There’s a video going around. A social worker reads a hospital bill out loud and stops on a line: skin-to-skin contact, $1,900. A charge, they say, for a new mom to hold her own baby. It is the kind of clip built to make your blood boil before it finishes so I fact check it before I become outraged.

I went down the rabbit hole and here is what I found. The Daily Dot, which ran the clip, says straight out that it could not verify the bill, the hospital, or the charge. It’s a reenacted phone call. No itemized bill on screen. So the honest move is to set the $1,900 aside and go find one that’s real.

In 2016 a dad in Spanish Fork, Utah, posted his wife’s itemized bill after a C-section at Utah Valley Hospital. $13,280.49, and buried in it, a line reading “skin to skin after C-sec,” $39.35. He wasn’t even angry. He thought it was funny and started a joke fundraiser to cover the forty bucks. The kid had been alive about eight hours and already owed a cover charge to be held by his own mother. We spent a couple generations making everybody soft, and the pendulum apparently swung so far the other way it started billing newborns for a hug.

A doula named Meaghan Grant (no relation) wrote a post that went around explaining it. During a C-section the mother is flat on a narrow table, arms out for IV lines, medicated. If you want the baby on her chest safely, someone has to be there to hold that baby and watch her. That someone is an extra nurse. The charge, the hospital said, was for the nurse, not for the holding. Fair enough. Nurses are the biggest line in any hospital budget, and their time is worth paying for.

So why does the whole thing still seem like a hustle? Because a good reason for the nurse does not make the bill honest.The dishonest half is the part nobody films.

I have read enough of these bills to tell you a birth is never one bill. It’s three, showing up on their own schedules from their own networks. The hospital charges a facility fee off its chargemaster, a master price list the hospital sets and negotiates differently with every insurer, with almost no fixed link to what anything costs. Your obstetrician sends a separate professional fee. Then the anesthesiologist, the one person you did not pick and could not have picked while you were in labor, turns up on a third bill, often from outside your network entirely.

A study in JAMA Health Forum tracked more than 95,000 privately insured families who delivered at in-network hospitals in 2019. Nearly one in five still got a surprise out-of-network bill, about $744 at the middle. The single most common trigger was anesthesia. You booked in-network, and the hospital sent in an out-of-network provider at the exact moment you were in no shape to ask questions.

Itemized billing was sold to you as transparency, a way to see what you paid for. Instead it became a menu the hospital orders from, one line at a time, and “skin to skin” is just the line that photographs well. The in-network and out-of-network split was sold as cost control. It became the trapdoor. And the surprise bill isn’t some error the hospital is embarrassed about, because hospitals run entire revenue-cycle departments built around exactly these charges, which is not something you staff up for a mistake.

The No Surprises Act that banned most of these childbirth surprise bills passed Congress with both parties voting yes, and took effect in January 2022 under a rule the Biden administration wrote. It helped. It also left gaps, providers it didn’t cover, consent forms that waive the protection, and hospital consolidation kept climbing under presidents of both parties, because the hospital systems and the insurers write checks to both of them. Follow the money and it doesn’t pick a side.

I am not going to leave you sitting in the anger, so here is what works. When the bill comes, don’t pay off the summary. Call and demand the itemized bill, every line, every code, and read it. Anything tied to anesthesia, neonatology, radiology, or pathology at an in-network hospital is very likely protected under the No Surprises Act, so if you’re being balance-billed for it, say those words and push back. Ask the hospital for the cash or self-pay price on the facility charges, which usually comes in well under the sticker. The bill is a first offer. Treat it like one.

Subscribe now

If you want the full teardown of how the chargemaster works, I took it apart in Your Hospital Bill is Wrong.

And if you want the receipt in your inbox every couple of days, that’s what the subscribe button is for.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Ford’s recall record runs into the millions of vehicles. Doors that unlatch on the highway, backup cameras that go dark, fuel pumps that quit in traffic. The man who runs the company looked at that record and decided the real danger is you, in your own driveway, holding a socket wrench.

Ford CEO Jim Farley told the Detroit Free Press that owners doing their own warranty work on modern cars would “put people’s lives at risk.” Pressed on whether he wanted people fixing their own cars at all, he allowed that the rest is fine, just not warranty work. Generous. Not the assembly line, not the recall list. The hazard he settled on is you, with a Saturday afternoon and a YouTube tutorial.

I fix my own car. I build my own computers. I have yet to endanger a single life. The only one I could put at risk is my own, on a Saturday, under my own car. And that is my call to make, not Ford’s.

And there is a price tag under the safety speech. A dealership charges $120 to $180 an hour for a mainstream brand, and up to $350 for luxury, more than the independent shop across town. At $150 an hour, you have to wonder: am I paying for a car repair, or a therapy session?

The lock, not the wrench

He says the driveway is ok. So take him up on it and try to fix your own car. Safety is the wrapper. The device underneath is a digital lock.

Take the tail light. On many new trucks the blind-spot radar rides inside the tail light housing. Crack the lens and that module can fail. Buy the replacement, bolt it in, and it still stays dark. It will not wake up until a dealer plugs in a scan tool and programs the new part to the truck by serial number. Section 1201 of the DMCA, a 1998 law, turns breaking that kind of lock into a copyright problem. Narrow repair exemptions exist, but they do not force the maker to hand you the key, so the fix still runs on permission. The part is yours, the truck is yours, and the right to connect the two gets rented back to you at the service counter. This is exactly the sort of repair Farley said you were free to make. You are not.

That is the whole play. Turn “repair” into “return to the dealer,” where the service bay is the most profitable room in the building.

Ask John Deere how it goes. The tractor giant ran this exact move on farmers for years, then paid $99 million to settle and admitted nothing. Spread across the class, that is about $500 a head, a rounding error for a company that size. The deal came with a promise to open up repair tools for ten years. A promise, inside a settlement, from the outfit that spent years bolting the door shut. The federal case grinds on for a reason. Well, fuck that guy.

It is not just the truck

The lock is not a car problem. It is on your phone, your TV, your fridge, your headphones.

Two things landed this week. Trump signed a memo backing repair on automobiles, and even his allies in the movement said the narrow version, aimed mostly at emissions work and aftermarket parts, does not go far enough. Then Connecticut’s new right-to-repair law took effect today, ordering makers of electronic devices to hand over the manuals, parts, and tools. Phones and televisions, not just cars.

And it is not only repair they hold. It is capability. Tesla once sold Model S and X cars with a large battery pack software-limited to a smaller capacity, then charged $4,500 to $9,000 to unlock the range already bolted under the floor. When Hurricane Irma hit Florida in 2017, Tesla switched the full battery on remotely so owners could evacuate, an extra 30 to 40 miles, then shut it back off a week later. The range was in the car the whole time. A line of code decided whether you were allowed to use it.

One lock, and both parties have fed it and fought it. The 1998 statute passed with broad bipartisan cover, Deere cut checks to everyone, and this week’s memo came from the other side of the aisle.

What you can actually do

One move. Before your next big purchase, ask the boring question: are the parts serialized to the car or the device? If a new part has to phone home to the manufacturer before it works, you are not buying a product, you are leasing permission.

Then check whether your state has a repair law. A growing list already does, including Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, and California. Back the model, use the independent shop while it still stands, and keep your screwdriver. You were never the danger here.

The Ranter maps the systems designed to take your money. Every claim sourced, every mechanism named. I read the filings, I follow the money, and both parties cash the same checks.

Reality shouldn’t be this stupid.

Two doors: subscribe free, or send me the machine you’re stuck in at stories@theranter.com.
Corrections: corrections@theranter.com
More: theranter.com -> YouTube @TheRanterOfficial -> Bluesky @rantermarkus.bsky.social -> X @RanterMarkus -> Reddit u/MarkusGrant -> Instagram and TikTok @theranterofficial

By Markus Grant

Highmark Benefits Group wrote a number into its 2026 rate filing in Pennsylvania and, I’ll give them this, named it in plain English. “Morbidity Impact from Expiration of Enhanced Premium Subsidies.” A factor of 1.040. Translate that out of insurance speak: a four percent surcharge tacked onto your premium that buys you not one minute of care. It sits inside a filing asking for a 17.93 percent average increase.

Subscribe now

The surcharge pays for other people leaving. Highmark is charging the ones who stay, in advance, to cover the ones it expects to lose. Highmark did not invent it. CMS instructed 2026 insurers to assume the subsidies expire and write that into their rates. Across the market, that assumption added about four points to 2026 premiums, on top of a roughly 26 percent average increase.

The name for this is adverse selection, the oldest engine in the building. The healthiest leave, the pool left behind is older and sicker and costs more, the insurer raises the price on everyone still holding a policy, and the next-healthiest head for the door. The money owed for the people who left does not evaporate. It lands on whoever is still standing, including the off-exchange buyer who never qualified for a subsidy and never shows up in a coverage-loss story.

I buy mine off the exchange. Same load printed on my renewal letter, and I never had a subsidy to lose. I am paying for an exit I had no part in.

KFF found what enrollees actually paid: net premiums up 58 percent, from $113 a month to $178. That is under the doubling the early models warned about, and the smaller number is the worse news. It came in low because people ate the increase by dropping to thinner bronze plans or leaving entirely, and by early spring 9 percent of last year’s enrollees were already uninsured.

