Imagine tuning into a Sunday football game. Amid the flurry of touchdowns and tackles, the commercials are filled with familiar names — State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and Farmers — vying for your dollars to cover your cars, homes, and personal liability. You have choices, and the competing advertisements are evidence of a robust marketplace where consumers benefit from price competition and innovation. But imagine if, alongside those ads, you could also shop for your health insurance — across state lines, no different than car or home coverage. Here lies a fundamental problem in American healthcare: you cannot buy most health insurance plans outside your own state. Unlike auto and home insurance, which have broad risk pools and interstate competition, health insurance markets remain balkanized, resulting in fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.
The roots of this uniquely American challenge date back to World War II, when the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration instituted wage and price controls to curb inflation. Employers, competing for talent but unable to boost salaries, <a href="https://www.aqpsearch.com/news/a-brief-history-of-employer-sponsored-healthcare">began offering health insurance as a fringe benefit</a> — a decision that intertwined employment and insurance in a way that persists today. At the time, it may have seemed like progress, but it has left countless Americans dependent on their employers for coverage. When jobs change, so does coverage, leaving those between jobs exposed and often without affordable options. Those ineligible for Medicaid — because their income is just above the cutoff — are especially at risk for being uninsured.
Decades later, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, commonly known as “Obamacare,&#8221; sought to address the coverage and affordability crisis — most acutely faced by people with preexisting conditions who previously found insurance unattainable unless provided through an employer. The ACA succeeded in expanding insurance coverage to millions, particularly through Medicaid expansion and the establishment of insurance marketplaces. However, for those who do not qualify for federal subsidies, premiums and deductibles have <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2025/10/14/how-obamacare-set-in-motion-todays-premium-crisis/">soared</a>. In many instances, families can face monthly premiums in the thousands, coupled with out-of-pocket costs so high that insurance feels more like catastrophic “coverage” than true protection. So while the ACA has done some good, it has not even come close to solving the affordability problem for which it is named.
The reasons for these persistent affordability issues are not mysterious. The underlying dynamics are straightforward, even as the system itself grows ever more complex. First, the ACA left state-level insurance monopolies untouched. Insurers still must navigate and adhere to rules that keep them within state lines, limiting the competitive pressure that could lower costs. Second, the oft-repeated promise from President Obama — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — proved optimistic at best. The law introduced <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/">10 “essential health benefits”</a> that all compliant plans had to cover, forcing many consumers off less expensive plans that no longer met federal guidelines. As a result, they and many others have found themselves paying more for benefits they did not want or need, in effect <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/07/GT-GGLJ180016.pdf">subsidizing coverage for others</a>. The state of California even <a href="https://californiahealthline.org/news/article/covered-california-record-enrollment-aca-obamacare-subsidies-jeopardy/">brags</a> that most of those who are subsidized are provided with “Silver” plans, but doesn’t say how this is on the backs of those who can only afford “Bronze” plans. This is due to how the subsidy thresholds and cross-subsidization mechanisms work, which is grossly unfair.
Third, the entire model of private health insurance negotiation keeps true prices obscured from patients. When a patient asks for the “cash price” for a procedure, providers often cannot answer because what any individual owes depends on secretive agreements negotiated between insurers and healthcare providers. This lack of transparency keeps patients in the dark and undermines genuine market discipline.
So why, after all these years, have costs continued to rise with little improvement in affordability? The answer lies in political paralysis and conflicting priorities. Democrats, many of whom see the ACA as a bridge to “single-payer” or “Medicare for All,” have settled for more federal entanglement in healthcare. They frame healthcare as a universal right; yet, rights in a constitutional sense do not compel one party to render goods or services to another. Insurance, whether for health or property, is fundamentally a contract — a product someone may buy, not an entitlement.
Republicans, for their part, have ardently opposed the ACA for over a decade, but rarely offer comprehensive, workable alternatives. Their efforts have focused on repeal rather than reform, missing opportunities to build consensus around real improvements in price transparency, portability, and increased consumer choice.
What might genuine reform look like? First, Congress should act to preempt state laws that prevent insurers from <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/reforming-health-insurance-competition-across-state-lines">selling across state lines</a>. This change would foster true competition, broaden risk pools, and, by analogy to auto and home insurance, drive down costs for most consumers. Second, policymakers should require transparent pricing from healthcare providers. Using the negotiated prices that already appear on every patient statement as a baseline, providers could set clear, upfront prices for services, allowing consumers to shop and plan accordingly. Third, the government should remove the “10 essential benefits” coverage requirement, letting consumers tailor plans to individual needs — just as with any other form of insurance — while maintaining the current requirement to cover those with preexisting conditions. High-risk pools, already used effectively in auto insurance for drivers with numerous or serious violations, could support those with extraordinary health risks without distorting the broader market.
In sum, addressing the high cost of American healthcare requires breaking up monopolies, shining a light on real prices, and empowering consumers to choose products that suit their needs, providing health insurance portability, and eventually ending employer-sponsored healthcare. Instead, employers could offer to cover or enhance existing employee policies as a fringe benefit, but the employee’s health insurance would no longer rely on any employer. Only then can Americans enjoy a health insurance marketplace as dynamic — and as affordable — as the ones that already exist for our cars and homes.
* * *
Walter Myers III is a Southern California-based Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.

