Over a decade ago, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, predicted that healthcare premiums would skyrocket, even in the face of subsidies put into effect under Obamacare that were meant to bring them down. 

Today, the ballooning of those premiums and their accompanying subsidies are at the center of the 22-day shutdown that looks poised to get longer still.

‘Despite Obamacare subsidies, many Americans will still be paying higher premiums in 2014 as a result of Obamacare,’ Cruz said in 2013, referring to the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In his 2013 floor speech, Cruz pointed to research from Avik Roy, a healthcare researcher who, at the time, was a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Roy’s research made the case that subsidies passed by the Obama administration would do little to stop government-backed healthcare plans from growing more expensive over time or competing effectively with non-government-backed plans. 

But even those forecasts have paled in comparison to the costs of the government’s emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The subsidies under Obamacare have vastly expanded in recent years. An emergency provision included in President Joe Biden’s 2021 American Rescue Plan widened the range of eligible applicants as a response to the global pandemic. 

Now that those COVID-era provisions are set to sunset at the end of 2025, an expiration date set by Democrats themselves, Democrats are voicing alarm that Obamacare policyholders will have to shoulder the costs of health insurance without the enhanced supplemental aid. 

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan think tank that focuses on fiscal policy, continuing the expanded credits could cost upwards of $30 billion annually. Findings by KFF, a healthcare policy group, say that over 90% of the 24 million Obamacare enrollees make use of the enhanced credits.

KFF analysis indicates that the enhanced premium tax credits saved subsidized enrollees an average of $705 last year. 

Democrats in Congress, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., have demanded some sort of extension to the already expanded COVID-era subsidies as a condition for passing spending legislation to end the current government shutdown, which is now the longest full shutdown in history.

Republicans, who maintain that the subsidies are completely unrelated to government funding considerations, have said lawmakers will address the subsidies when the government is open again.

The most conservative members in Congress have said cutting back on the subsidies is key to returning the government to pre-COVID levels of funding.

Lawmakers in the Senate have voted 11 times on a short-term spending extension meant to keep the government open through Nov. 21 but have so far failed to move past the gridlock over the enhanced premium tax credits.

Cruz did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Front-runners for New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo, wasted little time attacking each other on alleged personal scandals they have been involved in during a Wednesday night debate between the pair and GOP candidate Curtis Sliwa.  

Mamdani and Sliwa took the opportunity during Wednesday’s debate to drill down on past sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo, the former governor of New York, ahead of an impeachment inquiry that preceded Cuomo’s 2021 resignation. Cuomo was also hit by Mamdani over accusations he has – while in public office – failed to meet with Muslim constituents and only began doing so amid pressure from his mayoral campaign, and over his alleged poor handling of the COVID-19 virus in New York after Cuomo was party to issuing guidance forcing nursing homes and long-term care facilities to admit COVID-19 positive patients.

Meanwhile, Cuomo did not hold back on targeting Mamdani over alleged controversies that have embattled his campaign. Cuomo blasted the self-proclaimed socialist over his lack of experience, ties to radical politics, and past radical comments about law enforcement, Israel and the situation in Gaza.

‘My main opponent has no new ideas. He has no new plan. … He’s never run anything, managed anything. He’s never had a real job,’ Cuomo said of Mamdani during the debate. Cuomo also branded Mamdani as someone who has proven to be ‘a divisive force in New York,’ pointing to past incidents that have garnered Mamdani heat from critics. 

One of those incidents included a picture he took with a hard-lined Ugandan lawmaker who has pushed policies of imprisoning people for being gay, which Mamdani took while taking a break from the campaign trail to visit his home country of Uganda for a wedding. Cuomo also hit the controversy over whether Mamdani supports Jewish New Yorkers, as his critics have claimed he is anti-Israel pointing to statements he has made, like ‘globalize the intifada.’ 

