cost

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Folks, who was supposed to be watching grandpa last night? Because he got out, got on TV and … It. Was. Not. Good.

For 18 long minutes Wednesday evening, we were subjected to a rant by President Trump that predictably careened from immigrants (bad) to jobs (good), rarely slowing down for reality. But jumbled between the vitriol and venom was a vision of American healthcare that would have horror villainess M3GAN shaking in her Mary Janes — a vision that we all should be afraid of because it would take us back to a dark era when insurance couldn’t be counted on.

Trump’s remarks offered only a sketchy outline, per usual, in which the costs of health insurance premiums may be lower — but it will be because the coverage is terrible. Yes, you’ll save money. But so what? A cheap car without wheels is not a deal.

“The money should go to the people,” Trump said of his sort-of plan.

The money he vaguely was alluding to is the government subsidies that make insurance under the Affordable Care Act affordable. After antics and a mini-rebellion by four Republicans also on Wednesday, Congress basically failed to do anything meaningful on healthcare — pretty much ensuring those subsidies will disappear with the New Year.

Starting in January, premiums for too many people are going to leap skyward without the subsidies, jumping by an average of $1,016 according to the health policy research group KFF.

That’s bad enough. But Trump would like to make it worse.

The Affordable Care Act is about much more than those subsidies. Before it took effect in 2014, insurance companies in many states could deny coverage for preexisting conditions. This didn’t have to be big-ticket stuff like cancer. A kid with asthma? A mom with colitis? Those were the kind of routine but chronic problems that prevented millions from obtaining insurance — and therefore care.

Obamacare required that policies sold on its exchange did not discriminate. In addition, the ACA required plans to limit out-of-pocket costs and end lifetime dollar caps, and provide a baseline of coverage that included essentials such as maternity care. Those standards put pressure on all plans to include more, even those offered through large employers.

Trump would like to undo much of that. He instead wants to fall back on the stunt he loves the most — send a check!

What he is suggesting by sending subsidy money directly to consumers also most likely would open the market to plans without the regulation of the ACA. So yes, small businesses or even groups of individuals might be able to band together to buy insurance, but there likely would be fewer rules about what — or whom — it has to cover.

Most people aren’t savvy or careful enough to understand the limitations of their insurance before it matters. So it has a $2-million lifetime cap? That sounds like a lot until your kid needs a treatment that eats through that in a couple of months. Then what?

Trump suggested people pay for it themselves, out of health savings accounts funded by that subsidy check sent directly to taxpayers. Because that definitely will work, and people won’t spend the money on groceries or rent, and what they do save certainly will cover any medical expenses.

“You’ll get much better healthcare at a much lower price,” Trump claimed Wednesday. “The only losers will be insurance companies that have gotten rich, and the Democrat Party, which is totally controlled by those same insurance companies. They will not be happy, but that’s OK with me because you, the people, are finally going to be getting great healthcare at a lower cost.”

He then bizarrely tried to blame the expiring subsidies on Democrats.

Democrats “are demanding those increases and it’s their fault,” he said. “It is not the Republicans’ fault. It’s the Democrats’ fault. It’s the Unaffordable Care Act, and everybody knew it.”

It seems like Trump just wants to lower costs at the expense of quality. Here’s where I take issue with the Democrats. I am not here to defend insurance companies or our healthcare system. Both clearly need reform.

But why are the Democrats failing to explain what “The money should go to the people” will mean?

I get that affordability is the message, and as someone who bought both a steak and a carton of milk this week, I understand just how powerful that issue is.

Still, everyone, Democrat or Republican, wants decent healthcare they can afford, and the peace of mind of knowing if something terrible happens, they will have access to help. There is no American who gladly would pay for insurance each month, no matter how low the premium, that is going to leave them without care when they or their loved ones need it most.

Grandpa Trump doesn’t have this worry, since he has the best healthcare our tax dollars can buy.

But when he promises to send a check instead of providing governance and regulation of one of the most critical purchases in our lives, the message is sickening: My victory in exchange for your well-being.

AN ISLAND dubbed the “Caribbean without the jetlag” – where pints cost just £2.20 – could be the perfect escape from the moody British weather.

An index tracking the best winter sun spots, ranking temperature, hours of sunshine, pint and meal for two prices, time difference, and precipitation, revealed its winner.

