The Uniparty’s Favorite Game: Pretending to Care About Your Costs While Doing Nothing
Our American Society needs Dave Chapelle to channel his inner George Carlin
Last week while I was working out at OneLife, I was thinking... I tend to do this while exercising and listening to loud music. I keep hearing people say they’re making more money than ever but somehow going backwards financially. Between healthcare costs, education costs, energy bills, the rent (or the mortgage), and food, the math just doesn’t work anymore. And the government’s response? “Don’t worry, we’re working on it.” No. They’re not.
And here’s the thing that most people haven’t figured out yet: they have no intention of working on it. Not the Republicans. Not the Democrats. The supposed opposition between these two parties is professional wrestling for policy nerds—they yell at each other during the show, but they’re all going to the same bar afterward and laughing about it.
Welcome to the Uniparty, where the only bipartisan agreement that matters is this: keep the costs high, keep the system complicated, and keep the people dependent. Because that’s how you maintain power.
I’ve been managing Type 1 diabetes for almost 38 years. I’ve watched my insulin costs go from manageable to absurd. I’ve seen “healthcare reform” after “healthcare reform” after “healthcare reform,” from both parties, and you know what’s happened? My costs have gone up. Every. Single. Time. And that’s not a coincidence. That’s a feature, not a bug.
Today, I want to talk about why your healthcare is expensive, why your energy bills are climbing, why college costs more than a house used to, why housing has become unaffordable for working families, and why you’re paying $6 for a dozen eggs that used to cost $2. More importantly, I want to explain why neither party, despite their performative outrage, has any real interest in fixing any of it.
THE UNIPARTY ISN’T A CONSPIRACY THEORY
Let me be clear about something upfront: when I say “Uniparty,” I’m not talking about some secret cabal meeting in smoke-filled rooms. I’m talking about something much simpler and more insidious—a shared set of incentives that makes both Republicans and Democrats benefit from the exact same broken systems they claim to oppose.
Think about it this way: if you’re a carpenter, you make money when things need to be built or fixed. You don’t make money when everything’s working perfectly. Now apply that to politicians. They make careers out of “fighting” for solutions to problems. What happens when the problem actually gets solved? They lose their best talking point.
Republicans campaign on “repealing and replacing” Obamacare. Democrats campaign on “expanding access” to healthcare. Neither party campaigns on actually reducing the cost of a doctor’s visit or an MRI or insulin because—and this is the quiet part they don’t say out loud—they don’t want to disrupt the profitable ecosystem that’s grown up around high costs.
The same people who lecture us about rising costs turn around and accept campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospital associations, and medical device manufacturers. Both parties. Every election cycle. You think those companies are donating money because they want their prices to go down?
For whatever reason, we keep pretending that the D or R after someone’s name means they’re actually different. But look at what they do, not what they say. When it comes to the systems that extract money from your wallet—healthcare, energy, education, housing, food—both parties protect the extractors.
HEALTHCARE
Let me get personal for a minute because this is where my education in the Uniparty’s indifference started.
I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when I was a kid. For those who don’t know, Type 1 isn’t the “you ate too much sugar” diabetes (that’s Type 2). Type 1 is an autoimmune condition where your body kills off the cells that make insulin. Without insulin, I die. It’s that simple. So for almost 38 years, I’ve been dependent on a medication to stay alive.
When I started managing my own care in my late teens and early twenties, a vial of insulin cost about $25. Not cheap, but manageable. I was working construction, didn’t have great insurance, but I could afford to stay alive. Today, that same vial—the exact same insulin that’s been around since the 1990s, costs over $300 without insurance. Sometimes more.
But Dan, didn’t the government pass laws to cap insulin costs?
Yes. Some states did. Congress talked about it. They held hearings. Insulin manufacturers were dragged in front of committees and scolded. And you know what happened? Almost nothing meaningful. The “solutions” they passed were carefully crafted to look like they were doing something while protecting the profit margins of the manufacturers and the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) who sit in the middle and skim their cut. But even with all the discussions, caping the cost of Insulin is a terrible idea that will eventually harm diabetics, not help.