The second bill waits a year and goes off at a desk in April. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now Public Law 119-21, struck the cap on paying back excess premium credits, effective for tax year 2026. The old rule capped what you owed if you took too much subsidy up front. Starting with the coverage you hold right now, that cap is gone. Earn a dollar over 400 percent of the poverty line, from a bonus or a strong freelance quarter, and you repay the entire advance subsidy when you file in 2027.

Here is why it keeps happening, and why it does not belong to one team. Making the enhanced credit permanent scored at $335 billion over a decade, so Congress wrote it with a sunset, which kept that number off the official books. Too expensive to admit to, so they put it on a timer and nobody had to sign for the result. Fine. That is fine. Then on December 11, both parties’ fixes died the same afternoon by the same count. The Democratic three-year extension failed 51 to 48. The Republican plan to swap the subsidy for health savings accounts failed 51 to 48. The House had passed a three-year extension in January, 230 to 196, with seventeen Republicans crossing, and the Senate took the papers and set them down. The bipartisan Collins-Moreno compromise is a press release, not a law.

The claim that the surcharge is pure profit is contested. The medical-loss-ratio rule makes individual-market insurers spend at least 80 percent of premium dollars on care or rebate the difference, so a load matching a sicker pool is not pure profit. Read the same rule the other way, though. The share the insurer keeps is a percentage, not a fixed sum, so every dollar the premium climbs lifts the dollar value of that cut. The cap written to limit the take quietly hands the industry a stake in a bigger bill. And the fraud the other side points to did happen: CMS pulled roughly 1.5 million ineligible or unauthorized enrollments off HealthCare.gov last year. That is a real oversight problem, and a different lever than letting the whole subsidy lapse and surcharging the people who stayed.

Two things you can do this week. First, find your state’s 2026 rate filing, public on your insurance department’s site or through the SERFF system, and look for the morbidity or subsidy-expiration load. If you buy off-exchange with no subsidy, you are paying a surcharge for an exit you had no part in, and the rate-review comment window is where you say that on the record. Second, if you take advance credits, run your 2026 income against the 400 percent line now, while you can still steer it, because a dollar over later costs you the entire subsidy back.

You are holding the bill for the people who walked. Go find the line in your own filing, and say so on the record while the window is open.

Share

Subscribe now

A state lottery is a tax. It is the only tax in America you line up to pay, and it is built so the people with the least pay the most.

The gear is simple. You hand over a dollar. About sixty cents comes back to players as prizes. The state keeps most of the rest, the vendors who print the games take a cut, the corner store takes a cut. The jackpot odds sit past one in a hundred million.

And the wins are real, which is the whole trick. The games pay out small and often, a few dollars back here and there, enough that it feels like you are close to even. Add the year together and you were never close. Forty-one cents of every dollar you fed it stayed with the state and the vendors.

New York is the biggest operator in the country. Traditional games, the scratch-offs and daily numbers and Powerball, sold 7.81 billion dollars in fiscal 2025. Players got the prize money back and lost 3.2 billion of it for good. Spread across the roughly 15.8 million adults old enough to buy a ticket, that is about 494 dollars spent and 203 dollars lost per adult, in one year, on one set of games. It does not count the slot machines at the racetracks or the online play, so the real number is higher.

And the loss does not land evenly. The strongest recent study, published in the Review of Economic Studies in 2025, found households under 50,000 dollars spend about thirty percent more on lottery tickets than households over 100,000, before you even adjust for the smaller paycheck it comes out of. The heaviest players skew toward less income and less schooling, which is the exact crowd the subway ad is built for.

The pitch that keeps it legal is the public good. New York sends about 3.6 billion dollars a year from the lottery to public schools, and says so on every billboard. Massachusetts runs the heaviest lottery per person in the country and sells it as hometown pride: its treasurer announces more than 1 billion dollars a year going to all 351 cities and towns. The pitch is that buying a scratch-off is how you fund the fire department, that playing is a kind of civic duty. Fuck that.

What neither pitch says is the shape of the deal. The state funds part of its schools and its towns out of money it took mostly from its lower-income residents, one losing ticket at a time, instead of out of a tax that scales with income. A person making 200,000 dollars can buy a ticket and never feel it. The guy who bought forty scratch-offs to pay for it does not get his 203 dollars back.

No new taxes wins elections. A penny on the sales tax would draw a revolt, but this same crowd hands the state forty-one cents on the dollar of their own free will and calls it fun, which is why neither party touches it. Forty-five states and Washington DC run a lottery, with traditional sales over 96 billion dollars in fiscal 2025. Blue states point at the schools, red states point at the taxes they did not raise, and nobody runs on shutting it down, because no one wants to be the one who took the dream away.

So the move this week is small, and it is yours. Add up what you spent on tickets last year, the dollar here and the five there, the quick pick when the jackpot got loud. Look at where that number would sit in a savings account, an index fund, or this month’s electric bill. You will not win the hundred million. You were never going to. But that number is yours, and it is the one part of this whole machine you can switch off without asking a single politician for permission.

Run the other version. Ten dollars a week, about what the average New York adult already loses to tickets, into a plain index fund instead. Someone who started that in 2016 put in around 5,200 dollars over ten years and would be sitting on about 11,600 today. I am not going to pretend that is guaranteed. The last ten years were a historic run and the next ten might crawl. But that is the difference in the bet. The market is a wager with the odds roughly in your favor over time, and the lottery is a wager built so the house keeps 41 cents of every dollar, on purpose, forever. One of those two numbers you can count on.

The lottery will keep asking you to imagine. Imagine the 203 dollars instead.

Subscribe now

Share

Sell your seat there, they take a cut. Buy one there, they take another. Same ticket, already sold once, at full price.

This week a jury started deciding whether Ticketmaster built an illegal moat around live events. Same moat. FIFA just registered its version as a charity.

Six minutes. If it makes you do the math on your own next ticket, restack it.

Every figure here is sourced and dated. The full case file: theranter.com/case-file/fifa-world-cup-2026

Share

Subscribe now

A Cigna medical director denied 60,000 claims in one month. Average time spent on each one: 1.2 seconds. A former employee told ProPublica how it worked: “We literally click and submit.” No file opened. No chart read.

When patients fight a denial, they win more than 80 percent of the time. Fewer than one in nine fight.

That is not a glitch. That is the design.

If that landed, here is what this is.

I read the manuals for the systems taking your money, then I translate them. Healthcare, housing, food, labor, debt. Every system that bills you runs on rules somebody wrote down, and most of those rules are boring on purpose so you stop reading. I read them anyway.

No team. No jersey. No villain chase. Every figure sourced.

And every piece works the same way: the machine, the receipt, the move.

Start here.

Read these two first. Both are pure receipt, two different machines:

1. Your Doctor Agrees With You. It Doesn’t Matter

2. The Bill Says Hospital

Then go deeper:

3. Why We Don’t Chase Villains

4. Why a Cartoon

5. The Field Guide to Political Armor

One ask.

Got a bill that made no sense, a denial, a fee that showed up after you signed? Send me the machine you’re stuck in. stories@theranter.com. I’m building a file.

Subscribe now

Everything I write is at theranter.com. New episodes Thursdays at 2 Eastern.

Find me: YouTube / Instagram / TikTok / X / Bluesky

Share

The state earmarked the money in its 2024 budget to get GEHA Field at Arrowhead up to FIFA’s spec for six matches between June 16 and July 11. Crews pulled about 3,500 seats off the visitor sideline to fit FIFA’s wider field, laid a new grass pitch, and covered every sign in the building that did not belong to a FIFA sponsor. For the tournament the stadium is not even called Arrowhead. FIFA renamed it Kansas City Stadium.

The contract runs through 2027. Its final phase is restoration, putting the impacted properties back the way they were. The seats go back in before football season. So the public pays twice on the same building, once to convert it for a month of soccer, once to undo the conversion.

That $42.5 million is a slice of a bigger tab. Budget documents reviewed by the Kansas City Star put Kansas City’s total public spending on its World Cup hosting at almost $200 million. Missouri alone has committed more than $77.8 million since fiscal 2025.

The mechanism is the same one running under every new stadium deal. The public pays to get the building ready. The private side keeps what the building earns. FIFA writes the requirements, the host city meets them on public money, and FIFA keeps the gate, the broadcast deals, and the sponsorships. Kansas City put up the venue and the repair bill and gets six soccer games for it.

It does not sort by party. The Republican-controlled Missouri legislature appropriated the $42.5 million. Democratic-led Kansas City pledged $15 million to the local committee that runs the games for FIFA. Red state, blue city, same checkbook.

If your city is a host, it is doing a version of this. Pull the line item. Search your state or city budget for the World Cup appropriation or the host committee, find the number, and ask the question the press release skips: once the public pays for the venue, who keeps the money it makes. The answer is not the city.

That is the bill before kickoff. Tomorrow’s episode goes inside the gate, to what your seat costs you once you are holding the ticket.

The Receipts

1. KSHB 41, Sept 18, 2025. Missouri’s $50 million FIFA World Cup allocation from May 2023, with $42.5 million earmarked for GEHA Field at Arrowhead, the seat removal on the visitor sideline, and FIFA’s clean-site requirement behind the temporary rename.

