Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition.
Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House has passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people.
'What sense does that make?' she asked. 'What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?'
The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4.
The bill as it stands would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net.
For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails — or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul.
Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them.
Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry — based largely on their past experience — that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates.
Benefits can be difficult to navigate even without a work requirement
Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said.
'It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid,' said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. 'If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping.'
Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage.
The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify.
A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere.
Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help.
It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully.
'Should I expect the government to take care of him?' he asked. 'I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity.'
There's broad reliance on Medicaid for health coverage
About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage.
A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats.
The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care.
Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment.
Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility.
'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said.
One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage.
She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able — but worries about how that would be sorted out. 'It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it,' she said.
Some people don't if they might lose coverage with a work requirement
Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with 'serious or complex' medical conditions could be granted exceptions.
She now works about 15 hours a week in 'gig' jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer.
Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability.
'I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not have health insurance,' she said.
Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago.
The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one.
Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days.
'There's no way I could have afforded that,' he said. 'I would have lost my foot and probably died.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate parliamentarian rejects GOP's attempt to limit courts' contempt powers
The Senate parliamentarian has ruled against a controversial provision in the Senate Republicans' megabill that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration. The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled that limiting courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt violated the Senate's rules governing what can be passed with a simple-majority vote on the budget reconciliation fast track. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) hailed the parliamentarian's decision as a major victory. 'Senate Republicans tried to write Donald Trump's contempt for the courts into law — gutting judicial enforcement, defying the Constitution and bulldozing the very rule of law that forms our democracy,' Schumer said in a statement responding to the development. 'But Senate Democrats stopped them cold. We successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' he said. The provision, tucked into the thousand-page bill House Republicans passed in May, would have required anyone suing the federal government to pay a bond before a court would be allowed to use its contempt power to enforce injunctions and other rulings. Courts have already ruled more than 190 times against the Trump administration since January. The controversial language received little notice when it came to the floor, and Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) later caused an uproar at a town hall meeting when he admitted he didn't know the provision was in the legislation when he voted for it. 'If enacted, this would have been one of the most brazen power grabs we've seen in American history — an attempt to let a future President Trump ignore court orders with impunity, putting him above the law,' Schumer said Sunday afternoon. 'Donald Trump is not above the law. And thanks to Senate Democrats — including the tireless work of Senator Durbin and the Judiciary Democrats — the courts can still hold him and any president accountable,' Schumer said, referring to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson , Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission , according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.' __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Chicago Tribune
4 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission, according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.'
