WASHINGTON: The US Senate on Thursday rejected competing proposals by Republicans and Democrats to address a looming health care crisis, leaving some 24 million Americans vulnerable to significantly higher insurance premiums beginning on January 1 when a federal subsidy expires.
Barring any late breakthroughs, Congress will begin an end-of-year holiday recess sometime next week and not return until January 5, after new premiums are locked in for those who had relied on the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidy.
In back-to-back votes largely along party lines, Democrats and Republicans blocked each other’s bill.
The House of Representatives might attempt to pass some sort of legislation next week, which has not yet been unveiled. Even if it were to pass, Senate Democrats, and possibly some Republicans, would oppose it and they could use their votes to kill that effort.
“After today’s vote, the American health care crisis is 100 percent on their shoulders,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said of Republicans.
Senate Republican leader John Thune dismissed the Democratic bill as “a political messaging exercise” and said “Republicans are ready to get to work. I’m not sure yet that Democrats are interested.”
The bitter battle in Congress has left some Americans uncertain over renewing their health insurance under the federal health care program.
The percentage of returning customers in the Obamacare exchanges is slightly down from a year ago, with the government reporting 19.9 percent of people enrolled this year opting to renew their plans so far, down from 20.5 percent this time last year.
The Republican bill by US Senators Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Mike Crapo of Idaho would have sent up to $1,500 to individuals earning less than 700 percent of the federal poverty level — about $110,000 for an individual or $225,000 for a family of four in 2025. Those funds could not be used for abortion or gender transition procedures and would require verification of beneficiaries’ immigration or citizenship status — provisions Democrats reject.
The Democratic proposal on the subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, would have extended COVID-era subsidies for three years to keep insurance premiums from soaring for many. Without action by Congress, those premiums could more than double in cost on average, according to KFF, a health policy organization.
Sixty votes were needed to pass either measure in a Senate that Republicans control 53-47. Four Republicans voted for the Democratic proposal. No Democrats backed the Republicans’ bill.
President Donald Trump has largely sat out the brawl over health care, although he ultimately embraced the Cassidy-Crapo approach.
At Thursday’s bipartisan Congressional Ball, Trump predicted Republicans and Democrats would work together on health care. But he advocated for the Republican bill.
“We have an idea that rather than making these massive payments... insurance companies, we make beautiful big payments directly to the people, and they buy their own,” Trump said in remarks at the black-tie event at the White House.
The $1,500 payments in the Republican bill were meant to cover some of the out-of-pocket costs that people in the “Bronze” or “Catastrophic” categories — the lower-cost Obamacare plans — need to pay before their insurance kicks in.
However, it is far below the plans’ deductibles, meaning that even after that payment, a patient would be on the hook for up to $7,500 in out-of-pocket medical expenses before their insurance would start to pay for part of their care.
Those costs can rack up quickly for people with lower-cost plans, with a visit to a US emergency room costing between $1,000 and $3,000, while an ambulance ride can cost anywhere from $500 to over $3,500.
With 2026 congressional elections coming into focus, many Republicans are nervous about the prospect of stiff premium increases hitting every state, including many that backed Trump’s 2024 re-election. Polling indicates voters could mostly punish Republicans, who control Congress and the White House.
Republican US Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, a state that Trump carried by 18 points in his 2024 re-election, said his constituents have been telling him, “We can’t afford our premiums now, let alone if they would go up by 50 or 100 percent.”
Insurance companies warned customers of the rising premiums in the new year, and Democrats argued there was not enough time to do anything but a clean extension of the tax credits they sought.
A new Reuters/Ipsos poll found Americans back a health care subsidy continuation. Some 51 percent of respondents — including three-quarters of Democrats and a third of Republicans — said they support extending the subsidies. Only 21 percent said they were opposed.
Moderate Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania is spearheading a bipartisan bill to extend the subsidy through 2027. He is hoping to garner enough support to circumvent leadership and force votes on the measure by the full House.
![]()
Obamacare health subsidy to end as US Senate rejects dueling remedies
Short Url
https://arab.news/4a32v
Obamacare health subsidy to end as US Senate rejects dueling remedies
- Senate rejects Republican and Democratic health care proposals
- Democratic plan sought subsidy extension; Republicans offered to boost health savings accounts
Danish ‘ghetto’ tenants hope for EU discrimination win
COPENHAGEN: The European Court of Justice is to rule Thursday whether a Danish law requiring authorities to redevelop poor urban “ghettos” with high concentrations of “non-Western immigrants and their descendants” is discriminatory.
The law means that all social housing estates where more than half of residents are “non-Western” — previously defined as “ghettos” by the government — must rebuild, renovate and change the social mix by renting at least 60 percent of the homes at market rates by 2030.
Danish authorities, which have for decades advocated a hard line on immigration, say the law is aimed at eradicating segregation and “parallel societies” in poor neighborhoods that often struggle with crime.
In the Mjolnerparken housing estate in central Copenhagen, long associated with petty crime and delinquency, residents are confident they’ll win the case they’ve brought before the European court.
They argue that using their ethnicity to decide where they can live is discriminatory and illegal.
“100 percent we will win,” insisted Julia, a resident who did not want to tell AFP her last name.
She said the law was solely about “discrimination and racism.”
Muhammad Aslam, head of the social housing complex’s tenants’ association, was more measured, saying he was “full of hope.”
- Long legal battle -
Mjolnerparken residents filed their lawsuit in 2020.
A preliminary opinion by the European Court of Justice’s advocate general in February called the policy “direct discrimination.”
If the court’s final ruling were to be along those lines, “we will be ... completely satisfied,” Aslam said.