2. Sportico, June 16, 2026, citing Kansas City Star budget documents. The $42.5 million renovation, about 3,500 seats removed, the Bermuda resod, the rename to Kansas City Stadium, the contract running through 2027 with a restoration phase, the nearly $200 million total public tab, $77.8 million from Missouri since fiscal 2025, and the $15 million Kansas City host-committee pledge.

3. Kansas City Magazine, April 9, 2026. The fiscal 2024 budget’s $50 million appropriation with $42.5 million directed to renovations, and the temporary World Cup rename to Kansas City Stadium.

Subscribe now

Share

I’m Markus. I follow the money through the systems that bill you: healthcare, housing, food, labor, debt. Mechanism over motive.

Website: theranter.com | Newsletter: newsletter.theranter.com

YouTube: @TheRanterOfficial | Instagram: @theranterofficial | TikTok: @theranterofficial | X: @RanterMarkus | Bluesky: @rantermarkus.bsky.social

Every figure above is sourced and linked. Think one is wrong? corrections@theranter.com

The law is the FAIR Rx Act, signed by Governor Bill Lee in May. It bars one company from owning both a pharmacy and the PBM-and-insurer that decides what the pharmacy dispenses, once its stake in each tops 5 percent. A pharmacy benefit manager, a PBM, is the middle layer between your insurer and the drugstore. It builds the list of drugs your plan covers, sets what you pay, and routes where you fill the script. The three biggest handle nearly 80 percent of the prescriptions in the country. The ban takes effect in 2028.

CVS sued first, in May, arguing the law discriminates against large out-of-state companies. CVS says it would have to close 136 pharmacies in Tennessee and stop mail-order service in the state. Then on June 12, Express Scripts, the PBM owned by Cigna, filed its own complaint. Under the law it would have to give up Accredo, its specialty pharmacy in Memphis. It told the court its Tennessee pharmacies employ about 1,200 people and filled prescriptions for more than 32,000 residents last year, and that the law would close pharmacies, strand rural patients, and interrupt people mid-treatment, including fertility patients and military families who use its mail-order service.

Read who passed it. A Republican state senator, Bobby Harshbarger, wrote the Senate bill. A Republican governor signed it. And it cleared the legislature 24 to 9 in the Senate and 86 to 7 in the House. PBM extraction is one of the few fights both parties actually pick. Arkansas banned PBM-owned pharmacies outright last year, and a court has paused that one. Kentucky, Michigan, and West Virginia went at spread pricing, steering, and transparency. The actions cross both parties, and they keep coming because the federal fix stopped short of this. Congress did pass PBM reform in February, rebate pass-through and transparency. It left the ownership question alone, the exact thing Tennessee just reached for.

The PBM was sold to America as the thing that would negotiate prices down. Then it bought the pharmacies. Now the same company picks the drug, sets your copay, and owns the counter where you fill it. It can route the prescription to the pharmacy it owns, bill the plan a price it sets, and keep the spread, the gap between what it bills the plan and what it pays the pharmacy. The FTC found the three biggest PBMs pulled more than 7.3 billion dollars in dispensing revenue above their own cost on specialty generics from 2017 to 2022, plus roughly 1.4 billion in spread pricing on those same drugs. This works without a villain. One company stands at the start of the transaction and the end of it, and the rules let it.

The companies will tell you integration creates savings. Watch where they land. The rebate is figured off the list price, so the middleman earns more as the sticker climbs. The margin the FTC measured turned into buybacks and shareholder return. Your copay stayed where it was. Whatever they are calling savings, it was never headed your way.

The lawsuit is clean for one reason. Read Express Scripts’ own complaint and the defense is real: split the company from the pharmacy and some pharmacies close, patients lose access, treatments get interrupted mid-course. That can be true. But look at where the threat comes from. The reason “you will hurt patients” is credible is that the middleman went and bought the pharmacies in the first place. The consolidation is the problem and the hostage at once. You build the chokepoint, then point at the people standing in it and say you cannot touch me without hurting them.

That is the design. No law is broken. A company is simply allowed to choose your drug and own the store that sells it to you. The patient is the leverage in a fight the patient never chose.

One thing you can actually do, today. Find out if your PBM and your pharmacy are the same company. CVS owns Caremark, UnitedHealth owns Optum Rx, and Express Scripts and Accredo are both Cigna. If your plan keeps nudging you toward one mail-order pharmacy, or your refill notice says your usual pharmacy is “no longer preferred,” that is usually why.

Then price-check one drug. Take a prescription you fill regularly and compare your insured price against the cash price at a pass-through pharmacy like Cost Plus Drugs, or the cash price at Amazon Pharmacy. People routinely find the cash price beats the insured price, which tells you the markup was never about your care.

And watch your own statehouse. The FAIR Rx Act is a template now, and the fight over it is live. Search your statehouse site for “pharmacy benefit manager” when the session opens. When a PBM ownership bill shows up, you will know what the lawsuit against it is really defending. Not the patient. The pharmacy it owns.

The Ranter is the animated investigative series I write and voice as Markus Grant. This article is the Tennessee front of the fight. Episode 2 is the machine itself, opened up: how one middleman ends up quoting five different prices for the same pill, why the rebate quietly pays more when the sticker goes up, and who owns the pharmacy waiting on the other end. It is the same machine this piece walks through, filmed in a different room. Watch it below.

THE RANTER follows the money through the systems that bill you: healthcare, housing, food, labor, debt. Mechanism over motive.

Website: theranter.com | Newsletter: newsletter.theranter.com

YouTube: @TheRanterOfficial | Instagram: @theranterofficial | TikTok: @theranterofficial | X: @RanterMarkus | Bluesky: @rantermarkus.bsky.social

Every figure above is sourced and linked. Think one is wrong? corrections@theranter.com

Share

Subscribe now

On June 25 the Supreme Court meets in private conference to vote on whether it will even hear Apple’s appeal (docket 25-1311, Apple’s reply filed June 9). The thing Apple wants reviewed is a contempt finding. After a federal judge ordered Apple to let developers send users to cheaper prices outside the app, Apple complied by charging a 27 percent fee on those outside purchases, and the judge found that an Apple finance executive “outright lied under oath” about how the number was set. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that contempt finding on December 11, 2025. A grant takes four votes. Whatever the justices decide, Apple has to keep allowing US external links with no added fee while the petition sits, so nothing about your phone changes that morning.

The toll buys one thing: the right to be on the phone at all. Processing the sale is the cheap part. Your phone runs one of two operating systems. On the iPhone there is one store, Apple’s, with no legal way around it in the US; Android allows other stores, but Google Play is the gate almost everyone passes through. Sell a digital subscription or a game upgrade and the store takes its cut. Three locks hold it in place. Digital goods must run through the platform’s own payment system. Developers were barred from telling you, inside their own app, that a cheaper price exists on their own website. And breaking either rule gets the app pulled, which cuts your existing users off from security updates. Apple ran that last lever on ProtonMail, an encrypted email service that could not ship a single update, security ones included, for about a month until it gave in, then raised its iOS prices about 26 percent. The court that reviewed the rate called it “supracompetitive” and “arbitrarily decided upon in 2009 based on other platforms like video game consoles”.

Steve Jobs said in 2008 that the 30 percent existed purely so Apple could break even. The break-even operation booked 109.2 billion dollars in its Services segment in fiscal 2025 at a 75.4 percent gross margin, more than double the 36.8 percent margin on its Products line, with the App Store commission piece estimated at 30 to 35 billion a year.

This is where it stops being a tech story and turns into a Washington one. A bill called the Open App Markets Act would have outlawed the anti-steering rules outright. It was sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and it cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee 20 to 2 in February 2022. It never got a floor vote. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose 2022-cycle total included 192,750 dollars tied to Alphabet, its employees, and its PAC, said the votes were not there; the sponsors said they were. Apple set its own lobbying record that same year at 9.36 million dollars. The bill died under a Democratic-led Senate, and the antitrust suits against both Apple and Google were filed and carried forward across the Trump and Biden administrations. Both parties had their hands on this one.

The move here is small and annoying, which is usually how you can tell the platform did not build it for you. If you sell anything digital, the external-link path that came out of the contempt fight now lets you point US customers to your own website with no Apple commission. The catch has always been the terms, and during Apple’s earlier “compliance” window only 34 of roughly 136,000 US developers had even applied to use it. If you buy, check the company’s own website before you subscribe through an app, because the app frequently is not allowed to tell you it costs less there. And if you want one number to watch, watch the rate. Google has already announced a move to 20 percent or less on many Play transactions, and Apple has gone to zero on US external links the moment courts forced it. A price that falls by a third the week a judge shows up was never being held up by costs.

