![\"Schumer](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Screenshot_6-3-5.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer walked away from a Republican colleague on the floor of the chamber on Saturday after he was cornered over a so-called \u201cfix\u201d he offered for Obamacare subsidies as the government shutdown he is leading entered its 39th day.<\/p>\n
Schumer was engaging with Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) after the Democratic leader offered a proposal to reopen the government: A one-year funding extension of taxpayer-funded subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act.<\/p>\n
During the exchange, Schumer admitted to Moreno that he did not yet have a written proposal.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe can\u2019t give you a counter in writing, but it\u2019s very simple,\u201d Schumer said. \u201cBecause we have two sentences we would add to any proposal which would extend the ACA benefits for one year.\u201d<\/p>\n
Moreno the revealed that the Schumer proposal did not seem to contain income caps, meaning people who make millions of dollars a year can obtain taxpayer-subsidized health care.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt does still have no income caps, so people who make $1, $2, $3 million a year,\u201d Moreno said before Schumer interrupted him.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce we pass the one-year fixed so people right now aren\u2019t in difficulty, we would sit and negotiate that,\u201d Schumer said. \u201c[Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)]has said that he won\u2019t negotiate before. We\u2019re willing to negotiate once the credits are extended, plain and simple.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Ohio Republican then responded, \u201cSo for one year, people making millions of dollars would still receive these COVID-era subsidies?\u201d<\/p>\n
At that, Schumer accused Moreno of caring more about billionaires before disengaging and leaving the chamber, according to reports.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was going to ask him before he stormed out of the room because evidently he doesn\u2018t want to hear any opposing views or actually engage in meaningful negotiation \u2026 Would he continue 0 dollar premiums, which we know for a FACT, have enormous levels of fraud,\u201d Moreno said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf he had stayed, I would have asked him a third question: Does he want these monies to go directly to insurance companies?\u201d<\/p>\n
President Donald Trump\u00a0appeared to gain some leverage\u00a0in the ongoing government funding standoff Thursday after Senate Democrats sought to link a funding deal to an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies.<\/p>\n
What began as an effort by Democrats to pressure Republicans during the shutdown negotiations has shifted in Trump\u2019s favor, following a new proposal he unveiled on Truth Social.<\/p>\n
In his post, the president announced a plan to redirect hundreds of billions of dollars in Obamacare subsidy payments from insurance companies to direct payments for American citizens.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies in order to save the bad Healthcare provided by ObamaCare, BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over,\u201d\u00a0Trump wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn other words, take from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate, per Dollar spent, the worst Healthcare anywhere in the World, ObamaCare. Unrelated, we must still terminate the Filibuster!\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
Conservative commentators lauded the proposal as \u201cgenius,\u201d noting that the former president has effectively recast himself as an advocate for direct-to-consumer healthcare freedom. They said the plan reframes the debate as \u201chealthcare for the people\u201d versus the Democrats\u2019 defense of \u201cbig insurance.\u201d<\/p>\n
Shortly after Trump\u2019s post, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) announced that he was working on legislation to turn the proposal into reality.<\/p>\n
\u201cTotally agree, @POTUS! I\u2019m writing the bill right now,\u201d Scott said. \u201cWe must stop taxpayer money from going to insurance companies and instead give it directly to Americans in HSA-style accounts and let them buy the health care they want. This will increase competition & drive down costs.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a pivotal moment of accountability, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to remove\u00a0<\/p>\n
The highly charged vote followed a series of impassioned speeches, most notably from\u00a0<\/p>\n
Representative Lee Zeldin\u2019s floor speech was widely lauded by conservative commentators for its directness and refusal to accept what he called \u201cpolitical theater\u201d (5:38). Zeldin argued that the entire debate was necessary\u00a0<\/p>\n
He systematically laid out the pattern of Omar\u2019s controversial statements that, he argued, disqualified her from the committee:<\/p>\n