The Affordable Care Act, passed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, was supposed to lower healthcare costs. It didn’t. It mandated that everyone buy insurance, which guaranteed profits for insurance companies. Premiums went up. Deductibles went up. Out-of-pocket costs went up. The only thing that expanded was the bureaucracy.
Republicans promised to “repeal and replace” it. They controlled the White House, Senate, and House. And they... did nothing. Oh, they put on a show. John McCain gave a dramatic thumbs-down. Everyone pretended it was about principles. But the truth is simpler: both parties benefit from a complicated, expensive healthcare system because it creates dependency and opportunities for their donors to profit.
Meanwhile, I’m still here managing my diabetes, watching my costs climb, and listening to politicians from both parties explain why this year’s reform is definitely going to work. Spoiler: it won’t.
ENERGY
Let’s talk energy. Here in Cherokee County, we’ve seen our electric bills climb significantly over the past few years. Some of that is market forces—fuel costs, infrastructure upgrades, whatever. But a whole lot of it is policy-driven insanity that both parties participate in.
If you have not seen the show Landman (Paramount+) or seen this viral clip, you should take 5 minutes and watch this prior to proceeding. And make sure you watch it till the end, the rattlesnake scene illustrates why/how some people lose their common sense when emotions take over.
Democrats push for renewable energy mandates and subsidies. They claim this will lower costs long-term. It hasn’t. Instead, we get billions in subsidies going to politically connected companies while our actual power bills go up because the grid has to maintain both the new expensive renewable capacity and the old reliable fossil fuel capacity because wind doesn’t always blow and sun doesn’t always shine.
Republicans campaign against these mandates, but when they’re in power, they don’t actually eliminate them. Why? Because their donors include both the traditional energy companies (who benefit from the guaranteed backup market) and the renewable companies (who’ve figured out that Republicans like money too). So instead of killing the subsidies, they just redirect some of them.
The result: you pay more. The energy companies make more. The politicians on both sides get campaign contributions. And the two parties pretend to fight about “climate change” versus “energy independence” while neither actually reduces your costs.
Natural gas is another perfect example. We have massive natural gas reserves in this country. We could have cheap, reliable energy. But instead, we have a regulatory maze that makes it expensive to extract, transport, and use. Both parties contribute to this maze—Democrats through environmental regulations, Republicans through their own brand of regulatory capture that protects established interests over new competition.
The price you pay at the pump or on your electric bill isn’t primarily about supply and demand anymore. It’s about how much both parties have made it expensive to produce, transport, and deliver energy through their combined decades of “helping.”
EDUCATION
When I went to college in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, state schools were affordable. Community college was cheap. Students graduated with manageable debt or no debt at all. And with a degree that was meaningful in future income potential.
Today, the average college graduate has over $30,000 in student loan debt. Many have much, much more. College costs have increased far faster than inflation, far faster than wages, far faster than basically everything except healthcare. Why?
Because both parties decided the solution to “college costs too much” was to make it easier to borrow money to pay for college. Think about that logic. Prices are too high, so let’s give people more money to pay the high prices. What do you think colleges did? They raised prices more because they knew the money would be there.
This isn’t complicated economics. If you subsidize demand without addressing supply, prices go up. But the Uniparty has no interest in addressing supply—that would mean challenging the universities, the administrators, the athletic programs, the bloated bureaucracies that now employ more administrators than professors. Those are all important constituencies. They all donate to campaigns. They all vote.
So instead, we get this beautiful scam: Democrats want to forgive student loans (which drives tuition higher because colleges know the debt might be forgiven). Republicans want to... reform student loans? Make them private? They never quite get around to it because they benefit from the same system.