Share

Subscribe now

Sources and Receipts

1. Payment processing rate, Stripe pricing: https://stripe.com/pricing

2. Supreme Court conference and docket, No. 25-1311 (distributed for conference June 25, 2026; Apple reply filed June 9): https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1311.html

3. Contempt order and “lied under oath” finding, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, April 30, 2025 (Epic Games v. Apple district court docket): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/

4. Ninth Circuit opinion affirming contempt, No. 25-2935, December 11, 2025: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/11/25-2935.pdf

5. ProtonMail update freeze and price increase, MacRumors, October 8, 2020: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/10/08/apple-in-app-purchases-protonmail/

6. “Supracompetitive” rate and 2009 console origin, Epic Games v. Apple, N.D. Cal., September 10, 2021 (same district court docket): https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17442392/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc/

7. Apple Services revenue and gross margin, Apple FY2025 Form 10-K, SEC EDGAR: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/320193/000032019325000079/aapl-20250927.htm

8. Open App Markets Act, sponsors and committee vote, S.2710 (117th Congress): https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2710

9. Schumer contributions from Alphabet, 2022 cycle, OpenSecrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/charles-e-schumer/contributors?cid=N00001093&cycle=2022

10. Apple 2022 federal lobbying total, 9,360,000 dollars, OpenSecrets: https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/lobbyists?cycle=2022&id=D000021754

11. Developer external-link uptake, 34 of roughly 136,000, Hagens Berman class action, May 2025: https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/apple-app-store-injunction-violation

12. Google Play commission cut to 20 percent, Epic settlement, TechCrunch, March 4, 2026: https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/04/google-settles-with-epic-games-drops-its-play-store-commissions-to-20

THE RANTER follows the money through the systems that bill you: healthcare, housing, food, labor, debt. Mechanism over motive.

Website: theranter.com | Newsletter: newsletter.theranter.com |

YouTube: @TheRanterOfficial | Instagram: @theranterofficial | TikTok: @theranterofficial | X: @RanterMarkus | Bluesky: @rantermarkus.bsky.social

Every figure above is sourced and linked. Think one is wrong? corrections@theranter.com

This week a federal judge declined to block a UFC card set for the South Lawn of the White House on June 14, staged for the President’s 80th birthday and the country’s 250th. Seven federal agencies are working the event.

The same week, crews finished repainting the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in what the President calls American flag blue. The pool did have real problems, leaks and a failing filtration system, and the work got pushed for the anniversary. Worth doing. The President had said the job would run a million and a half to two million dollars. The contracts came in around $14.8 million.

Underneath all of it, a fragile ceasefire with Iran that both sides keep testing.

The room had room.

Then there is the food rule. A USDA proposal to end something called broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP is sitting at the White House budget office, one step from a public rollout. The Food Research and Action Center, which flagged it this week, says it would increase hunger for families and children.

Broad-based categorical eligibility is a plumbing rule, which is why nobody fights about it on television. A family already approved for another assistance program has, in most states, been allowed to qualify for food benefits without sitting through a second, separate asset test. The state uses the determination it already made and does not force the family to prove poverty twice. Ending the rule brings the second test back. More paperwork. More families with a little in savings, a used car worth a bit too much, a second part-time job, knocked off the rolls. The cut does not arrive labeled as a cut. It arrives as a form.

Here is the reason they give. Waste and fraud. Tighten the rules, stop the wrong people from getting food, protect the integrity of the program. Fine. Let’s take that seriously, because there is a tool built for exactly that. It is called an audit.

The Pentagon has been legally required to pass one since 2018. It has failed eight years in a row, the most recent this past December. One piece of the military passes, the Marine Corps, and the general who runs their books said the audit found no fraud and no price gouging, because that is what an audit is for. The other 840 billion dollars cannot account for itself, and the plan on the table is to raise it to one and a half trillion.

So keep the fraud standard. It just points one direction. We run it on a family proving twice that they are poor enough for groceries. We do not run it on the largest agency in the government, the one that has never once passed the test it was ordered to take. They went looking in the kitchen instead of the hangar.

We have seen this exact rule before. The first Trump administration proposed nearly the same change in 2019. USDA’s own analysis put it at 3.1 million people pushed off food assistance and 500,000 children losing automatic free school meals. People filed comments. A lawsuit followed. The rule did not survive, and it was formally withdrawn in 2021. It is back now, at the budget office, waiting. No official 2026 head-count has been published yet. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates this version reaches further, around 6 million people and more than 1.8 million children, because more states lean on the rule today than did six years ago.

There is an old line, the one history hangs on Marie Antoinette, that she heard the peasants had no bread and said let them eat cake. She almost certainly never said it. The line survived anyway because it captures something clean: the contempt of a person so far from hunger that she hears it as a menu problem.

The 2026 version is more precise. Antoinette’s contempt at least assumed the poor could buy the cake. Over the past year USDA has approved waivers in more than twenty states letting them pull items out of what SNAP is allowed to buy: soda, sweetened drinks, energy drinks, candy. Florida went one further and wrote prepared desserts onto the banned list. So Florida has its answer for Marie Antoinette. Not that cake. Whether a family qualifies to be standing in the store at all is the separate question the budget office is working on right now.

Stack it and look at it. Fewer people qualify. The ones who still do get a shorter list of what they are allowed to want. And the people writing those rules spent the same week handing the South Lawn to a fight promoter.

Food aid gets cut by both parties. In 1996 a Democratic president signed the welfare overhaul that ended the old guarantee and built the work-requirement machinery every administration since has widened. The instinct that treats the lunch tray as the first place to look for savings is bipartisan, and decades old.

This one belongs to a single administration that chose it this month, on its own. I am not going to launder that into a tidy on-the-other-hand. Both sides have trimmed food aid over the years, and this specific cut, this week, next to the cage match, did not need the other side’s help to happen.

If you want to do something with this, the straight answer is that the comment window is not open yet. The rule is still at the budget office. When it posts to the Federal Register, a public comment period opens, and that is worth showing up for, because last time the comments and the lawsuits were part of what beat it. Until then, the live lever is Congress. Your House member and the Senate Agriculture Committee can lean on this while it is still a draft. The sentence to give a staffer is short: how many children does this proposal remove from food assistance, and where is that number published? They cannot answer it yet, because the number is not public, which is exactly the thing worth making them go look for.

I am not going to tell you a phone call stops it. The rule might post and take effect anyway. The lawn already has its fight. The pool already has its coat. What pressure does, the same way it did in 2019, is force the count into the open, on the record, where it can be read back later. In this building, the number on the record is the only thing that outlives the news cycle.

The room is never empty. There is always money for the thing that looks powerful. It goes quiet at the tray.

If you are new here, The Ranter is the animated series I write and voice. This piece is the policy side of the hunger machine. The episode is the grocery-shelf side: the shrink ray that quietly empties the bag, the dollar store that moves in after the supermarket leaves, and the egg company that explained away a record year by blaming the birds.

Share

Subscribe now

Sources & Receipts

1. UFC card on the White House South Lawn, June 14, judge declined to block, seven federal agencies supporting. The Hill. https://thehill.com/video/white-house-ufc-event-to-cost-60m-plus-labor-from-7-federal-agencies/11874998/

2. Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool repaint, President’s claim of $1.5 to $2 million against roughly $14.8 million in awarded contracts. Washington Post, via NBC Washington. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/04/lincoln-memorial-reflecting-pool-trump/

3. Fragile US-Iran ceasefire, ongoing negotiations, strikes traded as recently as June 11, 2026. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-iran-trade-attacks-second-day-undermining-shaky-ceasefire-2026-06-11/

4. USDA proposal to end broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP, described as increasing hunger for families and children. Food Research and Action Center, June 11, 2026. https://frac.org/blog/usda-proposal-to-end-broad-based-categorical-eligibility-for-snap-would-increase-hunger-for-families-and-children

5. 2019 categorical eligibility rule, USDA estimate of 3.1 million people off food assistance and 500,000 children losing automatic free school meals, formally withdrawn in 2021. Federal Register, document 2019-15670. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/24/2019-15670/revision-of-categorical-eligibility-in-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

6. 2026 projection of roughly 6 million people and more than 1.8 million children affected. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (ADD CONFIRMED CBPP URL BEFORE PUBLISH)

7. SNAP food restriction waivers across more than twenty states, covering soda, sweetened drinks, energy drinks, and candy, with prepared desserts added in Florida. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/waivers/foodrestriction

They called it Iliad.

The Iliad, Homer’s account of the Trojan War, ten years of siege, remembered mostly for the fact that almost nobody trapped inside it got out clean. That is the name a company picked, on purpose, for the act of leaving a $14.99 subscription, and they were not being coy. They named it after the feeling.

The receipts. Somebody wrote them down.

The FTC’s case against Amazon put the name “Iliad” into the record, alongside the finding that the company enrolled roughly 35 million people into Prime through nonconsensual sign-ups between 2013 and 2020. In September 2025, Amazon settled for $2.5 billion, the largest penalty ever under ROSCA, the federal negative-option law. Signing up takes two or three clicks. Leaving Prime, by Amazon’s own documented design, ran four pages, six clicks, and fifteen options, each one a chance to talk you out of it. Across the wider market, a sweep of 642 sites by the FTC, ICPEN, and GPEN found 76 percent using at least one dark pattern, and 81 percent hiding auto-renewal terms during the signup itself.

The money lands on you. C+R Research found average American subscription spending runs about $219 a month, while people believe they spend about $86. That $133 gap between what you pay and what you think you pay is the thing the design was built to protect. Surveys put the waste at roughly $200 a year, per person, flowing out for subscriptions people forgot they had.

The mechanism is called negative-option marketing, and it runs on one trick. You agree once, it renews on its own forever, and the burden of paying attention flips onto you. Saying yes is a single decision. Saying no is a job you have to keep doing, every month, against a system that is hoping you forget.

Companies measured that asymmetry and then tuned it, the way you tune anything you are trying to optimize. Chegg’s now-CEO wrote in an internal email that cancellation should have “some pain involved.” Well, fuck that guy. They built the friction in on purpose and then measured it to make sure it held. Somebody sat in a meeting, drew the harder path, and shipped it as the plan. And yes, every company wants to keep the customers it has. Keeping them by hiding the exit is the specific part the FTC just fined.