Sal in Cape Verde was the top spot of the unique index taking into account all things Brits love.

The Atlantic island offers white sandy beaches, subtropical temperatures and just a one-hour time difference with the UK, despite flights taking six hours.

Winter highs average between 24°C and 25°C throughout January to March.

Visitors can enjoy around 10 hours of sunshine each day, according to easyJet’s Winter Sun Index.

EXPAT ESCAPE

I ditched the UK to live in holiday spot Brits love – but there’s 6 downsides

ON THE UP

The eight holiday destinations booming in 2026, according to British Airways

The island also boasts dishes inspired by Portuguese, African and Brazilian cuisines, with a meal for two costing roughly £30.

Close behind in the rankings is Egypt’s Red Sea gem, Hurghada, with winter temperatures sitting between 21°C and 25°C.

Unbelievably pints of beer on average cost under £2.

The resort town offers near-endless sunshine, crystal-clear waters and desert landscapes with activities like quad biking or Jeep safaris.

The Canary Islands also remain firm favourites, with Gran Canaria and Lanzarote claiming third and fourth spots.

Gran Canaria is known for its golden beaches, while Lanzarote stands out with striking black sands and volcanic vistas.

Kevin Doyle, UK country manager for the airline, said: “As temperatures at home begin to drop and the days get darker, now is the perfect time to book an escape to warmer climes.

“Our network and package holidays offer a broad range of winter sun destinations across Europe and beyond – from Sub-Saharan islands to Spanish peninsula cities.”

Other highlights from the index include the likes of Agadir in Morocco, Djerba off Tunisia and Spain’s Seville.

Agadir offers winter highs of 23°C, nearly nine hours of sunshine per day and very little rainfall, while on average, meals for two come in at £26 and a pint just £1.75.

Djerba made the index thanks to a mix of culture and relaxation, with winter temperatures ranging from 16°C to 18°C and up to eight hours of daily sunshine.

The island blends Mediterranean coastline and Saharan influences, plus artisanal market streets, palm trees and sandy beaches, with meals for two costing around £26 and a pint is just £1.30.

Seville, Europe’s warmest city in winter, scores highly for its elegant Moorish architecture and vibrant city life.

Travellers can expect temperatures between 16°C and 22°C, around eight hours of sunshine and a pint for just £2.20.

The city’s plazas, flamenco recitals, and sunny streets make it perfect for those seeking city warmth rather than the sea.

NEW YORK — For one Wisconsin couple, the loss of government-sponsored health subsidies next year means choosing a lower-quality insurance plan with a higher deductible. For a Michigan family, it means going without insurance altogether.

For a single mom in Nevada, the spiking costs mean fewer Christmas gifts this year. She is stretching her budget already while she waits to see if the Republican-led Congress will act.

Less than three weeks remain until the expiration of COVID-era enhanced tax credits that have helped millions of Americans pay their monthly fees for Affordable Care Act coverage for the last four years.

The Senate on Thursday rejected two proposals to address the problem, and an emerging healthcare package from House Republicans does not include an extension, all but guaranteeing that many Americans will see much higher insurance costs in 2026.

Here are a few of their stories.

Spending more for less

Chad Bruns comes from a family of savers. That came in handy when the 58-year-old military veteran had to leave his firefighting career early because of arm and back injuries incurred on the job.

He and his wife, Kelley, 60, both retirees, cut their own firewood to reduce their electricity costs in their home in Sawyer County, Wis. They rarely eat out and say they buy groceries only when they are on sale.

But to the extent that they have always been frugal, they will be forced to be even more so now, Bruns said. That is because their coverage under the health law enacted under former President Obama is, because of congressional inaction, getting more expensive — and for worse coverage.

This year, the Brunses were paying $2 per month for a top-tier gold-level plan with less than a $4,000 deductible. Their income was low enough to help them qualify for a lot of financial assistance.

But in 2026, that same plan is rising to an unattainable $1,600 per month, forcing them to downgrade to a bronze plan with a $15,000 deductible.

Kelley Bruns said she is concerned that if something happens to their health in the next year, they could go bankrupt. While their monthly fees are low at about $25, their new out-of-pocket maximum at $21,000 amounts to nearly half their joint income.