Meanwhile, an 18-year-old signs up for $100,000 in non-dischargeable debt to get a degree in sociology or communications or whatever, and both parties smile and nod and explain that this is just the cost of opportunity in America. It’s not. It’s the cost of a system neither party wants to fix because it funds their friends in higher education.
HOUSING
When my family bought our first house in Columbia, South Carolina, way back in the mid 1980s, it was affordable on a working-class income. Today, young families need two professional salaries and help from parents just for the down payment. Housing costs have exploded, and while supply and demand plays a role, government policies from both parties deserve most of the blame.
The federal government guarantees mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which removes risk from lenders and encourages them to lend more money. More money chasing the same houses means higher prices. More money at cheap rates means the houses get bigger and bigger. Then the Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates, keeping them artificially low for years, then jacking them up when inflation hits, creating boom & bust cycles that benefit investors while crushing first-time buyers. Both parties support this system because the real estate and banking industries donate to both.
Zoning laws and building codes make it incredibly expensive to build new housing. Want to build a small starter home? Minimum lot sizes or minimum square footage amounts say no. Want affordable housing near jobs? NIMBYs from both parties will block it at city council meetings. Republicans do it to “preserve neighborhood character.” Democrats do it while claiming to support affordable housing.
Immigration policy creates a broken construction labor market, expensive legal labor or exploitable illegal labor, with no rational middle ground. Licensing requirements make it hard for young people to enter the trades. Meanwhile, we pushed an entire generation toward college debt instead of toward the skilled trades we desperately need to build housing. Both parties created this mess.
The result? Here in Cherokee County, a growing number of the people who work here or elsewhere in Atlanta can’t afford to live here. Young families get pushed further out. And what do both parties offer? Democrats want rent control (which reduces supply). Republicans want tax breaks for developers (which benefit developers more than buyers). Neither addresses the regulations and policies that make housing expensive to build in the first place.
They won’t fix it because too many people benefit from expensive housing. Your city gets higher property tax revenue. Banks make more on bigger mortgages. Existing homeowners see their “investment” appreciate. The only losers are working families trying to build a life. But hey, both parties get to campaign on “addressing the housing crisis” every cycle.
FOOD
I’m going to keep this one shorter because if I get too deep into agricultural policy, we’ll be here all day, but the food situation is instructive.
Grocery prices have jumped significantly over the past few years. Some of that is COVID supply chain stuff. Some is Ukraine war stuff. But a lot of it is policy choices that both parties support:
**#1: Ethanol mandates** that require gasoline to contain corn-based ethanol. This drives up corn prices, which drives up the price of everything that uses corn (feed for animals, corn syrup, etc.). Both parties support this because Iowa votes early in primaries.
**#2: Subsidies** for certain crops but not others, which distorts what gets grown and raises prices for consumers. Both parties support various versions of this.
**#3: Regulatory overhead** that makes small farms uncompetitive and consolidates production into big agriculture corporations who then... donate to both parties.
**#4: Immigration policy** that’s simultaneously too strict (making farm labor expensive) and too loose (creating a gray market labor system that’s exploitable). Both parties benefit from this broken system—Republicans get to campaign on border security, Democrats get to campaign on immigrant rights, and neither fixes the actual policy to make legal farm labor feasible.
The result: you pay more for groceries while farmers struggle and both parties explain how the other side is ruining food in America.
WHY THEY DON’T CARE
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the Uniparty doesn’t want to fix high costs because high costs create dependency, and dependency creates voters.
If healthcare is expensive and complicated, you need politicians to “fight” for you. If energy costs are high, you need government programs to “help” pay your bills. If education requires massive debt, you need politicians to promise loan forgiveness. If housing is unaffordable, you need down payment assistance programs. If food prices are climbing, you need government assistance programs.
See the pattern? Every broken system creates a constituency that needs government help, which gives politicians a reason to exist and a platform to run on. If they actually fixed these problems—if healthcare were cheap and simple, if energy were affordable, if college were reasonably priced, if housing were attainable, if food costs were stable—what would politicians campaign on?