Hypnosis\/Influence:<\/strong>\u00a0Zeldin reminded the chamber that Omar had to apologize for talking about a\u00a0\u201chypnosis of Israel that they have over the entire world\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(2:26\u20132:29). Zeldin\u2019s main point was the issue of\u00a0double standards<\/strong>\u00a0(3:39). He argued unequivocally that if a Republican member had made just one of these comments,\u00a0\u201cThat member\u2019s name would be in this resolution and this resolution would be all about condemning anti-Semitism and it would be done so forcefully\u201d<\/strong> (2:13\u20132:22). He pointed to the example of a Republican member who was named and removed from his committees following condemnations of white supremacy, a standard he demanded be applied to anti-Semitism as well (3:42\u20134:03).<\/p>\n A key part of the debate centered on whether Omar\u2019s comments were made out of ignorance or deliberate malice. While some may have suggested naivet\u00e9, Zeldin dismissed this notion, stating firmly that he gave Omar\u00a0\u201cmore credit\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0than that:\u00a0\u201cI don\u2019t believe she is naive. I believe that she knows exactly what she\u2019s doing\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(3:05\u20133:13).<\/p>\n This view reflects a consensus among critics that Omar\u2019s use of classic anti-Semitic tropes\u2014such as those suggesting excessive Jewish financial influence or dual loyalty\u2014was calculated, making the comments fundamentally\u00a0\u201cpointed, bigoted, unreasonable, illegitimate, anti-Semitic\u201d<\/strong> (4:07\u20134:11).<\/p>\n Beyond the specific anti-Semitic comments, critics cited a broader pattern of rhetoric they viewed as dismissive of American values and tragedy. The host specifically highlighted Omar\u2019s infamous comment regarding the\u00a09\/11 terror attacks<\/strong>, where she referred to the event by saying\u00a0\u201csome people did something\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(5:54\u20135:56).<\/p>\n The host condemned this phrase as\u00a0\u201cdeeply disrespectful\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0and a reduction of a national tragedy where\u00a0\u201cThousands of innocent Americans were murdered\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(6:01\u20136:06). This comment, critics argue, demonstrated a\u00a0\u201cshocking disconnect from the American experience\u201d<\/strong> (6:20\u20136:22) and was cited as further evidence of her unsuitability for a key foreign policy role.<\/p>\n The core argument for removing Omar from the Foreign Affairs Committee was not about punishing her free speech, but about\u00a0protecting the integrity of U.S. governance and foreign relations<\/strong>\u00a0(1:28\u20131:31).<\/p>\n The\u00a0House Foreign Affairs Committee<\/strong>\u00a0holds immense responsibility: its members handle\u00a0classified information<\/strong>, shape the nation\u2019s\u00a0foreign policy<\/strong>, and directly influence global alliances (7:17\u20137:26).<\/p>\n The consensus among Republicans and like-minded commentators was that membership on such a sensitive committee requires\u00a0\u201c100% for America\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0loyalty (7:29\u20137:31). Zeldin stressed that while\u00a0\u201creasonable legitimate criticism of a government\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0is an American value,\u00a0\u201churling anti-Semitic rhetoric\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0is not (3:15\u20133:27).<\/p>\n The host summarized the action as a necessary principle-based move:\u00a0\u201cRemoving her from that committee wasn\u2019t about revenge. It was about protecting America\u2019s interests and making it clear that this kind of rhetoric has no place in Congress\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(7:50\u20137:57).<\/p>\n The final vote, which passed despite vocal opposition from Democratic members who defended Omar and accused the action of being motivated by racism, was a significant political victory for the Republican majority and a powerful symbolic assertion of their zero-tolerance stance on rhetoric deemed harmful to international relationships and American values.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer walked away from a Republican colleague on the floor of the chamber on Saturday after he was cornered over a so-called \u201cfix\u201d he offered for Obamacare subsidies…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3567,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3568","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
Bought Off\/Dual Loyalty:<\/strong>\u00a0She also apologized for suggesting that support for Israel was because representatives were\u00a0\u201cbought off by Jews\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(2:30\u20132:36).
Pledging Allegiance:<\/strong>\u00a0The final tipping point, according to Zeldin, was Omar\u2019s statement that supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship\u00a0\u201cmust have pledged allegiance to a foreign government\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0(2:42\u20132:48).<\/p>\n