EXCLUSIVE SNEAK PEEK: Cruz and Cornyn are positioning themselves as fiscal hawks in public while quietly aligning with the same insurance interests that Schumer and Jeffries defend.
The fight over extending the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced premium subsidies is often presented as a clash of values—Democrats insisting they are defending working families from punishing premium hikes, Republicans casting themselves as guardians of fiscal responsibility. In reality, both parties are navigating the same financial pipeline. That pipeline begins with taxpayer dollars, flows through individuals in the form of subsidies, and ends in the accounts of private insurers. This is the essence of what can rightly be called an indirect bailout.
Unlike a direct bailout, which takes the form of explicit cash infusions to corporations in times of crisis—such as the TARP rescue of banks in 2008—an indirect bailout is structured to look like consumer aid while still ensuring the survival and profitability of corporations. In this case, the subsidies are not checks cut straight to insurance companies. Instead, they operate as “advance premium tax credits” that reduce what households must pay for monthly premiums. The government then pays insurers the remaining share, guaranteeing that the full price of the policy is covered. Consumers feel the relief in smaller bills, but insurers receive the same premium they would have charged without subsidies.
The ACA includes a medical loss ratio rule that requires at least 80 percent of individual-market premiums (85 percent in the large-group market) to be spent on actual medical claims or quality improvement, with the remainder allowed for administration and profit. On paper, this caps the amount that insurers can skim off. But in practice, when subsidies expand, total premium revenue grows. That means even if margins remain at 15 to 20 percent, the absolute dollar amount available for overhead and profit rises. For example, if a plan’s annual premium base is $10 billion, a 15 percent yield would yield $1.5 billion in allowable administrative and profit expenses. If subsidies drive enrollment higher and push that base to $15 billion, insurers can now retain $2.25 billion—half a billion dollars more—without breaching any rule.
This is why the subsidies behave like an indirect bailout. They protect insurers from the natural consequence of unaffordable premiums: consumer attrition. In a free market, if premiums rose too high, healthier individuals would drop coverage, thereby shrinking risk pools and forcing insurers to adjust their pricing or risk collapse. Subsidies intervene to prevent that unraveling. They keep healthier enrollees in the system by cushioning costs, which stabilizes risk pools and guarantees carriers the broad customer base they need. The risk of market failure is transferred from insurers to the public purse.
Thus, the rhetoric of principle—Democrats insisting they are rescuing families, Republicans decrying fiscal irresponsibility—conceals a shared reality. Both sides recognize that the subsidy extension not only stabilizes households but also stabilizes the insurance industry itself. The policy lowers consumers’ net costs, but it simultaneously ensures insurers are made whole, that their revenues remain intact, and that their margins, though capped in percentage terms, continue to grow in raw dollars as the premium base expands. That is the definition of an indirect bailout: a government intervention structured around consumer relief, but designed in such a way that the private sector’s beneficiaries remain the most insulated from risk.
Quiet truth behind the Schumer–Jeffries band
The fight over ACA premium subsidies is framed as a stark clash of principle: Democrats insisting that families will suffer if subsidies vanish, Republicans portraying the extensions as runaway spending. But once you follow the money, the supposed battlefield looks more like a stage set. What appears to be an ideological war is, in truth, a performance in which both sides are playing their assigned roles. At the same time, the real beneficiary—private health insurance companies—remains protected.
The subsidies function as an indirect bailout because they preserve insurers’ revenue against the very market forces that should discipline it. If premiums become unaffordable, consumers would normally exit the system, insurers would lose customers, and risk pools would deteriorate. Subsidies prevent this attrition by having taxpayers cover the shortfall, ensuring that insurers collect the full premium regardless of affordability. Though the ACA’s medical loss ratio rules require 80 to 85 percent of premium revenue to be spent on care, the remaining 15 to 20 percent is reserved for administration and profits, which grow proportionally with every increase in gross premium dollars. In other words, the larger the subsidized market, the more absolute profit insurers can retain—without violating the law. This is how a consumer-facing program doubles as an industry backstop.
That’s the quiet truth behind the Schumer–Jeffries standoff. Publicly, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries present themselves as defenders of working families, arguing that to let subsidies expire would be to punish the middle class.
OpenSecrets data show that Schumer has received over $3 million from the insurance industry throughout his career, alongside millions more from health services, HMOs, and pharmaceutical donors. Jeffries’ most recent cycles place insurance as one of his top sources, with industry PACs delivering hundreds of thousands in contributions.
Both Democrats and Republicans are fixtures at fundraisers hosted by the industry’s umbrella groups, such as America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) or Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates, which lobby aggressively to keep these subsidies in place.
This is why Cruz and Cornyn’s hardline posture functions less as genuine resistance and more as a choreographed response. They posture against a “handout” to insurers while representing a state—Texas—that is home to some of the largest insurance and health services interests in the country. By opposing the subsidies publicly, they can burnish their fiscal conservative credentials, but the subsidies’ continuation ultimately secures the very industry that helps fund their campaigns. Likewise, Schumer and Jeffries can claim moral high ground in defending families, while also ensuring the continuation of a revenue stream that their industry allies rely upon.
The result is that what Americans perceive as a partisan brawl over principle is, in practice, a managed war, staged so that each side can score rhetorical points while ensuring the underlying subsidy architecture remains intact. The “indirect bailout” is the common denominator: a structure that appears to lower consumer costs on the surface but actually guarantees insurers’ survival and profitability beneath it. Schumer and Jeffries defend it as social protection, Cruz and Cornyn attack it as fiscal recklessness—but neither side truly threatens it, because both are beneficiaries of the same donor ecosystem that lobbies hardest for its preservation.