Democrats Fail To Extend Affordable Care Act Subsidies In Government Funding Deal

It’s Time To Say Goodbye To The Obamacare Failure

Affordable

Federal Government

Health Care

Health Insurance

Obamacare

Opinion

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that an extension to Obamacare subsidies &#8220;may be necessary,” but he would prefer a plan that made direct payments to American citizens instead.
The Affordable Care Act/Obamacare subsidies, set to expire at the end of the year, were the focus of Democrats&#8217; demands during the government shutdown. Some Republicans have pushed to let them expire, while others have argued they should be extended. The Senate is expected to vote on the future of the subsidies sometime in December. 
While en route to Florida on Tuesday night, Trump was asked if he would like to see the Obamacare subsidies extended. 
“I’d rather not. Somebody said I want to extend them for two years. I don’t want to extend them for two years,” Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/2K8V3xqC9Gc">told</a> reporters on board Air Force One. “I’d rather not extend them at all. Some kind of an extension may be necessary to get something else done because the &#8216;Unaffordable Care Act&#8217; has been a disaster.” 
When asked what kind of health care policy he would like to see, Trump said it would involve the federal government giving people money to purchase their own plans. 
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
“I like my plan the best. Don’t give any money to the insurance companies; give it to the people directly. Let them buy their own health care plan,” Trump said. “And we’re looking at that. If that can work. We’re looking at that. That’s sort of taking off. That’s what I like. Don&#8217;t give the money to the insurance companies.”
Trump said that skyrocketing health care premiums were “the Democrats’ fault,” but added that they were negotiating with him. 
&#8220;It’s very interesting,” he said. ”I can’t tell you who, but we have a lot of Democrats who want this plan to happen. They would love to see the money go to the people and the people go out and get their own health care.&#8221;
Trump&#8217;s comments came after POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/24/trump-health-care-subsidies-backlash-00667751" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that he planned to introduce a plan that included a two-year extension of Obamacare subsidies. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/25/donald-trump-affordable-care-act-subsidies-tax-credit/87473037007/">said</a> on Tuesday that health care discussions were ongoing. 
&#8220;The president is having ongoing conversations with members of his administration, members of Congress, and private sector experts,&#8221; she said. &#8220;He will make recommendations for healthcare policy improvements in the near future.”
On November 18, Trump said on social media that the only plan he would support or approve would be one that sends “THE MONEY DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PEOPLE, WITH NOTHING GOING TO THE BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES, WHO HAVE MADE $TRILLIONS, AND RIPPED OFF AMERICA LONG ENOUGH.”

President Trump Departs Washington To Spend Thanksgiving Weekend In Florida

Trump Says Obamacare Extension ‘May Be Necessary’

Donald Trump

Executive

Health

Politics

WASHINGTON—Congress may have reopened the government, but it still has to decide what to do with the Obamacare subsidies at the center of the shutdown fight. Senator Bill Cassidy thinks they should go straight to American families — not health insurance companies.
Cassidy, who chairs the Health, Education, Labor &amp; Pensions Committee, told The Daily Wire this week that he was working with Republicans and Democrats alike on a proposal that would give Americans money to pay for care directly, which he says would empower patients and lower costs.
&#8220;There&#8217;s things you have to work through,&#8221; the Louisiana Republican said about his colleagues across the aisle. &#8220;Some think, ‘wait a second,’ that the preconception is, consumer-driven health care — it has to be funded out of the paycheck. I&#8217;m saying, ‘no, it&#8217;s going to be pre-funded with money that would otherwise go to the insurance companies.'&#8221;
Cassidy explained that the enhanced premium subsidies, which were extended during the coronavirus pandemic and are set to expire at the end of this year, would be deposited into Health Savings Accounts controlled by patients.
During the shutdown, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer proposed a plan to extend ACA subsidies for one year. Republicans called the plan &#8220;dead on arrival.&#8221;
On November 8, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-WY) spoke on the Senate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF6vZPmcvlo" target="_blank" rel="noopener">floor</a> and said he believes Americans “deserve quality, affordable health care.”
“And they haven’t gotten that with Obamacare. Reforms are needed that actually lower costs, that protect the taxpayers,&#8221; Barrasso said. &#8220;The American people deserve a full debate about the unaffordability of Obamacare. Senator Schumer’s offer does nothing to address the cost of health care, does nothing to lower premiums, does nothing to reassure the American people.&#8221;
Barrasso said Schumer’s proposal makes “insurance companies richer and taxpayers poorer.”
In a shutdown-ending deal, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) promised Democrats a vote on a healthcare proposal by the second week of December. However, it is unclear what that may be.
On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held a press conference and <a href="https://democraticleader.house.gov/media/press-releases/leader-jeffries-affordable-care-act-tax-credits-expire-next-month-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">slammed</a> Republicans for their refusal to extend the tax credits and said “tens of millions of Americans are about to experience dramatically increased premiums, copays, and deductibles.”
Jeffries previously said he wouldn’t support a one-year extension and was pushing for a three-year extension for the subsidies. However, given that the Senate wouldn&#8217;t even vote on a one-year extension, there&#8217;s little to no chance this would pass.
Cassidy spoke about the proposal on the Senate <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RwcNIRxjBY" target="_blank" rel="noopener">floor</a> last week and proposed the idea to give credits directly to patients and empower them to manage their own health care decisions.
He said Obamacare has “tried to make health insurance affordable” by “throwing billions at it.”
“The problem with that — that doesn’t make healthcare affordable, it just makes the health insurance premium less expensive for those who are on exchanges,” Cassidy said at the time.
“Let’s fix health care, and let’s give the patient the power,” he continued.
President Donald Trump has also <a href="https://x.com/SenBillCassidy/status/1987176209936232807?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spoken</a> in support of giving money directly to the people, most recently in a Nov. 8 Truth Social post.
“We were so totally in sync,&#8221; Cassidy told reporters of the president on Monday. &#8220;He wants to take dollars that would go to an insurance company and send them to the individual.&#8221;
Initially, Cassidy pitched his proposal through flexible spending accounts — but he said he believes Health Savings Accounts would be the better route.
“As it turns out, it&#8217;s more practical, and I can tell you why, to do it through the Health Savings Account, which he proposed, but it&#8217;s still the same thing,&#8221; Cassidy said. &#8220;I think it&#8217;s a melding of a vision, and to say it&#8217;s a melding implies they were different beforehand. This is exactly what he&#8217;s expressing, exactly what I was expressing.&#8221;
The proposal has publicly received support from Sen. Bernie <a href="https://x.com/SenBillCassidy/status/1987244986044158318?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Moreno</a> (R-OH) and interest from Sen. Maria <a href="https://x.com/SenBillCassidy/status/1987670490031554716?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cantwell</a> (D-WA).
“I think this has got a lot of appeal to conservatives,&#8221; Cassidy told reporters. &#8220;I love it, but I think it&#8217;s got a lot of appeal to people who are left of center, too.&#8221;
While the bill text has not yet been released, Cassidy is confident that if the Senate were to pass the idea, the president would ask House Speaker Mike Johnson to consider it on the floor, and the president will sign it because “it&#8217;s consistent with the policy that he has put forward.”
The Senate Finance Committee is <a href="https://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/the-rising-cost-of-health-care-considering-meaningful-solutions-for-all-americans">holding a hearing</a> on the enhanced Obamacare subsidies on Wednesday.