This is why every “solution” from both parties makes the system more complicated, not simpler. More complicated means more need for experts, more need for bureaucrats, more need for politicians to “navigate” the system for you. It’s a jobs program for the political class.
And it’s why so many career politicians end up wealthy. Nancy Pelosi’s net worth. Mitch McConnell’s net worth. Look at how much money people make after they leave Congress—board positions, consulting gigs, all with the companies they were supposedly regulating. You think that’s a coincidence?
The Uniparty isn’t stupid. They’re very smart. They’ve figured out that you can campaign on opposing the other side while actually supporting the same underlying systems that keep you both in power and wealthy. They’ve figured out that voters will forgive almost anything as long as you’re fighting the “right” enemy—even if that enemy is just your colleague putting on a show.
THE GIVE-UP FACTOR
Here’s something I’ve noticed over the past few years that’s particularly disturbing: even the people inside the government are starting to openly admit they can’t fix it.
I have a friend who worked for a federal agency (I won’t say which one because he still works there). He’s a smart guy, went in thinking he could make a difference, fix some of the problems from the inside. About five years in, he told me over a beer: “Dan, I’ve given up trying to fix anything. I just try to stop things from getting worse.”
That stuck with me. This is a guy who dedicated his career to public service, and his goal is now just... don’t make it worse. Not make it better. Not solve problems. Just maintain the dysfunction at current levels.
And he’s not alone. Talk to career bureaucrats who aren’t political appointees—the ones who stay through administrations—and you’ll find a lot of people who’ve given up on meaningful reform. They know the system is broken. They know Congress won’t fix it. They know both parties benefit from the status quo. So they just... manage the decline.
This is what happens when the incentive structure is completely backwards. The people with the power to change things don’t want to change them. The people who want to change things don’t have the power. And the people in the middle just try to survive and collect their pensions.
Unfortunately, while they’re managing the decline, you’re paying more for healthcare, energy, education, housing, and food. While they’ve given up on reform, you’re struggling to balance your budget. While they’ve accepted the dysfunction, you’re watching your quality of life decrease.
My unCommon Sense
George Carlin used to have a bit about the government not giving a damn about regular people. He’d say: “The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety. It simply doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in its own power.” That was from his 2006 special, and it’s as true today as it was then. The sooner we accept that fundamental reality, the sooner we can stop waiting for them to save us.
But here’s the thing: not everyone in Washington has given up. There are a handful of politicians who actually propose real solutions that would simplify systems and reduce costs. The problem is they’re marginalized by both parties because their ideas threaten the Uniparty’s power structure.
Senator Rand Paul has consistently pushed for healthcare freedom—letting people buy insurance across state lines, promoting Health Savings Accounts that put patients in control of their healthcare dollars, and allowing the formation of association health plans that let small businesses and individuals band together for better rates. These aren’t complicated. They’re simple market-based reforms that would increase competition and lower costs. The Uniparty hates them because they reduce dependency on government systems and insurance company middlemen.
Representative Thomas Massie has fought against the agricultural subsidies and ethanol mandates that drive up food costs. He’s also repeatedly introduced legislation to eliminate the Department of Education and send control back to states and local communities, which would force universities to compete on price and quality rather than just raising tuition because federal loan money is guaranteed. Both parties vote him down because they need those constituencies.
Senator Ron Johnson has been one of the few willing to question whether more government intervention actually solves problems or just creates more bureaucracy. When the Senate was considering bills to cap insulin prices and regulate pharmacy benefit managers, Johnson opposed adding more layers of complexity to an already broken system. His argument? That real solutions come from transparency and competition, not price controls that sound good but often backfire. He’s pushed for market-based reforms and questioned whether piling more regulations on top of existing regulations actually helps or just enriches the middlemen while costs keep rising. The Uniparty doesn’t like that kind of questioning because it exposes the fact that their “solutions” are often just theater.