UNIPARTY FAKE FIGHTS FOR COMMON CAUSE
Now to the politics that make the “we’re at war” storyline look more like theatrical trench lines around a shared fortification. On one side of the cameras, Democrats are demanding that a shutdown deal include a subsidy fix; Schumer and Jeffries have repeatedly stated this in the run-up to September 30, framing it as essential consumer protection heading into open enrollment. Major outlets reported that posture across the final weekend: Schumer pressing for “real negotiations” that keep ACA subsidies on the table; Jeffries reinforcing that stance alongside allied groups warning of premium spikes.
On the other side of the cameras, Republicans argue the issue doesn’t belong in a stopgap. Speaker Mike Johnson has said that ACA subsidy debates should be postponed until year-end, and Senate Leader John Thune has made the same point—that a clean funding patch should come first—while colleagues quietly explore a narrower extension with GOP-style guardrails.
Why does each camp talk past the other while orbiting similar outcomes? Follow the money and the policy incentives rather than the sound bites. The insurance sector’s political spending and lobbying are structural, not episodic. Blue Cross Blue Shield entities reported more than $27 million in federal lobbying in 2024 alone; UnitedHealth disclosed over $7.5 million in 2024 lobbying and remains a perennial top spender; and the trade association AHIP continues to lobby aggressively as the industry’s umbrella. Those figures don’t prove causation, but they do explain why the industry’s preferences—stability, predictable subsidies, and policy certainty—are rarely far from the center of any deal.
Campaign money paints the same picture across party lines. Chuck Schumer’s career fundraising shows the Insurance industry among his most significant long-run sources (over $3 million), with additional millions from health-adjacent sectors like Health Services/HMOs and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products; New York Life Insurance appears on his career “top contributors” list as well. Hakeem Jeffries’ Insurance industry haul was a top-line item in the 2023–24 cycle, with OpenSecrets showing roughly $420,000, much of it from PACs. On the Republican side, Ted Cruz’s 2019–2024 cycle data show over $540,000 from the Insurance industry to his campaign committee, and John Cornyn’s comparable figure tops $680,000, alongside six-figure sums from Health Services/HMOs and Pharmaceuticals/Health Products. Those aren’t outliers; they’re the median reality of federal fundraising in a health-care-dependent political economy.
Set against that backdrop, the Schumer–Jeffries message discipline and the Cruz–Cornyn “not in the CR” posture function less as irreconcilable worldviews and more as negotiation roles in a market where insurers need enrollment stability and both parties court their money and influence. Democrats can credibly claim they’re protecting consumers because the enhancement does slash net premiums and expands eligibility; Republicans can credibly claim fiscal hawkishness because a multi-year extension scores in the hundreds of billions over the budget window. But because the dollars, by statute, track the benchmark plan and are paid out as advances to insurers on enrollees’ behalf, the policy also acts as a backstop for carrier revenue. That is the indirect bailout: not a blank check, and not proof of conspiracy, but a design that makes private insurers whole when premiums rise and enrollment surges—precisely the stability the industry spends heavily to preserve.
Government shutdown fights have become an efficient smokescreen for special-interest maneuvering. By threatening a lapse in funding, politicians create a high-stakes environment where policy riders can be slipped into “must-pass” bills. In public, these riders are sold as urgent protections for working families or bold stands for fiscal restraint. In reality, they are often tailored to protect or expand the revenue streams of the very industries underwriting both parties’ campaigns. The public sees partisan brinkmanship; behind the curtain, donors know a moment of maximum leverage to secure their objectives. This is not altruism wrapped in politics—it is politics wrapped in altruism.
What President Trump could do (or might do)
If President Trump truly wants to break that cycle during a looming shutdown, the most effective steps are not rhetorical but procedural. He could direct his Office of Management and Budget to publish, in real time, a plain-language “rider tracker” for every continuing resolution and omnibus appropriations bill, showing exactly which provisions benefit which industries and which members sponsored them. He could order agencies to disclose which contractors, PACs, or lobbying groups stand to gain from each rider. He could use his bully pulpit to hold briefings naming the provisions and the interests behind them before signing or vetoing any spending package. That shifts the fight from backroom bargaining to daylight.
On the personnel side, firing entrenched appointees is less effective than appointing inspectors general, auditors, and ethics officers with a clear mandate and protection from retaliation. Trump could strengthen, not weaken, the internal watchdog corps and provide them with public platforms to release their findings. He could also use executive orders to prohibit agencies from implementing new subsidies or grants slipped into last-minute riders without a public cost-benefit analysis and a cooling-off period for public comment. In short: transparency, sunlight, and real-time disclosure.
Such measures wouldn’t stop Congress from writing special-interest provisions, but they would destroy the cloak of urgency and benevolence under which those provisions pass. Instead of being told, “We’re saving you from premium hikes” or “We’re stopping wasteful spending,” the public would be shown, line by line, which riders are designed to protect and which revenue streams. That is how a president can pierce the facade of shutdown brinkmanship and return control of the process to the people it purports to serve.
Backroom deals can only thrive in darkness; drag them into the light, and they stop looking like governance and start looking like what they are—paychecks for the powerful disguised as protection for the people.
Tore Maras
EXCLUSIVE SNEAK PEEK: Cruz and Cornyn
Evidence suggests Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn are working with Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries to use NASA as a pretext to undermine Elon Musk’s Starlink contracts. This aligns with the interests of deep-pocketed industry stakeholders who hold significant investments in competing space ventures.
Cruz and Cornyn are framing their actions as a fight against space monopolies, but this appears to be a cover for protecting legacy industry revenues. Their funding, though obscured through multiple channels, reveals a coordinated effort. Notably, Cornyn’s reported $3 million weekly spending to oppose Ken Paxton points to a broader strategy, with the government shutdown and NASA discussions serving as key starting points.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