Cuomo also accused Mamdani of disrespecting Italian-Americans after a video of him surfaced giving the middle finger to a statue of Christopher Columbus, while also pointing to criticism the self-proclaimed socialist candidate has garnered from 9/11 first-responders after posting a photo with a Muslim cleric who served as a character witness for the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 attacks. 

‘You have been a divisive force in New York, and I believe that’s toxic energy for New York. It’s with the Jewish community. It’s with the Italian-American community – when you give the Columbus statue the finger. It’s with the Sunni Muslims when you say decriminalize prostitution, which is Haram. It’s the Hindus,’ Cuomo continued. ‘Then, you take a picture with Rebecca Kadaga, deputy Prime Minister of Uganda. … She’s known as Rebecca ‘Gay Killer.’ … You’re a citizen of Uganda. You took the picture. You said you didn’t know who she was. It turns out you did. How do you not renounce your citizenship or demand BDS against Uganda for imprisoning people who are gay just by their sexual orientation? Isn’t that a basic violation of human rights?’

Mamdani shot back that his politics have remained ‘consistent’ and that they are built on a belief in human rights for all people, including LGBTQ+ folks. Had he known Kadga’s role in drafting legislation to imprison gay folks, Mamdani said, he never would have taken the picture. 

‘This constant attempt to smear and slander me is an attempt to also distract from the fact that, unlike myself, you do not actually have a platform or a set of policies,’ Mamdani shot back at Cuomo before introducing his own claims about the former governor regarding past accusations of sexual harassment.

‘Mr. Cuomo. In 2021, 13 different women who worked in your administration credibly accused you of sexual harassment. Since then, you have spent more than $20 million in taxpayer funds to defend yourself, all while describing these allegations as entirely political,’ Mamdani said while attacking Cuomo Wednesday night. 

‘You have even gone so far as to legally go after these women. One of those women, Charlotte Bennett, is here in the audience this evening. You sought to access her private gynecological records. She cannot speak up for herself because you lodged a defamation case against her. I, however, can speak. What do you say to the 13 women that you sexually harassed?’ 

Cuomo, in 2021, was accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment that preceded his resignation as governor that year. A subsequent report from New York Attorney General Letitia James confirmed Cuomo ‘sexually harassed multiple women from 2013 through 2020,’ while in January 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice announced it had reached a nearly $500,000 settlement with Cuomo’s executive office over one of the claims. However, no criminal charges were ever filed against Cuomo, with some district attorneys citing insufficient evidence.

Cuomo defended himself against Mamdani’s accusations, noting the cases were eventually dropped, before returning to questions about Mamdani’s alleged past. 

Meanwhile, Sliwa didn’t skip an opportunity to slam Cuomo over the sexual assault allegations either, saying early in the debate during a discussion about homelessness that Cuomo ‘fled’ the governor’s office amid an impeachment inquiry that was investigating him.

‘Andrew, you didn’t ‘leave.’ You fled from being impeached by the Democrats in the state legislature,’ Sliwa began before getting into the homelessness issue, earning him a round-of-applause from the audience. 

”Leave?’ You fled!’ Sliwa continued to applause. ‘But let’s get back on topic.’ 

In today’s political environment, it is hard to envision important issues where Republicans and Democrats can find common ground. Protecting the safety and security of citizens from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hopefully still that issue. 

In recent years, we have seen growing agreement among lawmakers that the CCP is actively working against the security of the U.S. Whether through coercive trade practices, espionage, military aggression or technology theft, the CCP is intent on undermining American strength. 

President Donald Trump has rightly identified our nation’s increased dependence on Chinese companies as a clear threat to national security. In response, he has taken action to rebuild our domestic industrial manufacturing bases. This is especially true in critical security industries like defense, nuclear development, pharmaceutical manufacturing and data center infrastructure. 

