Republican Sen. Joni Ernst defends proposed Medicaid cuts: 'We all are going to die'
Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, was repeatedly pressed on cuts to Medicaid in the House's budget bill at a town hall in her home state on Friday, and pushed back on an attendee who said the cuts would lead to deaths.
"People are not — well, we all are going to die, so, for heaven's sakes," she said, prompting resounding jeers.
The exchange began with an attendee complaining to Ernst that the bill would give significant tax breaks to the ultrawealthy while kicking some people off Medicaid and food assistance programs.
Ernst said the only people who face getting booted are those who should not be on Medicaid in the first place.
'They're not currently eligible by the original definition of Medicaid, and they will be moved off of those Medicaid rolls, again still allowing those that are truly eligible for Medicaid to remain on those rolls," the senator said.
She later claimed that 1.4 million undocumented immigrants are receiving Medicaid benefits. That figure, which the White House and other top Republicans have also cited, is based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis that said that one provision of the bill would cause 1.4 million people to lose coverage (including but not limited to those without verified immigration status).
"They are not eligible, so they will be coming off," Ernst said, which is when she was interrupted by the attendee who yelled, "People are going to die!"
After Ernst gave her fatalistic response, she complained to the attendee, "What you don't want to do is listen to me when I say that we are going to focus on those that are most vulnerable."
Democrats pounced on Ernst's "going to die" line, with Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin saying she "said the quiet part out loud."
Martin said the remark shows Republicans don't care about "whether their own constituents live or die as long as the richest few get richer, and that's precisely why they're ramming through a budget bill that would rip away health care and food from millions of Americans, including kids and seniors."
An Ernst spokesperson said, 'While Democrats fearmonger against strengthening the integrity of Medicaid, Senator Ernst is focused on improving the lives of all Iowans. There's only two certainties in life: death and taxes, and she's working to ease the burden of both by fighting to keep more of Iowans' hard-earned tax dollars in their own pockets and ensuring their benefits are protected from waste, fraud, and abuse.'
Ernst also got into testy exchanges about DOGE cuts and her support for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth at the Butler County town hall, but was asked repeatedly about the proposed Medicaid changes.
"Everyone says that Medicaid is being cut. People are going to see their benefits cut. That's not true," she said earlier in the town hall, to shouts from the crowd.
Ernst predicted the changes would strengthen Medicaid in the long run.
"What we do need to do is make sure that those that are part of a vulnerable population have access to Medicaid and receive those full benefits. So, what we're trying to do is strengthen Medicaid by directing the dollars to the people that actually meet the requirements of the program," she said. "We will do much better."
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
A middle-class income ranges all the way from two-thirds to twice the median income, which means that homes are affordable for some middle-class Americans but not others. A recent Zoocasa report analyzed housing affordability in 100 major cities and found that lower-middle-class earners cannot afford a median-priced home in any of the cities, while upper-middle-class buyers can afford a median-priced home in 85 cities. That means that in 15 major cities, even upper-middle-class Americans can't afford to buy a median-priced home. Find Out: Read Next: Here's a look at the cities where upper-middle-class Americans may be priced out of the housing market. Median home price: $2,020,000 Highest middle-class income: $272,458 Max affordable home price: $1,223,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$796,044 Explore More: Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $169,744 Max affordable home price: $762,536 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$687,464 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $171,828 Max affordable home price: $771,898 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$678,102 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $193,656 Max affordable home price: $869,956 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$450,044 Median home price: $1,165,100 Highest middle-class income: $169,814 Max affordable home price: $762,851 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$402,249 Median home price: $1,450,000 Highest middle-class income: $255,978 Max affordable home price: $1,149,923 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$300,077 Median home price: $1,178,000 Highest middle-class income: $212,116 Max affordable home price: $952,883 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$225,117 Median home price: $1,320,000 Highest middle-class income: $253,460 Max affordable home price: $1,138,612 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$181,388 Median home price: $660,000 Highest middle-class income: $107,636 Max affordable home price: $483,530 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$176,470 Median home price: $862,600 Highest middle-class income: $159,402 Max affordable home price: $716,077 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$146,523 Median home price: $826,600 Highest middle-class income: $163,212 Max affordable home price: $733,193 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$93,407 Median home price: $1,036,500 Highest middle-class income: $211,560 Max affordable home price: $950,385 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$86,115 Median home price: $725,300 Highest middle-class income: $153,154 Max affordable home price: $688,010 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$37,290 Median home price: $643,900 Highest middle-class income: $137,270 Max affordable home price: $616,654 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$27,246 Median home price: $974,907 Highest middle-class income: $213,246 Max affordable home price: $957,959 Difference between max affordability and median home price: -$16,948 More From GOBankingRates 25 Places To Buy a Home If You Want It To Gain Value This article originally appeared on 15 Cities Where Even the Upper-Middle Class Can't Afford a Typical Home
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 key findings on Democrats' brand problem from the new CNN poll