And before anyone sorts this onto a team, look at who let it stand. The FTC’s negative-option rule was written in 1973 and sat basically untouched for five decades, under both parties. Republicans fought mandatory price-disclosure rules. Democrats defended the subscription economy as an innovation engine worth protecting. When the FTC finally passed a click-to-cancel rule in 2024, requiring that leaving be as easy as joining, the Eighth Circuit vacated it in 2025 on a paperwork technicality, a missing economic analysis, before it ever took effect. ROSCA has been on the books since 2010 and stays underused. The Unsubscribe Act is sitting in Congress right now, doing nothing. Both sides say they want to protect you from this. Neither one delivered. Whoever holds the gavel, the renewal still hits your card on the first of the month.

What you can actually do, since the rule is dead:

• Audit by statement, not by memory. Pull your card and bank statements and sort for recurring charges. You will not remember the ones that matter. That is the point.

• The day you start a free trial, set a reminder to cancel two days before it bills. The trial is the signup. The bill is the trap closing.

• When you cancel, screenshot the confirmation. These flows sometimes “fail” the cancel and keep charging. The screenshot is your receipt.

• If the maze stonewalls you, stop fighting it on their turf. Call your bank and dispute the charge. You owe the maze nothing.

You are not bad at this. The exit was engineered to be worse than the entrance, by people who named the engineering after a war. Sort by total cost, cancel by screenshot, move on.

#TheRanterFiles

Share

Subscribe now

That is not a figure of speech. When a Marine F-35 unit in Japan needed engine work, the engines got crated up and shipped back to the United States, because the people standing next to the jet did not have the legal right to fix it. Months of a stealth fighter sitting on the ground, because the paperwork says the contractor turns the wrench.

The Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, recently held up a small part in a room full of people: a fin for the external fuel tank on a Black Hawk helicopter. The vendor charges fourteen thousand dollars for that fin. His own team scanned it, reverse-engineered it, and printed one for three thousand. By his number it came out seventy-eight percent cheaper and three hundred percent stronger. And under the contracts the military signed, doing that at any kind of scale is the part nobody is sure they are allowed to do.

The receipts here are not from a blog. They are from the Government Accountability Office, the federal watchdog that audits this stuff for Congress.

GAO’s latest count puts the F-35 program over two trillion dollars across its life. More than 1.58 trillion of that is sustainment, which is the polite word for repairs and upkeep. So the single biggest line item on the most expensive weapon in history is not building the thing. It is fixing it, over and over, for the next sixty years.

Back in 2014, GAO told the Pentagon the program did not even have a plan for who owns the repair data. The Pentagon did not produce that plan until July of 2025. Eleven years. In the meantime the repair backlog has at times run past ten thousand parts, and the fleet’s mission capable rate, the share of time the jet is actually ready to fly, sat around fifty-five percent. You are paying two trillion dollars for a plane that is ready about half the time, and you are not allowed to fix the half that is broken.

Here is how it happened, and why it is the same thing happening in your driveway.

About twenty years ago the Air Force bought the F-35 on what they call a total system approach. In plain English, Lockheed Martin got the rights to the whole thing. The technology, the parts, the diagnostic tools, all of it. The military signed away the right to repair its own aircraft or to hire anyone else to do it. So every breakdown has exactly one phone number. The contractor sets the price and the timeline, and makes money on the very breakdown it is being paid to fix. The worse the plane runs, the better the business.

Now look at your own stuff. There is a law from 1998, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It was written to stop people copying DVDs. What it does now is let a company put a software lock on a physical object you own and paid for, so that fixing it yourself becomes a crime. That is why John Deere can stop a farmer from repairing his own tractor unless he hauls it to an authorized dealer. That is why a phone can shut itself down when it sees a battery the manufacturer did not bless.

The Pentagon and the farmer are getting billed by the same machine, and the whole design of that machine is that the thing you own is the one thing you are not allowed to maintain. The lobby that fights to keep it this way knows exactly what it is protecting. Well, fuck that lobby.

This one is live right now, so here is where to point.

Last week the House Armed Services Committee put right to repair into next year’s defense bill, the FY27 NDAA, on a bipartisan amendment. Good. Except the same language passed both the House and the Senate last year and then quietly vanished in the conference committee, the closed-door room where the final bill gets written, after weapons contractors lobbied it out. The bill underneath it, the Warrior Right to Repair Act, was written by Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Tim Sheehy, a Republican from Montana. A D and an R wrote it. A conference run by both parties killed it.

So the move is not to cheer the markup vote. The markup is the easy part. Watch the conference. That is where it died last time, and that is where it dies again if nobody is looking. Call your House member and tell them the F-35 repair language stays in the final bill, not just the draft.

This whole thing got me thinking. I have been on the wrong end of this exact lock for years. The phone battery I could not swap. The TV I could not open the year after the warranty died, over a board I could have replaced for nine bucks if anyone would sell me one. A guy I know two counties over, staring at a tractor he owns free and clear and is not allowed to fix. None of it got a hearing. Nobody in that conference room ever lost a minute over my TV. It took a two trillion dollar fighter jet, the most expensive thing the government owns, before the lock was suddenly a problem worth a bipartisan amendment. The mechanism never changed. The customer did.

So when they fix it for the F-35, ask whether they are fixing it for you. The same month the administration talked up letting soldiers repair their own gear, Ford and GM were backing a push to make it harder for you to fix your car. Two trillion dollars says the lock is the product. The jet is just the receipt.

#TheRanterFiles

Subscribe now

Share

Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies has been counting. Between 2014 and 2024, the country lost 2.5 million rental units that went for under $600 a month. That is a 30 percent cut to the cheapest housing in America, in a single decade.

Widen the band to everything under $1,400 a month, the range a normal paycheck can actually cover, and the loss reaches 9.3 million units over the decade.

The reason is narrow, and it is not a villain. The cheap units are not being replaced. Over the same ten years, builders added 11.8 million apartments renting at $1,400 or more, and 5.8 million of those go for $2,000 and up. New construction goes to the top of the market, because that is where the math works and where the renters with money are. The old cheap stock gets renovated up, converted to something pricier, or knocked down, and nothing cheap gets built behind it. The bottom rung is not being repriced. It is being removed.

And the people pushed off the bottom do not disappear. By 2024, 22.7 million renter households were spending more than a third of their income on rent, 2.3 million more than in 2019.

You feel this even if you never rent at the very bottom, because the bottom is what everything else stands on. When the $500 unit disappears, the person who lived there does not vanish. They move up into the $800 unit, which pushes its tenant toward the $1,100 unit, and the squeeze climbs the whole building. The floor falling out is why the middle keeps getting more expensive.

The move this week is quick. Search what a newly built or recently renovated apartment in your area asks right now, then hold it next to what you pay. The gap between the two is the cliff you are standing near. If your rent sits well below it, you are living on borrowed cheap, and the renewal letter is the price notice for the whole tier above you. Know that number before the letter shows up, not after.

And once you do land a place, the rent you finally agree to travels somewhere specific, through a structure most renters never get to see. That is tomorrow’s episode. Saturday, 8 AM Eastern.

* Figures: Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, America’s Rental Housing 2026, covering 2014 to 2024 and drawing on U.S. Census Bureau and American Community Survey data. The 2.5 million figure counts units renting under $600 (inflation-adjusted) lost over the decade, a 30 percent decline. The 9.3 million figure counts units lost under $1,400. Over the same period, units renting at $1,400 or more grew by 11.8 million, with 5.8 million of those at $2,000 or more. The 22.7 million cost-burdened renter households in 2024, up 2.3 million from 2019, are also from the report. The rent bands are inflation-adjusted; JCHS does not state the base year in its public summary.

Strange enough on its own. But the fee is the small part. The machine is who gets paid to put you in it.

On that same rate card, under the price, sits a three dollar “revenue share.” That is the cut the landlord keeps for every resident enrolled, every month. So three of your ten dollars walk straight back across the table to the person who signed you up. Your landlord makes money when you carry the charge.

That is where the lawsuit comes in. A proposed class of tenants sued Entrata on June 1 in federal court in Colorado, a case called Fish v. Entrata, brought by the nonprofit Towards Justice. The complaint says Entrata pays landlords to auto-enroll their tenants, and that RentPlus moved from opt-in to opt-out, a setup the suit calls negative-option billing. Saying nothing gets treated as saying yes. When a charge only survives if you cannot find the off switch, that tells you what the charge is.

And they built the off switch where you would not look for it. RentPlus gets folded into the lease as an “in-lease amenity.” No pitch you can decline. You sign the lease to get the apartment, and the credit subscription rides along inside it, in the same slot as the gym you will never use and the valet trash you never asked for. A monthly charge dressed as a perk, built so that noticing it is your job and refunding it is a favor.

The thing you are buying is thinner than the brochure. RentPlus marketing says it reports your on-time payments and leaves out the skipped or missed ones. So the months you might actually want explained are the months the sales pitch tells you it ignores. The suit says this runs afoul of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, a law from the nineties built precisely because credit-repair products have always billed people for outcomes they cannot promise. There is even a cheaper tier for affordable housing. Six ninety-five a resident. The model reaches hardest into the renters with the least room to take the hit.

