaCare, CMS reports.”

The expiring ObamaCare payments were sold to help weather a once-a-century health crisis. Next year’s sticker shock is largely concentrated in Americans age 55 and older with incomes above 400% of the poverty line—affluent early retirees who represent a fraction of overall enrollment and aren’t a compelling case for an income transfer that could cost some $450 billion over 10 years.

The WSJ editors say, “Credit to the Trump Administration for elevating these facts and showing that the GOP can do better than merely negotiate the price of an eventual ObamaCare surrender. Even moderate Republicans in Congress who fear the politics of expiring subsidies said recently in a letter that “significant reforms are needed” and that the party shouldn’t deal on the issue until the government reopens. Democrats might need to find a new shutdown strategy.”

Stop and think about the damage done by this government shutdown caused entirely by the Democrats’ refusal to keep the government open. Millions of Americans are going without paychecks for over a month now; airports are experiencing flight delays due to shortages of air traffic controllers and TSA agents, and the military and border patrol agents are working without pay. But Congress isn’t going without pay! All this because Democrats are pushing for effectively free healthcare for nearly everyone. Perhaps the socialist running for mayor in New York City isn’t an outlier but actually the coming trend in the Democratic party.

It’s now Day 22 of the Schumer Government Shutdown. I wrote about this recently when it was only Day 10. To learn why this shutdown is entirely due to Senate Minority Leader of the Democrats, Chuck Schumer, see that post called Schumer’s Government Shutdown.

In typical Democratic fashion, they are using scare tactics to frighten the American people. The latest example of this fearmongering is to warn that ObamaCare premiums will double if Republicans don’t cave to their demands.

It is true that ObamaCare subsidies that were increased by the Biden administration during the Covid pandemic are set to expire at the end of this year. The Covid emergency is over and extending these subsidies only adds billions to the already catastrophic deficit. What’s more, many of those who are receiving these subsidies are fraudulently claiming lower income levels than the truth but the Biden administration didn’t care. They literally let millions get away with fraud costing the taxpayers billions.

Therefore, when these temporarily increased subsidies expire it is likely that ObamaCare premiums will go up. But the real question is how much and who will be affected?

Chris Jacobs, founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, tells The Wall Street Journal that Democrats are falsely claiming premiums will double. The basis for this misinformation is a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, better known as KFF.

Jacobs explains: “On Aug. 6, KFF published an analysis showing “a median proposed premium increase of 18%” for insurers’ exchange plans. But on Sept. 30, several of the same researchers issued a second report with a headline asserting that “premium payments would more than double” if enhanced subsidies expire. What happened? Did premium estimates for 2026 rise sixfold in one month? No. KFF’s second study was misleading. It used cleverly parsed terms—“premium payments” rather than “premiums”—to conflate total premiums with enrollees’ out-of-pocket payments. The two aren’t the same. Focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former, as the September study did, omits important context.”

Even more surprising is that KFF admits the error. Cynthia Cox, a KFF vice president, confessed to Jacobs that the claim was inaccurate and said, “We do plan to update the graphic to be more precise.” But they didn’t advertise the mistake and edited the graphic without publicly disclosing its error.

KFF’s own work demonstrates that the federal government will still pay the vast majority of most enrollees’ premiums if the enhanced subsidies, first enacted under the Biden administration in 2021, end. Its analysis last July found that in 2024 the enhanced subsidies paid an average of 88% of enrollees’ overall premiums. Without them, the federal government would have paid an average of 78% of enrollees’ premiums last year. KFF hasn’t published a more recent analysis, but other groups have confirmed that federal dollars will continue to pay the lion’s share of most enrollees’ premiums if the enhanced subsidies expire.

Most exchange enrollees will face moderate increases in out-of-pocket costs in dollar terms. KFF estimated that the average enrollee will pay $1,016 more per year, or $84.67 more per month. A separate study from the Urban Institute concluded that households with incomes below 250% of the poverty level—who receive the richest subsidies, and comprise roughly three-quarters of all exchange enrollees—will pay an average of $750 more a year, or $62.50 monthly.

