House Republicans' healthcare proposal "is far superior to the subsidy status quo" offered by Democrats, according to The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
In a Monday opinion column, the Journal's board argued Democrats are trying to put Republicans "on the run" over healthcare by demanding Congress extend the pandemic-era enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire Dec. 31.
The editorial board added, however, that the GOP has an opportunity to fight back with an alternative that expands private sector choices while lowering taxpayer exposure.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., pushed the House GOP bill for a vote this week, and the Journal editorial praised its central premise of moving away from what it called Democrats' "sweetened" subsidies and toward policies that make it easier for workers and small-business employers to find coverage outside Obamacare's most expensive mandates.
In an email to Newsmax, Johnson touted the Journal editorial board's piece, highlighting its argument that Republicans should not be pressured into extending "temporary" subsidies that, in the GOP view, have become a permanent entitlement.
The Journal pointed to two main tools in the House package.
First, expanding association health plans, which allow small-business employers to band together and sponsor group coverage, potentially reducing premiums by widening risk pools and giving businesses more bargaining power.
Second, broadening health reimbursement arrangements, which would let employers make tax-free contributions that workers can use to purchase their own insurance.
Republicans also argued that the bill targets a costly distortion created by Obamacare's "cost-sharing reductions," which require insurers to provide lower deductibles and co-pays for certain enrollees in benchmark "silver" plans.
The Journal noted insurers have often offset those costs by raising premiums on silver plans, and because federal subsidies are pegged to those premiums, higher sticker prices can translate into larger taxpayer subsidies.
The House GOP proposal would appropriate funds to insurers for those required cost-sharing reductions, a move supporters said could lower silver premiums and reduce overall subsidy spending.
Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., have attacked the Republican approach as "irresponsible" because it does not extend the enhanced subsidies.
But Republicans counter that the COVID-era boost has outlived the pandemic rationale and is driving waste and abuse while also nudging some workers out of employer coverage and on to government-subsidized exchange plans.
On that point, the Journal cited federal data showing the employer plan "take-up rate" has fallen in recent years.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics published access, participation, and take-up measures for employer medical benefits.
The Journal editorial also spotlighted mounting concerns about exchange enrollment fraud — including allegations that applicants underreport income to qualify for larger subsidies and that some brokers enroll people without their knowledge to collect commissions.
A recent Government Accountability Office report noted concerns about agent and broker practices in the federal marketplace and examines oversight efforts tied to premium tax credits.
Republicans say that's exactly why simply extending bigger subsidies is the wrong tactic. It papers over structural problems while increasing incentives for abuse.
Democrats argue that the subsidies are needed to prevent premium shocks for millions of enrollees if Congress does nothing by year's end.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Charlie McCarthy ✉
Charlie McCarthy, a writer/editor at Newsmax, has nearly 40 years of experience covering news, sports, and politics.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.