Here is the part they say out loud. To you, RentPlus is sold as credit building. To the landlord, it is sold as ancillary revenue. Entrata’s own IPO filing pitches rent reporting to operators as exactly that, a revenue stream. So spare me the guessing game about motive. They wrote it down and filed it with the SEC.

Then they took the check. Entrata pulled a 200 million dollar investment from funds run by Blackstone and just announced plans to go public. One of the landlords named in the case is Independence Realty Trust, a publicly traded apartment REIT. A few dollars a month feels like nothing. Multiply it across thousands of doors, every month, and it is the kind of quiet, recurring money that makes a software company shine on a stock exchange. Every auto-enrolled tenant is a coin in that machine, skimmed off a payment that was already going to happen. The renter is not the customer here. The renter is the yield.

Well, fuck that fee.

Here is what you can do, today, before you sign anything.

Read your lease for the words RentPlus, rent reporting, credit reporting, or resident amenity, and ask the leasing office, in writing, whether you are enrolled and what it costs. If you are in it and did not choose it, ask to opt out and ask for the refund. Some tenants report getting them. If you want your rent to build credit, there are services you sign up for directly, on your own terms, with no landlord skimming the fee.

Before the next lease, the move is the one it always is. Sort by total cost, not the sticker rent. The charge that gets you is almost never the number on the sign out front.

I laid out the full junk-fee architecture, the valet trash and the resort fees and the lease-addendum theater, in this episode. If you want to see the machine this one crawled out of, it is here:

Subscribe now

Share

The why is documented. Start with the receipts.

The enhanced premium tax credits that made marketplace coverage affordable for the last four years expired on December 31, 2025. KFF projected that would push subsidized enrollees’ out-of-pocket premiums up about 114 percent on average for someone who keeps the same plan, roughly a thousand dollars more a year. The real-world average came in lower, closer to 58 percent, because plenty of people fled to cheaper, higher-deductible plans or dropped out entirely. Read that second number as the size of the flinch. The sticker price climbed underneath that too. Unsubsidized benchmark premiums rose 26 percent on average, the biggest jump in eight years.

That works out to more than 20 million people facing a bigger bill. KFF now estimates marketplace enrollment could fall from 22.3 million in 2025 to about 17.5 million in 2026.

The line you are hearing is that one side could not repeal the ACA, so it let the help quietly run out instead. That part is real. The enhancement passed on Democratic votes in 2021. It was allowed to lapse, and the credit math was tightened, on Republican-controlled terms. So name the room. But the room is not the whole house.

Walk down the hall to the other system, the one most working people actually use.

In 2025 the average employer family health plan cost $26,993. The worker saw $6,850 of that leave their paychecks. The employer covered the rest, about $20,143, KFF found. The employer is not eating that money. Economists who study this for a living agree the company gets it back the boring way, by paying you lower wages than it otherwise would. You never see the bill because it shows up as a raise you did not get.

That arrangement rests on the largest health-related tax break in the federal budget, and it is the one nobody argues about on television. The tax exclusion for employer health benefits costs the federal government roughly $250 billion to $300 billion a year in revenue it never collects, depending on whether you count income taxes alone or income plus payroll taxes. It covers roughly 160 million people. It is bigger than the marketplace credit fight by a lot. Usually two to three times bigger, depending on the year and accounting method.

Put the two rooms side by side.

The marketplace subsidy is visible. It has a name, a vote, a sunset date, a cable segment. When it shrinks you feel it in one painful number and you get angry at a party. Good. Stay angry.

The employer exclusion is invisible. There is no renewal notice. It shows up as a flat paycheck and a vague sense that healthcare just costs a lot. It is also regressive, which is the polite word for upside down. A high earner at a big firm gets a fatter tax break on their coverage than a line cook at a small one.

And the part that should land on everyone the same way: Republican leaders cutting Medicaid are not putting this machine on the table, and Democrats expanding marketplace credits are not putting this machine on the table either. Each party runs a version of the healthcare fight that flatters its own crowd and leaves the big machine in the basement running.

The mechanism does not have a party. It is the same machine billing us in different rooms. One room sends a loud bill you can rage at. The other dips into your wages so quietly you thank the company for the benefit. Whoever decided the bigger subsidy should be the silent one knew exactly what that buys. Well, fuck that guy.

So, while the anger is fresh and useful, three things you can actually do.

One. Before you drop your marketplace plan because the renewal scared you, run your real number through KFF’s subsidy calculator. The 114 percent is a projection for an unchanged plan. Your figure depends on your income and age, and you may still qualify for more help than the notice suggests. Decide on the real number, not the panic number.

Two. If you get coverage through work and you feel secure doing this, find your total premium, not just your share. It is on your W-2 in box 12, code DD, or in your benefits portal. Look at the gap between what you pay and what the plan costs. That gap is money you earned. It went to a premium instead of your account. You are allowed to know that.

Three. When a candidate talks healthcare at you this year, listen for which room they are standing in. Extending the credits is the visible fight, and it matters. Touching the employer exclusion is the structural one, and almost nobody will say it out loud. Ask them about the second one, and watch them change the subject.

That is the tell. The bill you never see is the one they would rather you never ask about.

Share

Subscribe now

Angela Paxton is a Republican state senator in Texas. Her husband, Ken Paxton, is the state attorney general, and he was seven months into a campaign for the United States Senate when she filed. His own party’s Senate campaign committee, the NRSC, put out a statement that same week calling what he had put his family through “truly repulsive and disgusting.”

Then, on May 19, the President of the United States endorsed him over John Cornyn, a Republican who has held that Senate seat for 23 years. The same night in Kentucky, a Trump-backed challenger ended Thomas Massie’s career. The brand was settling accounts.

So here is the charge sheet on the man Texas may send to Washington. His wife says he broke the most serious promise two people make. His party’s own committee says his behavior is repulsive. The 2023 impeachment articles alleged he used his office to benefit a donor, Nate Paul, who in turn hired the woman Paxton was having the affair with. And the leader of his party just made him the official choice.

There is a voter question buried under all of that. If the person who knows you best decided she could no longer trust you, on what theory does a stranger in a voting booth hand you a vote on war, taxes, and the courts?

We know the answer. We just save it for the candidates we can afford to lose.

Voters still care about character. They just price it against replacement cost.

David Vitter’s number turned up in the records of the “D.C. Madam” in 2007. He called it a serious sin and asked forgiveness. Louisiana reelected him to the Senate by almost 20 points in 2010. The scandal did not end him until he ran for governor in 2015, when the seat was one Republicans could fill another way.

Mark Sanford disappeared for six days in 2009 while his staff told reporters he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. He was in Argentina. His marriage ended, the state House censured him, and he finished his term anyway. Four years later he won his old House seat back. South Carolina kept finding uses for him.

John Edwards ran the other way. Democratic senator, 2004 vice-presidential nominee, an affair with a campaign videographer that began while his wife Elizabeth was alive and ended with him lying about fathering the child. Elizabeth died of cancer in 2010. A federal indictment over campaign money came the next year. Edwards never held office again and never tried. By 2008 the Democrats had Barack Obama and a whole administration to staff. The bench was deep, so North Carolina was free to be disgusted.

Andrew Cuomo resigned as governor of New York in 2021, a week after the state attorney general’s office found he had sexually harassed 11 women. In 2025 he tried to come back, running for mayor of New York City. He lost the Democratic primary to Zohran Mamdani, then ran in the general as an independent and lost again, by roughly 207,000 votes. Mamdani gave New York voters somewhere else to go, and they went.

Which brings it back to Paxton. Edwards was finished because his party no longer needed him. Vitter survived because Louisiana Republicans still did. Paxton’s affair ran alongside the donor allegations his own party put in writing, and it produced a divorce filing from his wife of 38 years citing his conduct as incompatible with God. He is winning anyway.

He is winning because no one else in Texas Republican politics carries his brand. Wesley Hunt finished third in March at 13.5 percent. Cornyn, after 23 years in the Senate, is the one taking fire as the establishment. Paxton built a national name suing the Biden administration more than 100 times, and to the voters he needs, the divorce reads as one more attack from that same establishment. An endorsement from the most popular man in the party does one thing in a primary. It tells the people who already like Paxton that the alternative is the real danger. His wife calling him untrustworthy in a court filing has not moved them. Neither has his own party’s committee calling him repulsive. And now the President is telling them the receipts were never the point.

If the party has another nominee it can live with, character comes roaring back and the cheater loses. If it does not, disgust gets refiled as persecution and the tribe votes anyway.

Angela Paxton had 38 years of evidence and walked. Texas Republicans have been handed more receipts than voters usually get, from his wife, from his own party, and from a Senate impeachment trial. Six days from the runoff, the trust question is already settled in the only place that counts. It does not decide the race. The brand decides the race. Yesterday the President put his name on it.

Share

Subscribe now

Bleach and Fabuloso don’t mix. Fabuloso’s own FAQ says so. The CDC says the same thing in plainer language: do not mix household cleaners. The mix releases chlorine gas. American poison control centers logged more than two thousand chlorine-gas exposures from cleaner mixing in 2017 alone, and those are just the calls. A Buffalo Wild Wings manager died in 2019 from a similar accidental mix.

This is what the absence of federal training standards looks like in a room.