Some will face more-substantial costs if the enhanced subsidies expire. Whereas ObamaCare limited subsidy eligibility to households with incomes below four times the poverty level, the enhanced subsidies eliminated that cap. If the enhanced subsidies expire, the cap would return, and households with incomes just above it could face thousands of dollars in heightened costs. But even here, KFF data show that such households represent a mere 7% of enrollees. The Urban Institute estimated that the uninsured rate among this cohort would rise only modestly, because they “are more likely to pick up coverage from an employer” and “are more willing to pay the full premium.”

Jacobs concludes, “The left’s apocalyptic rhetoric about the expiration of the enhanced subsidies belies that federal taxpayers will still subsidize three-quarters of enrollees’ premium costs.”

The real solution to this problem is radical surgery on ObamaCare to fix the “root causes” of its rising costs. A good start would be eliminating the requirement that all plans must have the same “essential benefits” which means women must pay for premiums that include prostate exams and men must pay for coverage of mammograms. Even most politicians should recognize the absurdity of such insurance coverage.

Some tragedies are predictable; like people who use drugs laced with fentanyl. It’s only a matter of time until they die from fentanyl usage – which is 100 times more powerful than morphine. People who play Russian roulette; it’s inevitable that some time the bullet is going to be in the chamber and you’re going to die.

The latest example of this is drivers who use marijuana. It’s inevitable that someday they’re going to have a traffic accident and they’re going to die. If you’re using marijuana regularly you probably scoff at this suggestion – but statistics don’t lie.

The evidence for this is overwhelming. The Wall Street Journal editorial board was so concerned that they wrote an editorial called More Marijuana Users Are Crash Dummies. That headline ought to get your attention! Here’s what the editors had to say: “How much social and public-health damage will Americans suffer before doing a U-turn on marijuana promotion? A new study finds that more than 40% of drivers who died in car accidents in one U.S. county over the last six years had elevated levels of the drug in their blood.”

Researchers from Wright State University analyzed driver autopsy results from car crashes in Montgomery County, Ohio, between January 2019 and September 2024. More than four in 10 tested positive for pot’s psychoactive ingredient THC, with an average level of 30.7 nanograms. That’s more than six times the level most states use to define impairment.

Breathalyzers won’t detect recent marijuana use, which makes it hard for police to nab people who are driving while high. Today’s marijuana is five times more potent than the weed that Boomers smoked when they were younger, so it takes less to become impaired. Some studies suggest the percentage of THC in today’s marijuana is much higher than that.

Auto fatalities have increased over the last decade even as cars have become safer and alcohol consumption has fallen. Could marijuana be contributing to more reckless driving? It’s a fair question. Nearly a quarter of 18- to 25-year-olds used marijuana in the last month, according to a federal survey. As did 15% of those 26 or older.

The WSJ editors say, “The Ohio study, which is being presented this week at an American College of Surgeons conference, ought to prompt the Trump Administration to slam the brakes on a mooted plan to move marijuana to a less risky level on the federal drug schedule. Such a move would cultivate the spurious belief that marijuana isn’t all that harmful despite reams of evidence to the contrary.”

Marijuana can damage the heart, lungs, immune system and brain. A study this spring in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that marijuana users under age 50 who were free of cardiovascular disease were six times as likely to suffer a heart attack compared to non-users and were at four-fold increased risk of stroke. 

Americans were told that legalizing marijuana would reduce the illegal market, but that hasn’t happened. California officials last month said they destroyed more than 20,000 illegal cannabis plants at operations run by transnational criminal organizations. They also found firearms and hazardous pesticides that contaminate the environment.

Marijuana legalization laws were promoted based on the premise that marijuana usage is safer than alcohol and doesn’t impair driving. Now we know the truth. Both alcohol and marijuana impair driving and neither should be tolerated. Both lead to chronic diseases and often premature death. It’s time to get real about marijuana today. This isn’t your grandfather’s pot!

Author’s note: I have written on the subject of the dangers of marijuana usage in the past. For more information see previous posts Marijuana and Violence and Cannabis and Schizophrenia.