The Trump administration should now look at medical devices. This lesser-known threat to American privacy and security lurks within our hospitals, health care facilities and even in the homes of everyday Americans. Used to treat patients, monitor patient health and inform medical decisions made by health care professionals, medical devices are critical tools used in the everyday care of our most vulnerable members of society. 

It is no wonder, then, that medical devices made by Chinese companies not only have the potential to take advantage of that intimate access, but have already been shown to exploit those vulnerabilities to gain access to the personal, private data of American patients.

Just this month, it was reported that medical hardware from Shanghai-based United Imaging has been installed in some of the country’s top research labs. In some instances, these labs were even funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Not only has United Imaging worked alongside the Chinese military and the state-run Chinese Academy of Sciences, according to the FBI, the company has also bribed employees working at an NIH-funded lab to backchannel non-public information about their research to United Imaging and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. 

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about a patient monitor made by Chinese-based company Contec, specifically calling attention to a software backdoor on the device that once connected to the internet ‘begins gathering patient data, including personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI), and exfiltrating (withdrawing) the data outside of the health care delivery environment.’ 

The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) followed up with its own report, saying that the backdoor enabled remote actors to engage in ‘remote code execution and device modification with the ability to alter its configuration.’

Far from being an idle threat, CISA explained that this vulnerability in a machine that monitors and displays critical information like electrocardiograms and blood pressure could result in life-or-death consequences: ‘This introduces risk to patient safety as a malfunctioning monitor could lead to improper responses to vital signs displayed by the device.’

Medical devices made by Chinese companies have quietly made their way into many hospitals and clinics in the United States, bringing with them hidden risks that are waiting to be abused by the CCP. 

First, patient privacy is compromised when unknown actors can access and siphon the most sensitive and confidential data from every patient in America, undermining the very foundation of trust in our health care system. 

Compounded with the fact that Chinese law compels Chinese companies to cooperate and share information with the CCP and that China prizes big data and is gathering information on individuals around the world, we can be assured that whatever private information is gathered on American patients is not in our national interest.

Second, we cannot trust that information siphoning will not escalate to more serious tactics that put patient lives at risk. Remote access to medical devices could result in real-world harm to patients if those devices were reconfigured to display false information that then led to unnecessary and harmful medical interventions. 

Third, the U.S. healthcare system is becoming too dependent on Chinese companies to run our hospitals. It does not take much of a leap to think about what would happen if the CCP decided to cut off the supply of medical devices. Just like critical minerals, energy or military equipment, depending on Chinese companies for medical devices is a clear threat to American security.

What these threats amount to is that the U.S. can no longer blindly outsource medical devices – some of our most vital and sensitive equipment – to companies that operate at the behest of foreign adversarial governments like the CCP. It is critical that America has a domestic supply chain of medical devices. 

Now is the time that lawmakers, both at the federal and state level, take this threat seriously and take meaningful steps to reduce the risks posed by these medical devices. 

Protecting Americans from threats to their health and security should be an easy, bipartisan win.

The Democrats, or Socialists, or whatever they are these days, are hopping mad over President Donald Trump’s construction of a ballroom in the East Wing of the White House, and while it may be their silliest freakout of the entire Trump era, it is also quite telling.

The ladies on ABC’s ‘The View’ were apoplectic when they saw images of demolition, a fairly ordinary way to begin renovations, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They echoed one-time resident Hillary Clinton’s complaint that Trump doesn’t own the White House, even taking to song about it.

What makes this argument so absurd, is that Trump is not building this ballroom for his personal use or glory. It’s not a vanity project. It is a long-considered addition to an executive home that lacked the capacity to hold large indoor events.

Trump, as has always been his wont, is looking to create grandeur, and that seems to be something to which leftists reflexively object.

Trump is obviously not the first president to renovate the White House. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt put in a swimming pool. His successor, President Harry Truman, practically gutted the place to add a balcony. President Nixon covered the swimming pool but added a bowling alley. Finally, President Obama transformed the tennis court into a basketball court.