Sen Bill Cassidy

‘Give The Patient The Power’: Cassidy Says Subsidies Should Go To Families, Not Insurance Companies

bill Cassidy

Democrats are lashing out at the eight senators from their own party who voted to reopen the government without securing more federal subsidies for the Affordable Care Act &#8212; but a new survey of small business owners reveals that Democrats&#8217; favorite health care policy may not be playing well with the American electorate.
“The cost of health insurance has gone up every year since the ACA,” a Pennsylvania manufacturer told the National Federation of Independent Business. “No small business can keep up with the costs.&#8221;
Health insurance premiums rose <a href="https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/forms-reports-and-other-resources/downloads/uninsured-affordability-in-marketplace.pdf">143%</a> in the first six years after the ACA, colloquially known as Obamacare, took effect. Next year, premiums are set to rise <a href="https://www.kff.org/quick-take/aca-insurers-are-raising-premiums-by-an-estimated-26-but-most-enrollees-could-see-sharper-increases-in-what-they-pay/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">26%</a> on average. Democrats say these rising premiums justify Congress approving <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734">$24.6 billion</a> worth of taxpayer-funded subsidies, while Republicans say the need to spend billions offsetting premium costs proves that the ACA is unaffordable and unsustainable.
&#8220;The increase will surely kill many small businesses in the next couple of years,&#8221; the Pennsylvania manufacturer said. &#8220;Soon I will no longer be able to offer health insurance to my employees. In turn, this will cost me good employees.&#8221;
He&#8217;s not the only one feeling the crunch.
&#8220;It is becoming increasingly difficult to provide medical insurance that the company and employees can afford,&#8221; a manufacturer from Ohio added.
Obamacare prices were at the heart of the longest government shutdown in American history, which the Senate voted to break Monday night after 41 days. Republicans pushed for a continuing resolution to reopen the government, while Democrats refused to agree unless the measure included a one-year extension of ACA subsidies.
From the Senate Floor, Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) argued preserving the ACA was essential.
&#8220;I must vote no [to reopen the government] because health care prices are so severe, so urgent, and so devastating for families back home,&#8221; Schumer said. &#8220;I cannot support this CR that fails to address the health care crisis.&#8221;
The National Federation of Independent Business&#8217; optimism index fell 0.6 points in October, according to the report. The sharpest contributor to October’s dip was a deterioration in earning trends, with 25% of owners reporting lower profits. NFIB’s Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg reported the government shutdown likely played a role, as the Uncertainty Index fell 12 points to its lowest reading this year.
Despite the pullback, optimism among small businesses remains three points above the low from earlier this year and above its 52-year average of 98. Confidence hit its lowest point in April amid market volatility and tariff-related uncertainty, before rebounding midyear as conditions stabilized.
The labor market continues to frustrate small employers. Like last month, small businesses reported a tight labor market with labor quality remaining the most significant problem in October. Small businesses report struggling to compete with large corporations offering higher wages, signing bonuses, and more comprehensive benefits.
The gap is most apparent in skilled trades, where 28% of small businesses reported job openings they can’t fill. Jobs for electricians, plumbers, welders, HVAC technicians, and construction workers are among the hardest to supply. <a href="https://www.nfib.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/NFIB-SBET-Report-Oct.-2025.pdf">Nearly half (49%)</a> of small businesses in the construction industry reported not being able to find construction workers.
This trend was years in the making. Fewer young people have pursued vocational programs and many older, experienced tradespeople have retired. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average age in the manufacturing industry is 44 and the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18b.htm">average age</a> of a construction worker is 42, signaling an aging workforce.
However, there may be reason for cautious optimism. Recent studies suggest that Gen Z is increasingly turning toward <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/mike-rowe-reacts-to-rise-in-skilled-trade-enrollment-calls-gen-z-the-next-toolbelt-generation">trade careers</a>, motivated by higher education costs and concerns that artificial intelligence could disrupt traditional white-collar jobs.
While overall small business optimism has cooled in recent months, the survey reports that business &#8220;won’t be pleasant until the shutdown is ended.” With the reopening of the government, many business owners expect the negative impacts of the shutdown to reverse.

