After the longest United States government shutdown in the country’s history, eight democrats voted in support of a continuing resolution (CR), a temporary spending bill, that did not include any of the demands they had claimed to be fighting for with the shutdown in the first place. Trump signed the bill, which will reportedly double or even triple monthly healthcare costs for millions, on the evening of November 12, ending the 43 day-long shutdown.
On October 1, the two establishment parties became locked in a stalemate over the national budget. Central to the conflict was the extension of the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, put in place in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act during the COVID-19 pandemic. The affordable monthly premiums led to a record number of enrollees in healthcare through the ACA marketplaces, from 12 million in 2021 to a record 24.3 million in 2025.
After the passing of the CR this week, anyone intending to enroll in healthcare through the marketplace will see sharp increases in their monthly premiums. In addition to the 114% average increase from the loss of the subsidy, costs are simultaneously rising throughout the US healthcare industry. With insurers raising base premiums about 26% for 2026, monthly payments for many could skyrocket above their current rates. For example, a USD 888 a month bill could become USD 1,941 for some.
Fighting for healthcare or feigning opposition?: the shutdown debate
The government shutdown because the Democrats were demanding an extension to the enhanced subsidies, which would protect millions of people from spiking healthcare costs.
“Republicans refuse to reopen the government because of their unwillingness to provide affordable healthcare to everyday Americans,” said House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries on CNN on October 23, three weeks into the shutdown.
“We’re fighting for working-class Americans, for everyday Americans and for middle-class Americans while Republicans continue to do the bidding of their billionaire donors.”
The Senate Democrats’ proposal was simple: reopen the government with an extension of the ACA premium tax credits.
The timing of the tussle was crucial because November 1 is the start of open enrollment for ACA plans, so the effects would be felt immediately. Reports suggest that millions would likely forego health insurance coverage, upon discovering their premiums have doubled, or even tripled.
The government shutdown was presented as an urgent fight over healthcare affordability, which Democrats promised to defend at all costs. Despite the hardship that a shutdown incurs, especially for federal workers that went without pay for 43 days, Democrats indicated that the move could “pressure” the Republican party to extend the subsidies. The Party for Socialism and Liberation, however, argues that if pressure was truly the goal, the Democratic Party could have pursued more effective tactics, primarily, utilizing their mass reach and vast resources to build power behind an extremely popular demand. Especially amid the surge of Democratic support reflected in midterm elections.
“The Democratic Party leadership could have made this a powerful call for mass action, but instead they chose an entirely passive tactic: the defunding of the federal government,” the party said in a statement.
According to polls, most of the country did not even understand why the government was actually shut down, or what was at stake.
“The Democrat’s refusal to vote for the funding of the federal government should be considered one more performative act rather than engagement in genuine struggle against the Trump agenda,” the party asserts.
Eight bad apples or one bad party?
After 43 days, the Democrats capitulated, passing the spending bill that cuts enhanced ACA subsidies.
Critics within the party are blaming the eight Democrats that physically voted for the budget. The PSL, on the other hand, points out that the Democratic leadership must have at least passively supported the capitulation.
Let’s explore a few key elements of the Democrats’ move:
No risk of losing reelection
According to reports, none of the eight voters are up for reelection and two are retiring soon. Being in that position allows them more leeway to make an unpopular political move, and accept the backlash that comes with it, without risking electoral consequences.
The fact that all eight voters are in this position points to some level of coordination within the Democratic Party. Whether they were selected or volunteered themselves, the uniformity indicates there was some strategy involved.
Durbin’s role
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin was one of the eight that voted in favor of cutting ACA subsidies. The Senator currently serves as Democratic Whip, the second-highest ranking position in the Senate for the Democratic Caucus. In this role, he is responsible for maintaining party discipline, ensuring that members vote according to the party position.
The fact that this senior leader of the party participated in “breaking rank” to pass the Republican bill suggests that the vote wasn’t purely the work of rogue members.
No consequences
Although some members of the Democratic Party are publicly criticizing the move, there is no evidence of formal consequences or backlash for the members that switched sides. For political parties across the world, a move as grave as this one would warrant a purge of the party, or at least removal from certain roles and assignments.
Backdoor negotiations
Several of the “defecting” Democrats had reportedly been involved in backdoor negotiations with Republicans for weeks throughout the shutdown. Those dealings led to the vote that passed the bill without the ACA subsidies. The negotiation process suggests that Democratic leadership knew this was coming and didn’t stop it.
The details surrounding the end of the government shutdown seem to point to calculated, strategic decisions on the part of the Democratic Party, not rogue actors derailing the party’s goals. The involvement of senior leadership, the coordination to avoid risking elections, and the ongoing backdoor negotiations seem to reinforce the PSL’s claim that Democrats were performing opposition, not actually fighting.
The working class paid the price
Working people and families in the United States bore the brunt of the government shutdown. In addition to the well-known SNAP cuts, there were cascading effects on various social programs:
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) experienced disruptions in housing assistance reimbursementsIndigenous nations faced severe shortfalls for essential services that rely on federal funding, as well as downstream disruptions even for services that continued to operateNational parks, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspections, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) case processing, and Environmental Protections Agency (EPA) enforcement slowed or stoppedChildcare centers funded by federal lock grants faced disruptions, with some closing completely
Throughout the shutdown, it became clear that Republicans were not just eager to end ACA subsidies. They are also actively seeking further SNAP restrictions, work requirements for Medicaid, the slashing of EPA, OSHA, and NLRB budgets, the shrinking of the federal workforce, and more. While many of these effects during the government shutdown were temporary, the Republican Party is openly stating their long-term strategy for instituting major cuts to government services: extending the temporary spending bill as long as possible.
Temporary shutdown, permanent austerity
A continuing resolution (CR) is not a real long-term budget plan. It’s a last resort to keep the government running, implementing the exact same funding levels as the previous year. When the CR expires, the same conditions that caused the government shutdown are set to return. It essentially guarantees a second, compounded shutdown crisis. And, if the next one is anything like this one, Republicans will use the opportunity to demand more cuts before letting the government operate, and Democrats will ultimately fail to stop them.
The nature of the CR also locks in the year-to-year budget cuts that Republicans want. Inflation, rising operational costs, increasing needs, or changing priorities cannot be accounted for under a long-term CR. The “flat” year-to-year spending inevitably results in real cuts to the government’s budget.
A multi-year CR is not normal and has never been enacted in the history of the United States. Social programs and government agencies cannot sustain them indefinitely. Running the country on this kind of “flat” spending causes hiring freezes and layoffs, stalling of grants, disruptions in housing vouchers, and state funding gaps. Republicans, however, believe these compounding issues will give them that much more leverage to push their policies through when the CR expires, because the country will be significantly closer to a breaking point than it was this week, when Democrats capitulated to all of the Republicans’ demands.
“We believe a full-year Continuing Resolution will provide President Trump and Republicans the stability and leverage to continue our work to cut spending and rein in out-of-control woke, wasteful, and weaponized government,” said the House Freedom Caucus, a far-right bloc of Republicans in the House of Representatives.
“We cannot now reverse course by allowing spending increases after the progress we have made to date with DOGE and recissions.”
Left groups in the US say the 43-day shutdown exposed the Democratic Party’s limits in defending healthcare affordability and protecting the rights of the working class. Just as working people bore the brunt of the shutdown, they will now face the cost of skyrocketing healthcare. The struggle, however, is far from over. With social programs under continued pressure and the temporary spending bill set to expire, the future of government services in the US remains uncertain.
The post Shutdown, capitulation, and austerity: how Democrats failed to defend affordable healthcare appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.
From Peoples Dispatch via this RSS feed