These guys aren’t perfect. I don’t agree with them on everything. But they’re at least proposing solutions that would actually reduce your costs rather than just creating new government programs to “help” you afford the high costs. And they’re consistently ignored or attacked by the leadership of both parties.
So what do we do?
First, stop believing the theatrical opposition between Republicans and Democrats means anything when it comes to costs. They’re not opponents. They’re coworkers. Until voters start punishing both parties for failing to reduce costs, nothing will change. That means supporting the rare politicians like Paul, Massie, and Johnson who actually want to simplify systems. That means primary challenges. That means making it clear that the next candidate who promises to “fight” for you better show receipts.
Second, embrace personal responsibility and reduce dependency wherever possible. I know this sounds like I’m blaming individuals for systemic problems, but hear me out: the more dependent you are on government systems, the less leverage you have. The more you can do for yourself—whether that’s growing some of your own food, finding ways to reduce energy consumption, choosing a trade over college debt, exploring direct primary care or healthcare sharing ministries—the less power the Uniparty has over you.
For me, this means being obsessive about my diabetes management. I can’t change what insulin costs, but I can control how much I need by managing my blood sugar carefully. I can shop around for the best prices. I can use manufacturer coupons and programs. It’s not a systemic fix, but it’s what I can control. And controlling what you can control is always better than waiting for the government to save you.
Third, support candidates and policies that actually simplify systems, not complicate them. The right answer to “healthcare costs too much” isn’t “let’s add another layer of subsidies and regulations.” It’s “let’s remove the barriers that make it expensive in the first place.” Price transparency. Competition across state lines. Ending certificate-of-need laws that prevent new hospitals from opening. These work. They’re just not popular with the Uniparty because they reduce dependency.
Same with energy. We don’t need more subsidies for either fossil fuels or renewables. We need to eliminate subsidies for both and let the market work. We don’t need more mandates. We need fewer regulations strangling small producers.
Same with education. We don’t need more student loan programs. We need to stop guaranteeing loans for worthless degrees and force universities to bear some of the risk when their graduates can’t pay back their debt. Watch how fast tuition comes down when schools have skin in the game.
Same with housing. We don’t need down payment assistance programs or rent control. We need to eliminate the zoning restrictions, building code overreach, and regulatory maze that makes it expensive to build. Let builders build starter homes again. Let people add accessory dwelling units. Stop requiring five environmental reviews for every project.
Fourth, build local alternatives. This is where I’m actually optimistic. Here in Cherokee County, I’ve seen small businesses, local farmers markets, community initiatives that work outside the broken federal systems. The more we can build at the local level—the more we can create economies and communities that don’t depend on federal policy—the more resilient we become.
Finally, accept that this is your life to manage. The government isn’t coming to save you. Neither party is riding to your rescue. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can focus on what you actually control. Your education choices. Your career. Your health. Your expenses. Your votes. Your community.
I’ve been managing a life-threatening condition for almost 38 years in a healthcare system that doesn’t want me to succeed independently. Every incentive in that system pushes me toward dependency, toward accepting high costs, toward needing government help. I refuse. Not because I’m heroic or special, but because I understand that no one else can live my life for me. No politician, no bureaucrat, no insurance company, no doctor can take the responsibility for my health. That’s mine.
The same is true for you with your costs, your budget, your life. The Uniparty has given up on helping you because helping you doesn’t help them. They benefit from your dependency. So the only rational response is to become as independent as possible.
It’s not fair that this is the situation we’re in. It’s not fair that both parties are failing us. It’s not fair that costs keep rising while politicians pretend to care. But fairness doesn’t matter. Reality matters. And the reality is that your inalienable responsibility to live your life includes figuring out how to thrive despite a government that’s given up on actually solving problems.
They’ve given up on fixing it. Don’t give up on yourself.
If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.
Have a good one,
Dan