“We have to pray that we don’t have to have surgery or don’t have to have some medical procedure done that we’re not aware of,” she said. “It would be very devastating.”

Forgoing insurance

Dave Roof’s family of four has been on ACA insurance since the program started in 2014. Back then, the accessibility of insurance on the marketplace helped him feel comfortable taking the leap to start a small music production and performance company in his hometown of Grand Blanc, Mich. His wife, Kristin, is also self-employed as a top seller on Etsy.

Their coverage has worked for them so far, even when emergencies come up, such as an ATV accident their 21-year-old daughter had last year.

But now, with the expiration of Obamacare subsidies that kept their premiums down, the 53-year-old Roof said their $500-per-month insurance plan is jumping to at least $700 a month, along with spiking deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

With their joint income of about $75,000 a year, that increase is not manageable, he said. So, they are planning to go without health insurance next year, paying cash for prescriptions, checkups and anything else that arises.

Roof said his family is already living cheaply and has not taken a vacation together since 2021. As it is, they do not save money or add it to their retirement accounts. So even though forgoing insurance is stressful, it is what they must do.

“The fear and anxiety that it’s going to put on my wife and I is really hard to measure,” Roof said. “But we can’t pay for what we can’t pay for.”

Single mom’s straining budget

If you ask Katelin Provost, the American middle class has gone from experiencing a squeeze to a “full suffocation.”

The 37-year-old social worker in Henderson, Nev., counts herself in that category. As a single mom, she already keeps a tight budget to cover housing, groceries and daycare for her 4-year-old daughter.

Next year, that is going to be even tougher.

The monthly fee on her plan is going up from $85 to nearly $750. She decided she is going to pay that higher cost for January and reevaluate afterward, depending on whether lawmakers extend the subsidies, which as of now appears unlikely. She hopes they will.

If Congress does not act, she will drop herself off the health insurance and keep it only for her daughter because she cannot afford the higher fee for the two of them over the long term.

The strain of one month alone is enough to have an impact.

“I’m going to have to reprioritize the next couple of months to rebalance that budget,” Provost said. “Christmas will be much smaller.”

Swenson writes for the Associated Press.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Noah Goldberg, with an assist from David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

With the 2028 Summer Olympics creeping closer, the Los Angeles City Council still has not come to an agreement with the private committee overseeing the Games over who will pay for the additional city services required to host athletes and spectators from around the world.

With hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars at stake, the city has blown past its own Oct. 1 deadline for hammering out an “Enhanced City Resources Master Agreement” contract with LA28 and is now considering filing suit.

City officials indicated the potential for a lawsuit against LA28 Monday during a meeting of the council’s ad hoc Olympics committee. In closed session, the committee conferred “with its legal counsel relative to possible initiation of litigation,” according to the meeting agenda.

But after a lengthy closed-door meeting, the committee broke without moving any closer to suing LA28.

“There was no recommendation to move forward on litigation,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, who sits on the Olympic committee, in a brief interview with The Times after the closed session.

Although it remains unclear exactly why the city might sue LA28, the stakes of the negotiations between the two parties are high.

The Olympics have repeatedly been billed as a “zero cost” event for Los Angeles, with the city’s costs reimbursed by LA28 and the federal government. But depending on how “enhanced services” are defined, the city, which is facing financial headwinds, could end up bearing significant costs for services, including security, trash removal, traffic control and paramedics, that will go well beyond what it provides on typical days.

One of the biggest expenses will be security, with the LAPD, as well as a host of other local, state and federal agencies, working to keep athletes and spectators safe during the 17-day Olympics and the two-week Paralympics.

During a presentation before the council committee on Monday, City Administrative Officer Matt Szabo used the Dodgers’ 2024 World Series victory parade as an example of a similar, albeit much smaller scale, situation.

The baseball team reimbursed the city nearly $2 million for police, fire department, transportation and other services to pull off the parade safely.

Monday’s developments provided a small glimpse into the secretive negotiations between the two sides. Coupled with the missed October deadline to finalize an agreement, it was apparent that the negotiations were not going completely smoothly.

A senior city official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations, said the city is not at an “irresolvable impasse” with LA28 but that litigation is very much on the table in an effort to make sure the city is fully reimbursed.

