The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
WASHINGTON (AP) —
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has been clear about his red line as the Senate takes up the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act: no Medicaid cuts.
But what, exactly, would be a cut?
Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements.
'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol.
'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.'
Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public.
As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year.
Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most.
What's in the bill
House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid.
In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid.
Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals.
'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk.
Who would lose health coverage
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage.
Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs.
The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month.
The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria.
The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether.
Why Republicans want Medicaid changes
Republicans have cited what they call the out-of-control spending in federal programs to explain their rationale for the changes proposed in the legislation.
'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment.
Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate.
The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration.
What polling shows
While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans.
Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right.
Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community.
For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits.
He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals.
'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senators Markey and Warren decry Trump's Iran strikes as unconstitutional
'Only Congress can declare war — and the Senate must vote immediately to prevent another endless war,' Warren said. Fellow Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey agreed, calling the strike 'illegal' for having lacked congressional approval. He said in a statement that Saturday's attack may set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, but added that not only can the country 'rebuild its program,' it 'will now be highly motivated to do so.' 'A diplomatic solution remains the best way to permanently and verifiably prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,' Markey said. Chants of 'No More War' broke out at a Bernie Sanders rally in Tulsa, Okla., after the Vermont Senator read Trump's 'alarming' social media post announcing the strikes. 'The American people do not want more war, more death,' he said. Advertisement Massachusetts Peace Action, a Cambridge-based advocacy group, called for state leaders to speak out. The organization specifically called on Congressional leaders to pass the war power resolutions filed by Senator Tim Kaine and Representative Thomas Massie to prevent further US military action. 'We call on Massachusetts political leaders to speak out strongly against President Trump's lawless military adventure,' the organization wrote on Saturday night, shortly after the US attack on Iran. Brian Garvey, the organization's executive director, said an 'emergency event' was being planned outside Park Street Station at 1 p.m. Sunday, in protest of the strikes. Advertisement 'This direct attack by the United States on Iran a dramatic escalation by President Trump,' Garvey said in a phone call Saturday night. 'It's incredibly dangerous, it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's illegal.' Garvey said the founding fathers were explicit in giving Congress the power to declare war, adding that this is 'not how the government is supposed to work.' 'It is perhaps especially terrible because this is a president who ran saying he was going to seek peace,' he said. 'Back in 2016, he said the Iraq War was a big fat mistake. I fear that what he is leading us into could be even worse than that debacle and quagmire.' Garvey said he was 'fearful' for the US service members stationed in the Middle East, and 'outraged' that the strikes threatened their safety. Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Threatens Iran With 'Many' More Bombings After U.S. Attack
WASHINGTON, June 21 (Reuters) - U.S. forces struck three Iranian nuclear sites in a 'very successful attack,' President Donald Trump said on Saturday, adding that Tehran's nuclear program had been obliterated. After days of deliberation and long before his self-imposed two-week deadline, Trump's decision to join Israel's military campaign against its major rival Iran represents a major escalation of the conflict. 'The strikes were a spectacular military success,' Trump said in a televised Oval Office address. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' In a speech that lasted just over three minutes, Trump said Iran's future held 'either peace or tragedy,' and that there were many other targets that could be hit by the U.S. military. 'If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.' The U.S. reached out to Iran diplomatically on Saturday to say the strikes are all the U.S. plans and it does not aim for regime change, CBS News reported. Trump said U.S. forces struck Iran's three principal nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. He told Fox News six bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordow, while 30 Tomahawk missiles were fired against other nuclear sites. U.S. B-2 bombers were involved in the strikes, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. 'A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow,' Trump posted. 'Fordow is gone.' 'IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR,' he added. Reuters had reported earlier on Saturday the movement of the B-2 bombers, which can be equipped to carry massive bombs that experts say would be needed to strike Fordow, which is buried under a mountain south of Tehran. An Iranian official, cited by Tasnim news agency, confirmed that part of the Fordow site was attacked by 'enemy airstrikes.' Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump on his 'bold decision' which he said will change history. 'History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons,' Netanyahu said. The strikes came as Israel and Iran have been engaged in more than a week of aerial combat that has resulted in deaths and injuries in both countries. Israel launched the attacks on Iran saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Diplomatic efforts by Western nations to stop the hostilities have been unsuccessful. In recent days, Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have argued that Trump must receive permission from the U.S. Congress before committing the U.S. military to any combat against Iran. Republican Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi applauded the operation but cautioned that the U.S. now faced 'very serious choices ahead.' Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jim Risch, a Republican, said that despite the heavy U.S. bombings over Iran, 'This war is Israel's war, not our war.' He added, 'There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran.' One Republican lawmaker, Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, simply said, 'This is not constitutional.' Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia said the U.S. public 'is overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S. waging war on Iran' and accused Trump of displaying 'horrible judgment.' Israel launched attacks on June 13, saying Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons, which it neither confirms nor denies. At least 430 people have been killed and 3,500 injured in Iran since Israel began its attacks, Iranian state-run Nour News said, citing the health ministry. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed by Iranian missile attacks, according to local authorities, in the worst conflict between the longtime enemies. More than 450 Iranian missiles have been fired towards Israel, according to the Israeli prime minister's office. Israeli officials said 1,272 people have been injured since the beginning of the hostilities, with 14 in serious condition.
