Here's what happens in 2026 to a self-insured middle-class couple's health premiums in Spokane County after the ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire:
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Washington
Maria Cantwell
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 783
Yes29%
No71%
Present0%
Not Voting0%
Party align97%
Cross-party2%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Maria Cantwell
U.S. SenatorDemocratWashington
SoupScore
Maria's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 23 sponsored · 153 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
When the ACA enhanced premium tax credits expire later this year, thousands of Washington families will see their health insurance costs skyrocket.
A thread on premium increases: here's what happens to a self-insured middle-class couple's health premiums in King County.
“The SCORE Act provides minimal, if any, enforcement,” says @blumenthal.senate.gov. “The SAFE Act, very prominently, provides for FTC and state Attorney General enforcement, which means that the athletes themselves don't have to go to court.”
New data confirms what American families already know: Trump’s tariffs are contributing to record high prices for everyday essentials.
President Trump should stop starting trade wars that hurt American consumers.
www.wsj.com/economy/cons...
Premiums cited are for the least expensive plan available on WA Healthplanfinder in 2025 that is still available in 2026, for a married couple (M 60, F 55) with a household income of $120,000/year.
Here's what happens to a self-insured middle-class couple's health premiums in every county in Washington state if the ACA enhanced premium tax credits aren't extended.
The SCORE Act is not the solution for the athlete. We want a healthy ecosystem, and that means putting athletes at the table and listening to what they have to say.
We hear a lot of speeches but do not see any real attempt to negotiate solutions. It is time for Congress make addressing the affordability problem its number one priority. (3/3)
In the last year, electricity is up 5.1 percent, the cost of meat, fish, poultry and eggs is up 5.2 percent, and housing is up 3.6 percent. Now, families are confronting unaffordable health insurance premiums because the Republican Congress refuses to do anything to help. (2/3)
Contrary to the Administration’s talking points, the data shows that American consumers still are not seeing their costs of living come down. (1/3)
abcnews.go.com/Business/inf...
The SCORE Act “is not reform, it’s regression,” says Meghann Burke, Exec. Director of @nwslplayers.bsky.social. “We need athletes, men and women alike… to have a real seat at the table in shaping the future of college sports."
I joined @merkley.senate.gov during his marathon floor speech to talk about how tariffs have put soybean growers on their heels.
Instead of dealing with the fact that their own constituents are getting run over, our colleagues are ignoring that the President is abusing these powers.
The President is abusing his power on tariffs. It's such an important constitutional authority given to Congress. The President should not have authority to usher in economic impact in this dramatic way.
Reposted bySen. Maria Cantwell
At today’s roundtable, Sens. Cantwell, Blumenthal, and Booker underscored the need for real reform in college sports, and urged the House to reject the SCORE Act’s rush to enrich a few at the expense of athletes. #CollegeAthletics
youtu.be/bJRLg_xAZVE
The SCORE Act is not what we think it is. It's not the solution for the athlete. There's a lot of people scoring. Two big divisions and their commissioners, they're scoring. The NCAA, they're scoring. Apparently private equity is scoring. But who's not scoring is the athletes.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History783 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
783 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-05 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-50) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (5-94) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-51) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (46-53) |
| 2025-04-04 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H. Con. Res. 14 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 26 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 26 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-83) |
| 2025-04-03 | S.J. Res. 33 (119th) | Motion to Discharge S.J.Res. 33 | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Discharge Rejected (15-82) |
| 2025-04-03 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (50-45) |
| 2025-04-03 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (53-42) |
| 2025-04-02 | H.J. Res. 24 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-04-02 | S.J. Res. 37 (119th) | Approve resolution | YES | YES | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (51-48) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-04-02 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-04-01 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-45) |
| 2025-03-31 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (49-42) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-03-27 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-03-27 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (52-48) |
| 2025-03-26 | S.J. Res. 18 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Approve resolution | NO | NO | ✓ | Joint Resolution Passed (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | H.J. Res. 25 (119th) | Begin consideration | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (70-28) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-43) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-03-26 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-45) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (56-44) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (53-47) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Nomination Confirmed (74-25) |
| 2025-03-25 | — | End debate | YES | NO | ✕↔ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (73-25) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (60-31) |
| 2025-03-24 | — | Confirm nominee | NO | NO | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (62-30) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (63-32) |
| 2025-03-14 | — | End debate | NO | NO | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (64-33) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.