Shutdown Risks Leaving Millions With Costlier Health Insurance

Small Business Owners Are Sick Of Rising Obamacare Costs

Economy

Government Shutdown

Small Businesses

U.S.

WASHINGTON—The Senate passed a bipartisan agreement Monday night to reopen the federal government, which, if it passes the House as expected, will bring an end to the longest government shutdown in the nation’s history.
As the shutdown reached day 41, lawmakers passed a final package including a continuing resolution until January 30 and three bipartisan full-year appropriations bills — also known as a &#8220;minibus.&#8221;
A big hurdle was cleared late Sunday night when the Senate voted 60-40 on the House-passed continuing resolution, officially reaching the 60-vote threshold needed to pass.
Lawmakers extended the resolutions expiration date — originally set for November 21 — so the regular appropriations process could continue after the prolonged shutdown.
On Sunday, after 14 failed votes to reopen the government, Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (IL), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Maggie Hassan (NH), Jacky Rosen (NV), and Tim Kaine (VA) flipped their votes to side with Republicans.
The group that previously sided with Republicans voted with them again: Sens. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV), Angus King (I-ME), and John Fetterman (D-PA).
For nearly 40 days, both parties held firm. Democrats said they wanted to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits — which expire at the end of the year — among other demands. Republicans said they’d discuss health care, but demanded the Democrats vote to open the government first.
While Republicans did not give Democrats an extension of the tax credits, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said on the floor Sunday night that he guaranteed Democrats a vote no later than the second week in December on their health care proposal.
The deal also reinstates reductions in force (RIFs) that occurred during the shutdown.
The “minibus” includes full-year funding for agriculture appropriations, military construction-VA appropriations, and legislative branch appropriations.
On November 7, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed a one-year ACA extension in exchange for immediately ending the shutdown.
The proposal was swiftly rejected as a &#8220;non-starter&#8221; from Republicans.
Thune said on Sunday that he was &#8220;thankful to be able to say that we have senators, both Democrat and Republican, who are eager to get to work to address that crisis in a bipartisan way.&#8221;
&#8220;These senators are not interested in political games – they’re interested in finding real ways to address health care costs for American families. We also have a president who is willing to sit down and get to work on this issue,&#8221; Thune said.
Thune said he is looking forward to seeing &#8220;what solutions might be brought forward.&#8221;
Schumer, in a <a href="https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/1987710257053790574?s=20">post on X</a> Sunday night, vowed to &#8220;keep fighting&#8221; and said Dems &#8220;have been fighting for months to address America&#8217;s healthcare crisis. For the millions who will lose coverage&#8230;&#8221;
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1987665600731103513?s=20">Jeffries</a> (D-NY) and <a href="https://x.com/RepMcGovern/status/1987686691411272130?s=20">several</a> <a href="https://x.com/DorisMatsui/status/1987741459316105554">House</a> Democrats took to X to oppose the Senate’s proposal.
Jeffries said he will not support spending legislation advanced by Senate Republicans that “fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.&#8221;
The House is expected to vote on the resolution as early as Wednesday.

Chuck Schumer

Senate Dems Finally Crack, Vote To End 41-Day ‘Schumer Shutdown’