The city and LA28 are meeting daily to try to hash out an agreement, the source said, characterizing the negotiations as “intense and focused.”

“All parties are working actively at the table to finalize the [ECRMA] that will ensure reimbursement of the city’s costs required by the 2028 Games,” the city and LA28 said in a joint statement to The Times.

Szabo told the council committee that it’s more important to get a good deal than an on-time deal.

“This needs to be the right agreement for the city,” Szabo said.

The city also hopes to recoup some costs from the federal government. President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” included $1 billion to reimburse state and local governments for security, planning and other Olympics-related costs. But exactly what the money can be used for won’t be known until next year, Szabo said.

But the unpredictability of the Trump administration has left the city and LA28 wary about whether all the security costs will be reimbursed, said Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson.

“With this administration, you don’t know what the hell is going to happen, right?” Harris-Dawson said during the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum Luncheon on Thursday. “So both of us [the city and LA28] are looking at a $1.5-billion bill, and we’re like, ‘Yeah, I’m not paying it. You’re gonna pay it.’”

So far, Harris-Dawson said, the federal government has been “good” about putting money aside for the Games. But that could change, Harris-Dawson said.

“I could show up here 10 days from now and the world could have turned on its head, because you just never know how the guy’s gonna wake up in the morning, or what he’s gonna see on TV to make him react,” he said of Trump. “So … it’s day to day, but on this particular issue, so far so good.”

Outside of security, LA28 should cover costs like staffing, expenses and equipment related to the Games, Szabo said.

Some don’t have high expectations that the costs will be completely footed by others. In a July letter to the city, retired civil rights attorney Connie Rice said she had heard from city employees worried that L.A. would be left with a massive bill.

What if LA28 dissolves after the Olympics — how would the city force it to provide reimbursement? Security and other city services typically extend beyond the Olympic venue itself — how large of a radius around the venue would be included in the reimbursement?

These are questions Rice feels the city has not yet answered.

“I have seen 10th-graders plan their prom better than the city is planning these Olympics,” Rice said in an interview.

State of play

— RECRUIT-GATE: Months of tension between Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and members of the City Council burst into public view Friday when the council rebuffed the mayor’s request to significantly increase police hiring. The council instead agreed to a more modest increase, which could ramp up if the city finds money for more police recruits.

— JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION OFF: L.A. County officials justified their $200-million purchase of the Gas Company Tower by claiming that seismic retrofits of their old 1960s headquarters would cost $700 million. But experts hoping to save the building now say the retrofits could cost under $150 million, using standard techniques applied to other historic L.A. buildings.

— STEP DOWN: The chief executive of Weingart Center, Kevin Murray, resigned from the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency board amid a federal real estate investigation. Federal prosecutors say a Cheviot Hills property was purchased for $11.2 million, then flipped to Weingart for $27.3 million. Weingart used public money to finance the purchase and conversion of the site into homeless housing.

— ED1 FOREVER: The L.A. City Council approved an ordinance on Tuesday formalizing Mayor Karen Bass’ Executive Directive 1, which fast-tracks planning department approval of 100% affordable housing projects. That initiative, which began as an emergency order issued by Bass in 2022, will now be a permanent part of city law.

— CROSSWALK VIGILANTE: An activist with People’s Vision Zero was arrested and cited while painting a crosswalk at an intersection in Westwood on Sunday. The arrest marks the latest clash between the city of Los Angeles and traffic safety advocates who are frustrated by delays in marking pedestrian crossings and are taking it upon themselves to do the work they say can’t wait.

— END OF WATCH(DOG): L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, who served as chief watchdog over the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department for 12 years, is retiring. In a farewell letter, he laid into county leaders, saying they ignored his office’s efforts at oversight.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness went to Downtown L.A., South L.A., Exposition Park, Hollywood, Silver Lake, North Hills, Pacoima, Woodland Hills, Shadow Hills and Van Nuys this week, bringing more than 70 people inside.
• On the docket next week: The city’s Ethics Commission will meet Wednesday. The City Council is on recess until Jan. 7.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

“It’s a chance to qualify. It is a chance to participate in a big event,” Fifa president Gianni Infantino declared in January 2017.

The Fifa Council had just unanimously voted to expand the World Cup to 48 teams. Nations who had never or rarely reached the finals were being given hope.