The 58-year-old owner of a transport company who hails originally from Pakistan, he has lived in the estate since it was created in 1987.
He and his wife raised four children in their four-room apartment, children who are now a lawyer, an engineer, a psychologist and a social worker, he said proudly.
“I who am self-employed as well as my children are all included in the negative statistics used to label our neighborhood a ‘ghetto’, a parallel society,” he fumed, referring to official data on the number of non-Western residents.
In Mjolnerparken, the landlord took advantage of a renovation of the four apartment blocks, decided by residents in 2015, to speed up the transformation of the complex and comply with the new legislation.
All of the residents — a total of 1,493 in 2020 — had to be temporarily relocated so the apartments could be refurbished, a representative of the tenants’ association, Majken Felle, told AFP.
At the time, eight out of 10 people in Mjolnerparken were deemed “non-Western,” with people from non-EU countries in the Balkans and Eastern Europe also falling into that category.
- ‘Disadvantaged ethnic group’ -
In order to avoid moving from one temporary apartment to another during the lengthy renovations, many residents agreed to just move to another neighborhood.
And those who are determined to return — like Felle, the Aslams and Julia — are at the landlord’s mercy.
“We were supposed to be temporarily relocated for four months, and now it’s been more than three years. Each year, they give us four or five different dates” for when the work will be completed, Aslam sighed.
In total, 295 of Mjolnerparken’s 560 homes have been replaced, with two apartment blocks sold and replaced by market-rate rentals out of reach for social housing tenants.
Experts say some 11,000 people across Denmark will have to leave their apartments and find new housing elsewhere by 2030.
“The effort to diversify neighborhoods might indeed be well intended. Nevertheless, such diversification cannot be achieved by placing an already disadvantaged ethnic group in a less favorable position,” the advocate general said in February.
“However, in the present situation, the Danish legislation does precisely that.”
Even if the court does not rule in residents’ favor on Thursday, the legal case could still continue in Denmark, Felle said.
But it would be a serious setback.
“That would mean that Denmark had carte blanche to adopt as many discriminatory laws as it wants,” said Lamies Nassri of the Center for Muslims’ Rights in Denmark.
“It affects the whole country when there are discriminatory laws, especially Muslim citizens who have been particularly marginalized and stereotyped.”
The law means that all social housing estates where more than half of residents are “non-Western” — previously defined as “ghettos” by the government — must rebuild, renovate and change the social mix by renting at least 60 percent of the homes at market rates by 2030.
Danish authorities, which have for decades advocated a hard line on immigration, say the law is aimed at eradicating segregation and “parallel societies” in poor neighborhoods that often struggle with crime.
In the Mjolnerparken housing estate in central Copenhagen, long associated with petty crime and delinquency, residents are confident they’ll win the case they’ve brought before the European court.
They argue that using their ethnicity to decide where they can live is discriminatory and illegal.
“100 percent we will win,” insisted Julia, a resident who did not want to tell AFP her last name.
She said the law was solely about “discrimination and racism.”
Muhammad Aslam, head of the social housing complex’s tenants’ association, was more measured, saying he was “full of hope.”
- Long legal battle -
Mjolnerparken residents filed their lawsuit in 2020.
A preliminary opinion by the European Court of Justice’s advocate general in February called the policy “direct discrimination.”
If the court’s final ruling were to be along those lines, “we will be ... completely satisfied,” Aslam said.
The 58-year-old owner of a transport company who hails originally from Pakistan, he has lived in the estate since it was created in 1987.
He and his wife raised four children in their four-room apartment, children who are now a lawyer, an engineer, a psychologist and a social worker, he said proudly.
“I who am self-employed as well as my children are all included in the negative statistics used to label our neighborhood a ‘ghetto’, a parallel society,” he fumed, referring to official data on the number of non-Western residents.
In Mjolnerparken, the landlord took advantage of a renovation of the four apartment blocks, decided by residents in 2015, to speed up the transformation of the complex and comply with the new legislation.
All of the residents — a total of 1,493 in 2020 — had to be temporarily relocated so the apartments could be refurbished, a representative of the tenants’ association, Majken Felle, told AFP.
At the time, eight out of 10 people in Mjolnerparken were deemed “non-Western,” with people from non-EU countries in the Balkans and Eastern Europe also falling into that category.
- ‘Disadvantaged ethnic group’ -
In order to avoid moving from one temporary apartment to another during the lengthy renovations, many residents agreed to just move to another neighborhood.
And those who are determined to return — like Felle, the Aslams and Julia — are at the landlord’s mercy.
“We were supposed to be temporarily relocated for four months, and now it’s been more than three years. Each year, they give us four or five different dates” for when the work will be completed, Aslam sighed.
In total, 295 of Mjolnerparken’s 560 homes have been replaced, with two apartment blocks sold and replaced by market-rate rentals out of reach for social housing tenants.
Experts say some 11,000 people across Denmark will have to leave their apartments and find new housing elsewhere by 2030.
“The effort to diversify neighborhoods might indeed be well intended. Nevertheless, such diversification cannot be achieved by placing an already disadvantaged ethnic group in a less favorable position,” the advocate general said in February.
“However, in the present situation, the Danish legislation does precisely that.”
Even if the court does not rule in residents’ favor on Thursday, the legal case could still continue in Denmark, Felle said.
But it would be a serious setback.
“That would mean that Denmark had carte blanche to adopt as many discriminatory laws as it wants,” said Lamies Nassri of the Center for Muslims’ Rights in Denmark.
“It affects the whole country when there are discriminatory laws, especially Muslim citizens who have been particularly marginalized and stereotyped.”
Latest updates
© 2025 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.