Congress

Democrats

Republicans

Advocates for assisted suicide in Canada, where it&#8217;s been legal for just under a decade, are pushing to expand the practice to children.
Canada’s euthanasia program, known as MAiD (Medical Assistance in Dying), started back in 2016 for people whose natural death was “reasonably foreseeable” and wanted to end their lives. It&#8217;s already been expanded — both expanding the pool of adults who are eligible and how it can be administered, leading to an explosion of suicides in recent years. 
Now, groups are calling for minors as young as 12 years old to be included in the government-funded suicide program. One advocacy group, called “Dying With Dignity Canada,&#8221; recommends minors as young as 12 be included in the program, and goes as far as to suggest 16 and 17-year-olds shouldn&#8217;t even need parental consent to be killed by a doctor if they fit broad criteria. 
The group calls for assessing age eligibility based on &#8220;maturity&#8221; rather than &#8220;chronological age.&#8221;
<div id="attachment_993695" style="width: 796px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-993695" class="wp-image-993695 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.55.52-PM-786x576.png" alt="" width="786" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.55.52-PM-786x576.png 786w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.55.52-PM-300x220.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.55.52-PM-768x563.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-1.55.52-PM.png 1526w" sizes=" (max-width: 786px) 100vw, 786px" />Dying With Dignity Canada</div>
Experts say the advocacy shows there was merit to the &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; argument made against the law from the outset.
“There is a kind of gruesome, relentless logic at work here, and this is why the logical ‘slippery slope’ argument is a valid argument,&#8221; Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a psychiatrist and director at Ethics and Public Policy Center, told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Once you cross the line of allowing doctors to kill patients, once you cross the line of accepting the basic premise of the euthanasia movement &#8212; which is that some lives are not worth living and therefore these people should be killed by the medical profession, then it&#8217;s very hard to argue that there should be any limitations.&#8221; 
The MAiD program started back in 2016, with only people whose natural death was “reasonably foreseeable” eligible. In 99% of cases, a medical professional administers a substance that causes a person’s death, which is technically euthanasia. In the other cases, a person will be provided a substance to self-administer to cause their own death, which is defined as assisted suicide. 
There&#8217;s only been an expansion of these procedures since the creation of MAiD, with massive growth in 2021, when chronic illness and disability were included as sole reasons for someone to be euthanized. 
With an increasing number of people being euthanized every year, 2023 data shows more than 15,000 people were killed via MAiD. That accounts for 4.7% of all deaths in Canada. Put another way, about <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po">1 in 20</a> Canadians who die every year are being euthanized. 
Advocates for including so-called &#8220;mature&#8221; minors in the MAiD program argue that children need more autonomy over their health care, and note that minors can already consent or refuse certain medical treatments, so including them, they argue, would be consistent. They say it&#8217;s about compassion. 
The &#8220;slippery slope&#8221; argument, Kheriaty said, is playing out in real time in Canada. &#8220;Your basic premise, your basic argument is people should be able to do this on the basis of one of two things: autonomy and choice on the one hand, or pain and suffering on the other hand. And people can always invoke pain and suffering,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Who&#8217;s to say that they&#8217;re not suffering more than someone who qualified under the law, right?&#8221;
Kheriaty said that just a few years ago, he may have viewed the movement to euthanize minors as fringe. He doesn&#8217;t view it that way anymore.
“A few years ago, I would&#8217;ve said, &#8216;No, I don&#8217;t think the Canadian regime is going to go that far to have so-called &#8216;mature minors,&#8217; adolescents avail themselves of euthanasia,'&#8221; he said. &#8220;But now, I’m sad to say I wouldn&#8217;t put it past them.&#8221;
In addition to the movement to include minors in the MAiD program, there&#8217;s a strong push to include people who suffer solely from mental health issues, like depression. That’s set to take effect in 2027. But Kheriaty says it&#8217;s already happening in Canada. 
 “There have been at least a few cases described and reported widely in the last couple of years in Canada,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I remember one case of, I believe it was a 27-year-old female, a woman in her twenties <a href="https://calgary.citynews.ca/2024/06/04/calgary-maid-appeal-case-advocacy-groups-intervene/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">whose sole diagnosis was autism and ADHD</a>, neither of which are terminal conditions.&#8221;
&#8220;So even if it&#8217;s not officially legalized in Canada yet, that psychiatric conditions can be used as the sole criteria for euthanasia,&#8221; he said. &#8220;There have been reported cases in the literature where clearly that&#8217;s been happening already.”
Kheriaty believes opposition must come from the medical community. 
&#8220;Most people who avail themselves of this have a deep-seated fear that they&#8217;re going to be a burden on others,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;They&#8217;re gonna be a burden on society. They&#8217;re gonna be a burden on the medical community that&#8217;s not gonna want to care for them.&#8221;
&#8220;And we have to respond, rather than abandoning the patient by saying, &#8216;Yes, here&#8217;s the poison pill,&#8217; or, &#8216;I&#8217;ll administer the poison injection to you.&#8217; We have to respond by saying, &#8216;No, it&#8217;s a privilege to care for you.&#8217; It&#8217;s a privilege to walk with you through what might be the final stage of your life — in the cases where someone has been diagnosed with the terminal illness. Or, it&#8217;s a privilege to care for you if you&#8217;ve been diagnosed with a mental illness and maybe it&#8217;s been difficult to treat. Let&#8217;s continue to work to find ways to treat this.&#8221;
A failure to do so would hurt society&#8217;s most vulnerable.
&#8220;Assisted suicide is both dangerous and inhumane, and I would say all the more so true of euthanasia, because it abandons vulnerable patients who need help, treatment efforts at healing, or when healing or cure is not possible, they need support and care.&#8221;

an asian chinese female teenage sick and lying on bed in the hospital ward

Movement Barrels Forward To Euthanize 12 Year Old Children In Canada

Movement Barrels Forward To Euthanize 12-Year-Olds In Canada

Assisted Suicide

Canada

Suicide

A federal judge on Thursday struck down a Biden-era rule that expanded federal discrimination protections to encompass gender identity and forced health care providers to perform transgender procedures. 
U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola Jr. <a href="https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/attorneygeneral/documents/pr/2025/pr25-51-opinion.pdf">sided</a> with Tennessee and fourteen other states that sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over the rule. Guirola said that the HHS overstepped its legal authority by expanding Title IX discrimination protections to gender identity. 
“In the opinion of the Court, Congress only contemplated biological sex when it enacted Title IX in 1972,” the judge wrote. “Therefore, the Court finds that HHS exceeded its authority by implementing regulations redefining sex discrimination and prohibiting gender-identity discrimination.”
The <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/06/2024-08711/nondiscrimination-in-health-programs-and-activities">rule</a> had been put forth by the Biden administration on May 6, 2024. Despite the changeover in administration, the states still worried that the rule could be enforced against them in the future. Lawyers for Trump&#8217;s HHS argued that the states should fear no action from the federal government because of Trump&#8217;s crackdown on transgender ideology. 
Guirola said that since the rule was still in place, the “threat of enforcement and legal action is real&#8221; and that the resolution of the legal questions at the heart of the suit would “provide much-needed clarity.” 
He said that the rule would have blocked state-created health benefit exchanges, recipients of Medicaid and Medicare, and others from denying transgender medical procedures.
“When it enacted Title IX, Congress’s concern was prohibiting sex discrimination in education. It was particularly concerned with inequality that female students experienced. It did not at that time contemplate gender identity, transgender status, or ‘gender-affirming care,’” Guirola wrote. 
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the decision from the court. 
“When Biden-era bureaucrats tried to illegally rewrite our laws to force radical gender ideology into every corner of American health care, Tennessee stood strong and stopped them,” Skrmetti said. “This decision restores not just common sense but also constitutional limits on federal overreach, and I am proud of the team of excellent attorneys who fought this through to the finish.”
Skrmetti argued that the rule would have blocked hospitals from maintaining sex-segregated spaces and forced states to subsidize transgender procedures through their Medicaid programs. 
The Republican attorneys general of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia all signed on to the suit.
Through a series of executive orders, President Donald Trump has sought to reverse Biden&#8217;s adoption of transgender ideology. As part of that, he ordered a review of all executive actions taken by Biden on the issue.