Infantino added: “Football is more than Europe and South America. Football is global.

“The football fever you have in a country that qualifies for the World Cup is the most powerful tool you can have, in those nine months before qualifying and the finals.”

Yet that “football fever” is falling a little flat after the ticket prices were released.

While the players will be there, the price of tickets could outstrip wages.

Take Haiti, one of the poorest countries in the world. The average wage in the Caribbean nation is around $147 (£110) a month.

The cheapest tickets for Haiti’s first game at the World Cup in 42 years, against Scotland, cost $180 (£135).

To attend all three matches – they also play Brazil and Morocco – would cost $625 (£467). That’s more than four months’ salary for the average Haitian, just to get into the ground.

It’s a similar story for Ghana, where the average monthly salary is around $254 (£190).

Ghana supporter Jojo Quansah told BBC World Service that fans would have to cancel their plans.

“It’s a bit of a disappointment for those who, for the last three-and-a-half years, have been trying to put some money away in the hope that they can have their first World Cup experience,” he said.

“Fifa themselves have gone ahead to increase the number of teams so a lot more smaller football nations will get a chance to have themselves and their fans represented.

“It’s been overshadowed by pricing those same fans out of a chance to watch their country play at the World Cup.

“I have a feeling that quite a number of people within the next couple of months, are going to drop out of that desire to be at the next World Cup. Sadly. So sadly.”

Other nations could see their fans priced out.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected legislation to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits, essentially guaranteeing that millions of Americans will see a steep rise in costs at the beginning of the year.

Senators rejected a Democratic bill to extend the subsidies for three years and a Republican alternative that would have created new health savings accounts — an unceremonious end to a monthslong effort by Democrats to prevent the COVID-19-era subsidies from expiring on Jan. 1.

Ahead of the votes, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned Republicans that if they did not vote to extend the tax credits, “there won’t be another chance to act,” before premiums rise for many people who buy insurance off the ACA marketplaces.

“Let’s avert a disaster,” Schumer said. “The American people are watching.”

Republicans have argued that Affordable Care Act plans are too expensive and need to be overhauled. The health savings accounts in the GOP bill would give money directly to consumers instead of to insurance companies, an idea that has been echoed by President Trump. But Democrats immediately rejected the plan, saying that the accounts wouldn’t be enough to cover costs for most consumers.

Some Republicans have pushed their colleagues to extend the credits, including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who said they should vote for a short-term extension so they can find agreement on the issue next year. “It’s too complicated and too difficult to get done in the limited time that we have left,” Tillis said Wednesday.

But despite the bipartisan desire to continue the credits, Republicans and Democrats have never engaged in meaningful or high-level negotiations on a solution, even after a small group of centrist Democrats struck a deal with Republicans last month to end the 43-day government shutdown in exchange for a vote on extending the ACA subsidies. Most Democratic lawmakers opposed the move as many Republicans made clear that they wanted the tax credits to expire.

The deal raised hopes for bipartisan compromise on healthcare. But that quickly faded with a lack of any real bipartisan talks.

The dueling Senate votes are the latest political messaging exercise in a Congress that has operated almost entirely on partisan terms, as Republicans pushed through a massive tax and spending cuts bill this summer using budget maneuvers that eliminated the need for Democratic votes. They also tweaked Senate rules to push past a Democratic blockade of all of Trump’s nominees.

An intractable issue

The votes were also the latest failed salvo in the debate over the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature law that Democrats passed along party lines in 2010 to expand access to insurance coverage.

Republicans have tried unsuccessfully since then to repeal or overhaul the law, arguing that healthcare is still too expensive. But they have struggled to find an alternative. In the meantime, Democrats have made the policy a central political issue in several elections, betting that the millions of people who buy healthcare on the government marketplaces want to keep their coverage.

“When people’s monthly payments spike next year, they’ll know it was Republicans that made it happen,” Schumer said in November, while making clear that Democrats would not seek compromise.

Even if they view it as a political win, the failed votes are a loss for Democrats who demanded an extension of the benefits as they forced a government shutdown for six weeks in October and November — and for the millions of people facing premium increases on Jan. 1.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the group tried to negotiate with Republicans after the shutdown ended. But, he said, the talks became unproductive when Republicans demanded language adding new limits for abortion coverage that were a “red line” for Democrats. He said Republicans were going to “own these increases.”