The oversight gap

There is no national childcare safety curriculum. Federal money flows through the Child Care and Development Fund, $11.6 billion in fiscal 2023, but CCDF is a participation floor for subsidies, not a teaching standard. The training requirement varies by state. Texas mandates 24 hours of pre-service training plus 30 hours per year. New York wants 15 hours in the first six months and 30 hours every two years. Chemical safety is rarely a separately mandated topic. It gets bundled into “health and safety,” and the state gets to decide what that means.

Licensure inspections cycle from annually to every three years. License-exempt categories are everywhere. Complaint-driven unannounced inspections happen, but the trigger requires someone in the building to know that mixing bleach with Fabuloso is wrong and to know who to call. In a workforce where the median tenure is short and the median wage sits in the bottom 5 percent of all U.S. occupations, that condition is rarely satisfied.

Where the money goes

Eight of the eleven largest childcare chains in the United States are owned by private equity. The Congressional Research Service finds that fifteen of the sixteen largest receive some private equity funding. KinderCare is the biggest. Its 2023 fiscal year, per its S-1 filing: $2.5 billion in revenue, $102.6 million in net income. That is a net margin of four cents on the dollar. Looks lean.

Then you read the rest of the filing.

Profit is the wrong line to watch. Money leaves a private equity company through rent paid to landlords the sponsor controls, interest on debt the sponsor loaded onto the operating company, and management fees the sponsor charges itself. Sometimes the company borrows new money just to mail the owners a check. Net income is what is left.

The company carries $2.4 billion in total lease obligations, with $285.8 million expected to be paid out in fiscal 2026 alone. KinderCare’s own filings list lease agreements with entities tied to its private equity owners. Its long-term debt obligations including interest run $1.2 billion. In March 2024, eight months before going public, KinderCare took out an incremental term loan and made a $320 million distribution to KC Parent. KC Parent then paid $276.9 million to Class A unitholders and $42.6 million to profit-interest unitholders. The operating company borrowed money so its private equity owners could pay themselves a dividend. The deal is right there in the filing.

Bright Horizons is publicly traded. Its 10-K explains the business model in plain terms: continued profitability requires that the company “pass on our increased costs, such as labor and related costs, to our customers.”

The second extraction

Run the numbers at the room level. The infant room loses money on its own. $325 a week times four infants is thirteen hundred. The worker watching them at $15.41 an hour clears $616. The room nets the center about $684 a week. That is the slot every parent fights to get into. It is also the slot the chain pretends is the price floor.

The preschool room is where the math turns. Ten four-year-olds at $275 a week is twenty-seven fifty in revenue. One teacher, still $616. The room nets the center over two thousand dollars a week on one worker. Stack one infant room, two toddler rooms, and four preschool rooms in a single center and you have twelve thousand a week off seven workers, before rent, before supplies, roughly six hundred thousand a year per center before the back office takes its cut.

Some of that pays rent on a building the PE owners’ affiliate happens to own. Some of it pays interest on debt the PE owners loaded onto the operating company. Some of it paid the management fee back to the sponsor until the IPO made them stop disclosing it.

The worker has done a version of this math herself. She knows what she brings in for the room. She knows what she takes home. She also knows that nobody is going to pay her more by next Tuesday.

So the second extraction begins. After they take the money, they come for the meaning. The job is framed as a calling. The worker is told she is doing something noble. The cost of the job, in money, gets reclassified as the price of doing good. Pay too low to live on becomes a moral test the worker is supposed to pass. The Cleveland Fed reports that childcare pay does not cover a living wage for a single adult plus one child in any state. Median wage is $15.41 an hour, bottom 5 percent of all U.S. occupations. Turnover runs 65 percent above the median occupation, and about half of the workers who leave the industry leave the labor force entirely. The worker mixing bleach with Fabuloso has been there three weeks because the worker who would have known better got a job at Target.

What the bill says, and who has refused to pay it

Infant childcare costs more than public college tuition in 38 states. The federal affordability threshold is seven percent of family income. The average family is paying more than twenty.

Build Back Better had $400 billion in it for childcare and universal pre-K. The House passed it in November 2021. Joe Manchin killed it on Fox News a month later. Every Senate Republican opposed it. The American Rescue Plan’s Child Care Stabilization Program kept the industry alive with about $24 billion. It expired in September 2023. Neither party renewed it.

There is precedent for what comes next

Public charter schools were a bipartisan idea in 1991. Within a decade, the extraction model had emerged. The Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General has documented extensive related-party transactions between charter management organizations and their own real estate affiliates. National Heritage Academies sold more than two-thirds of its schools to its own real estate arm for roughly a billion dollars. In Academica’s Florida network, schools paid 17.7 percent of their total expenses in rent to Academica-owned landlords, against 11.5 percent for schools with unrelated landlords. The public paid twice. Once for the school. Again through inflated lease payments to entities the owners controlled.

The 2025 federal policy law moved childcare money into the same shape. Section 45F, the employer-provided childcare tax credit that has existed since 2001, was expanded from 25 percent to 40 percent of qualified expenses, with the maximum credit raised from $150,000 to $500,000. Small businesses get 50 percent up to $600,000. The pre-tax childcare savings cap rose from $5,000 to $7,500. The expansion explicitly added contracted intermediaries to the list of qualifying recipients. Big chains with corporate-client portfolios, the same chains owned by private equity, are sitting on the largest single demand pipeline they have ever had. The federal money flows to corporations, which route it to providers who happen to be the chains we just walked through. The supply problem at the worker level is untouched. So is the training standard. So is the inspection cycle.

Different parties have voted on this bill. The same bill keeps not passing. The mechanism does not have a party.

Standards first

If Medicare and Medicaid fraud bother you, and they should, you have not been paying attention. Childcare is the same setup with less oversight. The money keeps flowing. The standards never showed up. We are subsidizing an industry where the buyer has no choice, the workers have no leverage, the inspectors visit once every three years, and the owners are taking cash out through rent paid to their own affiliates. Add federal subsidies on top without changing any of the upstream conditions and the only thing that grows is the funnel.

So you want to save money. You are going to do it with the people who take care of your kid.

Yes, there is fraud in these programs. The dollar value of recipient-level fraud is dwarfed by provider-level fraud, contractor capture, and intermediary skim. But the framing matters now.

When a person on assistance games a benefit, the response is “scrap the program, people are lazy, fix it by removing it.” When the same federal government pays $34.8 billion a year in direct subsidies to a fossil fuel industry that already books record profits, the response is “energy security, market dynamics, complicated.” The same Big Beautiful Bill that expanded the Section 45F childcare credit also added $40 billion in new fossil fuel subsidies over the next decade. Paid for, partly, by the families who can’t afford daycare. The framing tells you who the rules are written for.

The honest answer isn’t to scrap the program over fraud. It’s to design it so the fraud is auditable, and audit it. We don’t scrap the Pentagon for failing audits, oil subsidies for going to profitable companies, or the mortgage interest deduction for benefiting buyers who didn’t need it. We keep those programs and accept the leakage because the beneficiaries have political weight. Childcare doesn’t, yet, and welfare recipients never will.

We under-train police, teachers, and the people we hand babies to. Then we say these are the three things we value most. The first question is not how much money. It is what kind of room. Standards on training, on inspection, on who is allowed to own a chain subsidized with public money. Build the plan. Then spend the money.

A one-page document with the chemistry, the alternatives, and a basic disinfection protocol fits on one side of one sheet of paper. What the training policy reads and what the room looks like on the floor are always two different things. The document probably exists. Page 47 of an employee handbook. A PDF on a training portal she clicked through in week one. Wherever it lives, it is not above the sink. Somebody’s job is owning that document. Nobody’s job is putting it in her hand.

Before we throw federal money into a room nobody has inspected, ask the questions any first-time parent already knows to ask. What does the room look like. Who trained the worker. Who is the landlord. Who is taking the cash out. The answer is Gordon Gekko, Henry Kravis, Stephen Schwarzman, Carl Icahn, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump, and the guy who ran WeWork. If all of them had a kid together, that kid would look like Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg. Feel better about her future?

The worker I know did not know that mixing bleach with Fabuloso was dangerous. The next day, she did. So did her coworkers. So did the workers at two other centers. One person walked back to the floor. Nobody else had. The cleaning bottles came out from under the sink at three centers in one day. The system that is supposed to know this stuff did not know it. The system that is supposed to fund and enforce it did not fund or enforce it. A one-page document was sitting between safe and unsafe. Nobody had put it in her hand.

Well, fuck that plan.

Share

Subscribe now

Then you learn what you bought.

The house is yours. The ground is a subscription.

Lot rent runs $300 to $800 a month depending on the state. The home depreciates from the day you finish unpacking. The lot rent does not. The house ages like a car. The ground bills like a landlord with a spreadsheet.

This is the structural deal that does not show up in the brochure. You bought a depreciating asset, and somebody else owns the dirt it is sitting on.

The marketing word is “mobile,” but the actual move costs $3,000 to $20,000 depending on distance and unit age. About three-quarters of older units cannot be relocated without structural damage, and most receiving parks will not accept used homes anyway. So the lot rent goes up and you stay.

It is mobile the way a grand piano is mobile. Sure. Technically. Bring money, equipment, paperwork, luck, and a priest.

Roughly 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes, and about one-third rent the lot beneath them.