US-JUSTICE-GENDERS

Federal Judge Deals Another Major Blow To Transgender Ideology

Federal Judge Deals Another Blow To Transgender Ideology After GOP Suit

Courts

Department of Health and Human Services

Tennessee

Title IX

Transgender

A Colorado woman bled on the emergency room floor while <a href="https://www.walb.com/video/2023/08/25/anybody-could-have-died-patients-recall-waiting-12-hours-mercy-south-hospital-er/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">waiting 12 hours</a> for care. A New York man who feared he had appendicitis waited eight hours while repeatedly vomiting and passing out. A cancer survivor in <a href="https://sfstandard.com/2025/03/10/ucsf-emergency-wait-times/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">San Francisco</a> waited 28 hours for a doctor to examine her injured leg. By the time she saw a doctor, she was paralyzed.
ER wait times have been steadily increasing since 2012, spiking during the coronavirus pandemic. Today, they&#8217;re higher than ever.
What is happening in America&#8217;s emergency rooms?
A <a href="https://ihpi.umich.edu/news-events/news/wait-times-emergency-hospitalization-keep-getting-higher?" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new study</a> published in the journal Health Affairs looked at data from 46 million emergency visits across all 50 states since 2017. Researchers found a national increase in wait times, with the average wait time exceeding four hours. Additionally, 5% of patients waited more than 24 hours to get assistance.
Notably, the study did not factor people leaving the ER before they received care, which is typically referred to as ER &#8220;abandonment.&#8221;
Staffing shortages are certainly a factor, but they alone can&#8217;t explain increased wait times.
According to <a href="https://paragoninstitute.org/author/niklas_kleinworth/?mab_v3=9924" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Niklas Kleinworth</a>, a policy analyst at the Paragon Health Institute, the problem is largely due to the lack of financial incentives in the American healthcare system.
“I think that the increased ER wait times are actually one of the big <a href="https://paragoninstitute.org/newsletter/the-falsehoods-of-obamacare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broken promises of Obamacare</a>,&#8221; Kleinworth told The Daily Wire on Thursday. &#8220;When that law was passed, we were promised that if you gave people more healthcare coverage, they would see their primary care physician instead of going to the ER. They would have more access. But we&#8217;ve actually seen the opposite.&#8221;
&#8220;We&#8217;ve seen that a lot of the financial incentives for people to take care of themselves and go see their regular physician haven&#8217;t come to fruition,&#8221; he explained. &#8220;And so now people are going to the emergency room to get routine care instead.”
Kleinworth said expanding telehealth services could help solve this problem. In Montana, for example, after Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed a bill in 2021 to increase telehealth access and eliminate certain restrictions, emergency department visits <a href="https://mthf.org/news/2024-medicaid-in-mt-press-release/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decreased </a>with Medicaid enrollees. Mental health services were also more accessible and cost-effective for residents in rural communities and the Native population.
Another problem is the increased rate of rural hospital closures. With fewer rural hospitals, Americans from these areas are forced to travel longer distances to city hospitals, adding to already congested ERs.
Kleinworth explained that federal programs like the 340B Drug Pricing Program actually “encourage consolidation.&#8221; As a result, we’re seeing large urban hospitals buy up small rural hospitals to capitalize incentives meant for rural areas.
Larger city hospitals &#8220;benefit from a lot of the programs that were designed for those [rural] hospitals, like 340B Drug Pricing Program,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And then they&#8217;ll reduce access to services in those areas and redirect them to more wealthy areas where the margins are higher.”
He also highlighted some other &#8220;pretty basic solutions,&#8221; like making sure government programs designed to help rural facilities actually help rural facilities.
Kleinworth also noted that a little deregulation could go a long way to increase health care access.
&#8220;For example, in the state of Idaho, they allow non-physicians like pharmacists to be able to practice at the top of their license. And a lot of people receive their primary care through their pharmacists now,&#8221; Kleinworth said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said this month that <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/10/02/opinion/democrats-are-spending-money-on-healthcare-for-illegal-migrants-in-california-its-6-4-billion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegal immigrants</a> are driving up ER wait times and healthcare costs alike. Democrats say that giving illegals full access to the American healthcare marketplace will help alleviate stress on emergency rooms.
Kleinworth isn&#8217;t so sure.
“Unfortunately, no, that&#8217;s not the solution,&#8221; Kleinworth told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Take California, for example. California is one of those states where they&#8217;ve offered healthcare benefits to illegals for years now. The promise was that it was going to allow them to access their primary care and they won&#8217;t have to go to the emergency rooms anymore. But we find that California actually has some of the highest ER wait times in the country. They also have some of the highest abandonment rates in the country.”
Ultimately, Kleinworth says, we need to seriously overhaul Medicaid.
&#8220;The problem here is that the way the system is designed, it prioritizes able-bodied working-age adults over pregnant women, the disabled, elderly, and children,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And what we saw with Medicaid expansion, a lot of those people were less likely to be able to access their specialists, their primary care physician, so it also increased the ER wait times.&#8221;
&#8220;Refocusing the program on the truly needy, instead of able-bodied working-age adults would help,&#8221; Kleinworth said, noting that President Donald Trump&#8217;s big, beautiful bill &#8220;made a lot of progress toward that.&#8221;