Note that these are all changes that were made to serve the respective president’s personal taste or enjoyment, like a Roman emperor adding a water feature to his personal dining area.

What Trump is doing is completely different. The ballroom he is constructing will likely survive as a symbol of American power long after we are all gone. It will be, in a sense, our generation’s contribution to the people’s home.

Trump wants this venue, this symbol of America, to be grand and classically inspired, a timeless marble monument to a United States that emerged from the 20th century as the world’s only super power.

And in a way, this is part of what the left objects to, not just in regard to the White House project, but to Trump’s proposed new arch in Washington, D.C., and great statuaries of American heroes, not to mention the recent massive military parade.

In the post-Cold War era, part of America’s international style and sensibility was to be understated. Like the star quarterback who is also a model and a chess prodigy, we learned not to rub it in.

In that time, very little public art or architecture was done on a grand and classic scale, and in more recent times, our society has been so hellbent on taking statues and monuments down, that we gave little thought to putting them up.

Trump instinctively understands that in 2025, America may still be the world’s only superpower, but not by so hegemonic a distance as in the recent past. China, among others have been catching up, and the ‘aw, shucks’ attitude of the past needs some adjusting.

World leaders as well those on public White House tours should have their breath taken away when they walk into the presidential ballroom. Such displays are as old as nations themselves, from the pyramids to the Coliseum, it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Though this expansion of the White House would be well worth taxpayer money, Trump has found a way to build it with private donations, as well as his own funds. Still the left is throwing a fit. Why?

Recent polling showed that only 36% of Democrats are very, or even just somewhat, proud of America. This being the case, it’s easy to understand why they object to building testaments to its power and glory.

What Democrats and socialists are really objecting to here is not that Trump’s ballroom celebrates himself, it’s that his ballroom unabashedly celebrates America.

Fifty years from now, when King George VII of Great Britain dines at the White House, people will little remember that it was built by Trump, even if all the gold leaf remains. By then, it will simply be a great piece of American architecture we can all be proud of.

Americans want and deserve a big, beautiful ballroom for their nation’s executive mansion, and there has never been a president more capable of delivering it than our real estate mogul-in-chief.

Liberals can stamp their feet in anger all they want. But the ballroom is going to be built, and eventually, most of them will come to appreciate it.

Former first son Hunter Biden is claiming that his father only pardoned him because Donald Trump reclaimed the presidency in November 2024 — and ‘would not have’ done so under ‘normal circumstances’ while the appeals process played out.

‘Donald Trump went and changed everything,’ Hunter said in an interview released Monday on journalist Tommy Christopher’s Substack platform.

‘And I don’t think that I need to make much of an argument about why it changed everything.’

The 55-year-old — who pleaded guilty last year to evading $1.4 million in back taxes to the IRS and was convicted on felony gun charges — declined to mention that he had apparently been present for discussions on pardons during Joe Biden’s final months in the White House.

‘I’ve said this before,’ Hunter went on.

‘My dad would not have pardoned me if President Trump had not won, and the reason that he would not have pardoned me is because I was certain that in a normal circumstance of the appeals [I would have won].’

The Biden scion added that Trump was planning a ‘revenge tour’ against his father, which would have made himself the ‘easiest target to just to intimidate and to not just impact me, but impact my entire family into, into silence in a way that at least he is not — it’s not as easy for him to do [with] me being pardoned.’

‘I realize how privileged I am,’ Hunter went on.

‘I realize how lucky I am; I realize that I got something that almost no one would have gotten.

‘But I’m incredibly grateful for it and I have to say that I don’t think that it requires me to make much of a detailed argument for why it was the right thing to do, at least from my dad, from his perspective.’

Ex-White House chief of staff Jeff Zients spilled last month that Hunter ‘was involved’ in clemency talks and even ‘attended a few meetings,’ a source with knowledge of the Biden official’s testimony to the House Oversight Committee told The Post.