That makes manufactured housing the largest unsubsidized affordable housing pool in the country. Which is exactly why the spreadsheet showed up.

Three publicly-traded REITs dominate the institutional segment: Equity LifeStyle Properties, Sun Communities, and RHP Properties. Between them they control hundreds of thousands of lots. Private equity firms hold another 1,800-plus parks with more than 370,000 lots, per the Private Equity Stakeholder Project’s tracker. Realtor.com ran a piece this week documenting what residents have been reporting for a decade: after a private equity acquisition, lot rents jump. Sometimes 20 percent in a single notice cycle. Sometimes more.

Property taxes did not go up 20 percent. Insurance did not go up 20 percent. The new owner did.

Run the comparison. Site-built homes appreciate at a median rate around 3.8 percent annually. Manufactured homes on rented lots appreciate far more slowly, and once rising lot rent is factored in, residents often lose ground. After five years in a corporate-owned park, the resident has accumulated little or no equity and watched the housing cost climb.

Wall Street did not discover affordable housing. It discovered a customer base that has to ask permission to leave. The math is clean for the owner. Buy the park. Raise the rent. Residents pay or pay more to leave.

The supply-side answer is: build more housing. That has real merit for site-built rental markets, but it does little for the resident already trapped in a park. More supply helps when people can choose. It does not help when the thing they own costs thousands to move, may crack in transit, and may have nowhere to land. The constraint is not just the number of lots. The constraint is the exit.

The tenant-protection answer is: stabilize rents. That also has merit, but in many states, manufactured housing communities fall outside the protections written for conventional apartments. Florida and Texas preempt local rent stabilization for mobile home parks. California and Oregon have manufactured housing rent rules that apply unevenly. New York’s tenant protections were not built around this asset class.

Oregon’s caps on annual lot rent increases have slowed the worst spikes in covered communities. New Hampshire’s right-of-first-refusal statute has helped residents buy parks when owners want out. The patchwork isn’t useless. It’s just not built for this asset class as a system. State by state, the rules cover what their legislators were thinking about when they wrote them, which is mostly apartments.

In red states, operators often get room to run. In blue states, tenant protections often stop at the apartment door. Different speeches. Same rent notice.

Defuse the trap. Residents buy the park together. The lot rent stops being a rent bill set by a company in another state and becomes a budget line controlled by the people living there. Groups like ROC USA facilitate the conversions, and about 300 parks have converted to resident ownership. There are roughly 43,000 parks in the country. The exit exists. It just comes in pamphlet form while the rent notice comes in the mail.

Saturday’s sidebar tracked the word “facility fee” across hospitals, hotels, gyms, and concert tickets. Same word, every industry. You came for one thing. The fee was attached to the thing beside it.

Facility fee was the polite version. Lot rent is the geological version. Same trick, deeper floor.

You bought a home. The fee is on the ground beneath it. The fee compounds. The exit is theoretical. The contract was signed before you knew you were trapped, because the trap is the product.

Ask who owns the ground before you sign the lot lease. If the answer is a holding company you cannot call, you are not buying stability. You are buying walls on someone else’s leverage.

Share

Subscribe now

The bill says hospital. And under it, a line that was not there last time. A facility fee.

Nobody warned you. No sign on the door, no heads-up at the desk, nothing from the doctor. You found out the way almost everyone finds out, weeks later, in an envelope, after the math was already done without you.

Your doctor’s practice got bought by a hospital system. The building, the staff, the equipment, the doctor, all of it stayed. What changed was a billing classification. Your doctor now works in what gets called a hospital outpatient department, and that category bills for the room on top of the visit. The room you were already sitting in. The room that did not change.

This has been running for over a decade, and it is most of the map now. As of January 2026, hospitals and other corporate owners hold 63.9 percent of physician practices in the country, leaving barely a third still owned by the doctors who work in them. (Physicians Advocacy Institute and Avalere Health, 2026) Every acquisition is a business deal. It is also a billing event, and the patients never sign off on it.

The fee is legal, and it was disclosed, technically, in the packet you signed when the new owners took over, somewhere between the insurance-card copy and the emergency contact. You did not read it. Almost nobody does. The disclosure is there to satisfy the rule, nothing more.

The money is not small. The Health Care Cost Institute ran the commercial claims and found the same primary care visit costs about 87 percent more once it bills as a hospital outpatient department, $217 against $116, and the gap is almost all facility fee. (Health Care Cost Institute, 2022 commercial claims) Same doctor, same forty minutes, same prescription at the end. The only thing that moved was the code.

It does not hit every visit, only the ones where your office quietly turned into a hospital outpatient department, and you find out which ones after the fact.

Whether your insurance even covers the fee is its own coin flip. Some plans treat it like any visit. Some drop it on a separate deductible. The only way to know before you walk in is to call the plan, read them the billing codes, and ask.

The acquisitions did not happen to improve your care. They happened because hospital billing pays more than office billing for the identical service. The facility fee is the reason the deal pencils out.

Even Mark Cuban, whose whole healthcare pitch is showing people what care actually costs, has called facility fees one of the games, the charge that shows up for the room when nothing about the room changed.

There is a fix, and it is not a mystery. Site-neutral payment, the same price for the same service no matter what the building is called. Medicare adopted a version, then exempted most existing hospital outpatient departments so it barely bit. Twenty states have passed their own facility-fee laws. Federal bills keep getting introduced and keep not passing, with the hospital lobby fighting every round. The fix is sitting right there. The people collecting the fee are the ones standing on it.

If you got a bill lately with a charge you did not recognize, and it said hospital when you never went to one, that is the machine. The episode runs it all the way down: where the fee comes from, who collects it, and what the gap between the promise and the receipt looks like in full.

This is the symptom. The episode is the diagnosis.

Watch the episode:

THE RANTER follows the money through the systems that bill you: healthcare, housing, food, labor, debt. Mechanism over motive.

Website: theranter.com | Newsletter: newsletter.theranter.com

YouTube: @TheRanterOfficial | Instagram: @theranterofficial | TikTok: @theranterofficial | X: @RanterMarkus | Bluesky: @rantermarkus.bsky.social

Every figure above is sourced and linked. Think one is wrong? corrections@theranter.com

Share

Subscribe now

They didn’t lobby against the program. They lobbied while the program was being built.

That distinction matters. When a company lobbies to kill a bill, you can track which senators they called and how much they spent. When a company lobbies while an executive program is being designed, you are watching a different move. You are not fighting the regulation. You are writing it.

TrumpRx launched as a way for patients to access lower prescription prices directly through participating manufacturers. The president announced it. The companies stood behind it. The framing was clean: the administration delivered, the industry cooperated, patients would save.

Here is the part that didn’t make the announcement. The administration used tariff threats on imported patented drugs as leverage to bring companies to the table. An April presidential proclamation imposed a 100% tariff on imported patented drugs from countries without a qualifying security agreement. TrumpRx participants got the carve-out: a 0% tariff rate through January 20, 2029. So the companies participated.

The discounts are real. GLP-1s that listed above a thousand dollars are available through the program at $150 to $350. Many of those prices were already available through the companies’ own direct-to-consumer cash-pay programs before the announcement. What changed was the press conference. What the companies got in return was a tariff exemption worth billions and a presidential endorsement.

And while they were at the table deciding whether to participate, they spent $134 million on federal lobbying in 2025, up from $109 million in 2024. That is the 23%.

Think about what that means. These companies were being pressured into a program by one arm of the administration. They were lobbying the same administration with the other. The pressure and the access ran simultaneously. What came out the other end -- which drugs got included, at what discount, under what terms -- reflects both forces. The patient gets the coupon. The negotiation happened in a room they weren’t in.

Here is what the lobbying was for. The 17 companies in the OpenSecrets analysis were working the same policy levers TrumpRx sits on: drug pricing, Medicare Part B and D reimbursement, PBM reform bills, tariff carve-outs, obesity drug coverage. They were not lobbying abstractly. They were lobbying the specific terrain this program was being built on.

More than 60% of the 526 lobbyists hired by the participating companies previously worked in government -- against a 51% industry average. That 51% is not a reassuring number. It is the floor.

This pattern predates the current administration by a long way. The Non-Interference Clause, the provision that bars Medicare from directly negotiating drug prices, was a Republican project signed in 2003. Democrats campaigned against it for years while accepting pharma contributions every cycle. The Inflation Reduction Act, passed in 2022, added limited negotiation authority on a small set of drugs. The industry lobbied hard against it. After it passed, the lobbying shifted downstream to shaping the implementation rules. The pharma and health products sector spent $457 million on federal lobbying in 2025 alone.

The lobbying doesn’t stop when the vote happens. It moves to wherever the next decision point is.

TrumpRx is a new decision point. It is an executive program, not legislation. The design happens in conversations, not committee hearings. Those conversations are not subject to the same disclosure rules as a legislative markup. The companies being pressured into the program were also lobbying the program’s design. Whether that shaped which drugs got included, how deep the discounts run, or which cost structures stayed off the table is not in the announcement.

The patient sees the headline. The deal was made before it.

The Ranter is an animated investigative show mapping how extraction systems are designed. New episodes drop Saturday on YouTube.

* All lobbying data in this piece: OpenSecrets, May 6, 2026. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2026/05/drug-companies-involved-in-trumprx-boosted-lobbying-by-23-ahead-of-programs-launch/

Share

Subscribe now