Hospital closure in Madera, CA

Why ER Wait Times Are So Out Of Control — And How To Fix Them

Why ER Wait Times Are So Out OF Control, And How To Fix It

Hospitals

Illegal Immigation

Medicaid

President Donald Trump unveiled a deal with U.K.-based drugmaker AstraZeneca on Friday under which the company will sell some medicines at a discount to the government&#8217;s Medicaid health plan in exchange for tariff relief, similar to a drug pricing pact reached last week with Pfizer.
The deals set a framework the White House will use to try to reach its goal of lowering U.S. prescription medicine prices. The president sent letters to 17 leading drugmakers in July telling them to slash prices. Pfizer and Astra are the first two companies to reach a deal with the administration.
AstraZeneca will also offer some of its drugs at up to 80% off their list price through the TrumpRx website planned for next year, CEO Pascal Soriot said at an event in the Oval Office.
He said the company will receive a three-year tariff exemption &#8220;to localize the remainder of our products.&#8221;
U.S. patients currently pay by far the most for prescription medicines, often nearly three times more than in other developed nations, and Trump has been pressuring drugmakers to lower their prices to what patients pay elsewhere or face stiff tariffs.
Last month, Trump threatened 100% tariffs, ratcheting up pressure on the pharmaceutical industry to agree to price cuts and shift manufacturing to the U.S., after negotiations broke down earlier this year, lobbyists and executives told Reuters following the Pfizer deal.
More than 70 million people are covered by Medicaid, the state and federal government program for low-income people. Drug spending in that program is dwarfed by that of Medicare, which covers people aged 65 and older or those with disabilities and is not included in Friday&#8217;s announcement.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout</a>
Medicare&#8217;s drug spending reached $216 billion in 2021, while Medicaid&#8217;s gross spending was around $80 billion.
The Medicaid program already receives the lowest drug prices in the U.S., so the additional savings may be modest, said Craig Garthwaite, a professor at Northwestern University&#8217;s Kellogg School of Management.
&#8220;If you look at AstraZeneca&#8217;s portfolio, I don&#8217;t think there are a bunch of drugs that exist where that&#8217;s going to involve them giving a very big discount to Medicaid,&#8221; Garthwaite said.
AstraZeneca&#8217;s Pfizer‑like deal may spare it tariffs, but will not move the needle on U.S. rising health insurance premiums and out‑of‑pocket drug costs, said Rena Conti, an associate professor at Boston University.
&#8220;It&#8217;s good for the companies, and has very uncertain if any benefit for Americans struggling with the affordability of prescription drugs,&#8221; Conti said.
Soriot has worked to keep his company close to Washington while pursuing its growth strategy.
AstraZeneca in July announced it will invest $50 billion in U.S. manufacturing and research and development by 2030. It will build its biggest site worldwide in Virginia, and expand facilities in five other U.S. states.
In September, the company announced it will sell its diabetes and asthma drugs direct to cash-paying U.S. patients at a discount of up to 70% off list prices, another move in response to Trump&#8217;s pressure campaign.
Soriot this year has played up the company&#8217;s U.S. credentials. He described the Anglo-Swedish firm as a &#8220;very American company,&#8221; highlighting its identity shift toward its largest market. AstraZeneca will list its shares in the United States as well as its current markets in the UK and Europe.
(Reporting by Steve Holland in Washington and Michael Erman in New Jersey; Additional reporting by Jarrett Renshaw and Ahmed Aboulenein in Washington, Maggie Fick in London, Patrick Wingrove in New York and Mariam E Sunny in Bengaluru; Editing by Caroline Humer and Bill Berkrot)

Trump Announces U.S. Drug Pricing Deal With AstraZeneca

Pfizer

Prescription Drugs

U.K.