A plethora of plans, but little agreement

Republicans have used the looming expiration of the subsidies to renew their longstanding criticisms of the ACA, also called Obamacare, and to try, once more, to agree on what should be done.

Thune announced earlier this week that the GOP conference had decided to vote on the bill led by Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee, and Idaho Sen. Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, even as several Republican senators proposed alternate ideas.

In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has promised a vote next week. Republicans weighed different options in a conference meeting on Wednesday, with no apparent consensus.

Republican moderates in the House who could have competitive reelection bids next year are pushing Johnson to find a way to extend the subsidies. But more conservative members want to see the law overhauled.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin) has pushed for a temporary extension, which he said could be an opening to take further steps on healthcare.

If they fail to act and healthcare costs go up, the approval rating for Congress “will get even lower,” Kiley said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.

Could two members of the Buss family add some green and gold to their purple and gold?

Joey and Jesse Buss, fired last month as Lakers executives, have explored pursuing an ownership stake in baseball’s Athletics, according to two people familiar with the discussions but not authorized to speak publicly about them.

The discussions were described as preliminary, and it is unclear whether they might result in a deal. Jesse Buss did not reply to a message seeking comment.

In September, Joey and Jesse – sons of legendary Lakers owner Jerry Buss – announced the launch of Buss Sports Capital “to pursue high-impact investment opportunities across the global sports ecosystem.” The announcement said Buss Sports Capital would aim “to partner with forward-thinking professionals to unlock new opportunities in professional sports.”

Joey and Jesse Buss retain their stakes of Lakers ownership. In October, Dodgers owner Mark Walter closed his purchase of majority ownership in the Lakers, in a deal that valued the Lakers at $10 billion. Walter tasked Dodgers president of baseball operations Andrew Friedman and former general manager Farhan Zaidi to assess the Lakers’ front office operations.

Last month, Joey Buss was dismissed as vice president of research and development and Jesse Buss as assistant general manager.

The A’s left Oakland after the 2024 season. They plan to move from their temporary Sacramento home to Las Vegas in 2028, and construction there is underway on an enclosed 30,000-seat stadium originally estimated to cost $1.5 billion. In July, team owner John Fisher told the Nevada Independent the cost had risen into “the $2 billion range.”

Fisher obtained $380 million in public funding. He is responsible for the balance of construction costs. In 2023, The Times first reported that Fisher hoped to generate $500 million toward stadium costs by valuing the A’s at $2 billion and selling 25% of the team to minority investors.

Fisher has since used a higher valuation in soliciting investors. CNBC last year estimated the A’s franchise value at $2 billion, Forbes at $1.8 billion, and Sportico at $1.6 billion.

The A’s have posted four consecutive losing seasons. They say they are rebuilding toward their planned 2028 arrival in Las Vegas, and they have an impressive core of position players, including first baseman Nick Kurtz — the American League rookie of the year — shortstop Jacob Wilson, catcher Shea Langeliers, designated hitter Brent Rooker, and outfielders Lawrence Butler and Tyler Soderstrom.

Times staff writer Broderick Turner contributed to this report.

VISITING Lapland UK can be more expensive than flying to the Arctic Circle.

Tickets to the festive experience this Saturday are selling for as much as £180 each.

There are no discounts for children, a £24.75 booking fee and £5.95 postage and packaging.

It means a family of five would have to spend more than £930 for their day out.

But a few days in the real Lapland, in northern Finland, can cost in the region of £600.

Lapland UK has a site in Siddington, Cheshire, and another in Ascot, Berks.

LAP IT UP

Sky-high price of a soft toy at Lapland UK is revealed – as mum details TRUE cost

LAP IT UP

Mum slams ‘insane’ Lapland UK prices as she’s quoted £600 for family-of-four

One dad, who asked not to be identified, said: “When I saw the price I spat my mulled wine out.

“It’s obscene pricing, meaning only rich kids get to have the thrill.”

Danielle Halliday said: “We went to Finland last year with two adults, two children.

“Flights were £250, accommodation was £350 for the four nights and going to see Santa is free, or €10 each for a present.

“You might as well go for the real thing for a cheaper price.”

Lapland UK was asked to comment.