White House

Nearly two-thirds of Americans want COVID-era federal programs to come to an end, as Democrats demand that any government funding bill include an extension of health care subsidies that were introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/929542118/Polling-on-ACA-Enhanced-Subsidies-Top-Line-docx?secret_password=sN1T3iUcGZSAHeyfI3eD">poll</a>.
Sixty-one percent of Americans said that the federal government should allow COVID-era subsidies to end, according to a poll conducted last week by the Republican-aligned firm OnMessage Public Strategies, Inc., that was shared with The Daily Wire.
Those surveyed were asked whether “the federal government should allow programs that were designed deliberately to address the problems created by the COVID-19 pandemic to sunset, and put those funds to more pressing issues facing Americans.&#8221; Thirty-nine percent of those surveyed strongly agreed with the statement, and 22% somewhat agreed, while only 15% strongly disagreed, and another 15% somewhat disagreed, also wanting to keep the COVID-19 Affordable Care Act subsidies alive.
The poll surveyed 1,000 Americans. Thirty-eight percent of those polled identified as Republicans, and 33% of the participants identified as Democrats. Another 26% of those surveyed identified as independent.
Affordable Care Act subsidies have been a major part of the ongoing government shutdown negotiations on Capitol Hill. Under former President Joe Biden&#8217;s Inflation Reduction Act, those health care subsidies, that were meant to address issues during COVID, were extended through the end of this year. However, Democrats want the subsidies made permanent, arguing that insurance premiums would skyrocket and low-income Americans would be forced to drop their coverage. The Congressional Budget Office <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-pulse/2025/10/02/breaking-down-the-aca-subsidy-fight-00590901">estimated</a> that by 2034, four million people who would have had insurance will be uninsured if the subsidies are not extended.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout</a>
The OnMessage poll found drastically different results than a similar poll conducted by the health policy organization KFF last week. A KFF survey published on October 3 found that 78% of Americans want Congress to extend the Obamacare subsidies, including 59% of Republicans. The KFF <a href="https://www.kff.org/public-opinion/despite-budget-concerns-three-quarters-of-public-say-congress-should-extend-the-enhanced-aca-tax-credits-set-to-expire-next-year-including-most-republicans-and-maga-supporters/">poll</a> also found that ending the subsidies could be problematic for Republicans in next year&#8217;s midterm elections.
Republican leaders, who have opposed Obamacare for years, argue that the subsidies debate should be held closer to the end of the year, after the government has been funded. Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, are also seeking additional ways to reduce government spending. An analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation released last month estimated that a permanent extension of the Obamacare COVID subsidies would increase the federal deficit by $349.8 billion over the next decade, The Hill <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5540430-mike-johnson-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies/">reported</a>.
Both House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5538167-congress-aca-tax-credit-increase/">said</a> that discussions over Obamacare subsidies cannot happen while the government remains shut down, urging their Democratic colleagues to focus on agreeing to a temporary funding bill before larger funding debates can be held.
“We have effectively three months to negotiate. In the White House and in the halls of Congress, that’s like an eternity,” Johnson <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5540430-mike-johnson-shutdown-obamacare-subsidies/">said</a> on Monday.
Trump said on Monday that he&#8217;s open to negotiating with Democrats on the health care subsidies, but added that they must reopen the government before those negotiations take place.
&#8220;I am happy to work with the Democrats on their Failed Healthcare Policies, or anything else, but first they must allow our Government to re-open. In fact, they should open our Government tonight!&#8221; Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115329671584864920">wrote</a> on Truth Social on Monday evening.
The Senate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/live-updates-countdown-to-government-shutdown?contentProgram=LIVE%20UPDATES%3A%20Another%20Failed%20Vote%3A%20Shutdown%20Continues&amp;contentType=Post&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;location=Home%20Tab&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Home%20Featured%20Carousel">failed</a> to pass a funding bill again on Monday night, with the vast majority of Democrats rejecting the Republicans&#8217; continuing resolution.

Most Americans Don’t Want COVID Programs To Continue As Dems Push For Extension In Shutdown Fight

COVID-19

Poll

Washington D.C.

If Democrats in the Senate continue to block a short-term government funding plan, a program that allows low-income and Medicare patients to be treated at home rather than in a hospital will expire, the White House warns. 
The Acute Hospital Care at Home Initiative enables hospitals to obtain approval to treat Medicare patients with conditions such as respiratory diseases or bacterial infections at home. The program, which was rolled out during the COVID-19 pandemic, is set to expire on September 30 unless reauthorized by Congress.
Around 1,200 Medicare patients per month currently benefit from the program, according to information provided to The Daily Wire by the Office of Management and Budget. The program has been well-received by both patients and healthcare providers, <a href="https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-report-study-acute-hospital-care-home-initiative">according</a> to evaluations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>
“Democrats are trying to shut down the government to pacify their base, and they don’t care who they hurt in the process — including beneficiaries receiving hospital care at home,” a Trump administration official told The Daily Wire. “This program has been a success and is popular with patients and providers.” 
“While Republicans voted to extend it, Democrats are more than happy to harm these patients and force them out of their homes so that they can shut the government down,” the administration official added. 
The program was included in the short-term spending package passed by the House last week, which continues federal spending as is for seven weeks. However, Democrats are blocking the same bill from passing in the Senate. 
As of Friday, 48,955 patients have benefited from the program, and 419 hospitals across 39 states have approved participation in the program, according to the Office of Management and Budget. 
Commonly treated conditions under the program include heart failure, blood poisoning, respiratory disease, pneumonia, bacterial infection, urinary tract infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Early evaluation of the program indicates generally lower mortality and readmission rates for patients treated at home. 
If a shutdown occurs, the Office of Management and Budget has directed federal agencies to prepare for permanent reduction-in-force plans, indicating that widespread firings could be forthcoming across the federal government. President Donald Trump has said that the Democrats are holding the funding hostage by trying to force taxpayer funding for illegal alien healthcare and transgender surgeries on children.

Democrats Call On FCC Chair To Resign Over ABC’s Kimmel Decision

Popular Health Program Will Expire If Senate Dems Force Government Shutdown, White House Warns

Menu