There's new evidence that the Democratic Party's reputation is in a bad place. That doesn't mean the party is doomed, electorally speaking. There's plenty of reason to doubt that, given lots of history and its performance in the 2025 elections thus far — but it is a complicating factor for the party's path forward. And a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS provides insights into the party's problems. It's worth a breakdown. The poll, which was released Sunday, asked a battery of questions about how people view both parties. Perhaps most striking was that people were more likely to view the Republicans than Democrats as the party with strong leaders (40% to 16%) and even the 'party of change' (32% to 25%). Neither party won close to a majority in either category. But the former is notable because there is such a gulf between the two parties. And the latter is notable because the party that's out of power is usually viewed as the party of change. Not this time. So what can we read into these findings? The 'strong leaders' question might be the most troublesome finding for Democrats. Only about 1 in 6 Americans said Democrats have stronger leaders than Republicans. As remarkably, only 39% of Democrats said that. We've seen hints of this in previous polls. A March CNN poll found about 3 in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters couldn't name a single leader who best reflected the party's core values. An AP-NORC poll last month showed just 35% of Democrats said they were at least 'somewhat' optimistic about the future of their party, compared with 55% of Republicans for their party. This might not seem too surprising. We just said goodbye to a Democratic president (Joe Biden) who was a diminished figure even when he was still in office. And the Democratic nominee who replaced him (Kamala Harris) wasn't exactly viewed as the future of the party when she took over the ticket in the 2024 race — and then lost. But there was a time when Democrats were at a somewhat similar crossroads, and the numbers weren't as dismal. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll asked the same question in 2006 — after John Kerry's unsuccessful emergence as Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate — and found a smaller 14-point advantage for Republicans. Back then, 63% of Democrats said their party had stronger leaders than Republicans — 24 points higher than today. One reason for the difference is that the 2025 and 2006 polls asked the question in a slightly different way, partly because one was conducted entirely by phone and the other mostly online. Today's poll gave people an explicit 'neither' option, which the 2006 poll didn't (though some people volunteered that option back then). Nearly half of Democrats in the new poll (48%) chose that option. That's still a remarkable finding. Combined with the 13% of Democrats who said Republicans have the stronger leaders, that's 6 in 10 Democrats this year who don't think their side has stronger leaders than a party led by a president whom a huge majority of them revile. The other notable finding is on which party is the 'party of change.' Americans chose Republicans, 32% to 25%. That's not a big gap, but it is counterintuitive given Republicans swept the House, Senate and White House last fall. Historically speaking, it's almost always the party that's out of power that's viewed as the party of change. Before the 2006 election, the same CNN-ORC poll mentioned above showed Democrats had a huge, 56% to 29% lead on this measure. Then, as now, Democrats didn't hold the presidency or either chamber of Congress. But the numbers are very different today. Not only do Democrats trail on this measure, but only a slight majority of Democrats themselves — 51% — say their party is the party of change. And only 18% of independents say that. It's likely this is, in part, about Democrats' failure to position themselves as change agents, but also about what President Donald Trump is doing — and about people not necessarily seeing 'change' as a good thing. However you feel about the changes Trump is making, there is no question he is pushing lots of them. You see that in his and the Department of Government Efficiency's rapid overhaul of the federal government and in Trump's historic efforts to expand executive power — in ways that are often being halted by the courts because they go too far, too fast. It's possible that people just see Trump changing lots of things, whether for good or ill in their opinions, so the 'party of change' mantle doesn't mean what it usually does. We already saw during the 2024 campaign that people's definitions of 'change' were somewhat jumbled by unusual circumstances — i.e., Harris replacing Biden, and a former president running as the challenger. But it's also pretty clear that Democrats have failed to make themselves into a viable and attractive alternative to the party in power. The new CNN poll also asked which party people viewed as the 'party that can get things done.' Republicans led on this by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, 36% to 19%. Only 49% of Democrats and 11% of independents picked the Democratic Party as the more formidable one. There's also, of course, Republicans' big edge on the 'strong leaders' question. None of this means Democrats are sunk in the 2026 elections — or anything close to it. History shows the party that doesn't hold the White House almost always wins midterm elections, in large part because they're viewed as a check on the president. Democrats and liberal candidates have also been doing well in special elections and other races held since the 2024 election. In other words, being not-Trump could be good enough to at least reclaim a very closely split House. But if the Democratic Party wants to run up the score in 2026 and really chart a path for the 2028 election, it has some real work to do on its branding.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DHS says FEMA head was joking when he said he wasn't aware of hurricane season
Acting Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator David Richardson was joking when he said at a meeting Monday that he was not aware of the upcoming hurricane season, the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. Reuters reported that Richardson said at a briefing that he was not aware the United States has a hurricane season, confusing staffers. The report, which said it was unclear if Richardson was serious or joking, cited four unnamed sources familiar with the situation. 'Despite meanspirited attempts to falsely frame a joke as policy, there is no uncertainty about what FEMA will be doing this Hurricane Season. FEMA is laser focused on disaster response, and protecting the American people,' a spokesperson for DHS said. The spokesperson added that Richardson is 'activated in preparation for Hurricane Season.' Richardson took the reins at FEMA last month. The previous acting administrator, Cameron Hamilton, was removed from his job after he told lawmakers at a congressional hearing that he did not believe the agency should be eliminated. DHS has denied that Hamilton's ouster was related to his testimony. FEMA is responsible for coordinating the government's emergency response to areas affected by natural disasters, such as hurricanes. Hurricane season runs from June through November. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted there is a 60% chance of an above-normal season this year, during which the United States could get six to 10 hurricanes, three to five of which could be 'major.' Democrats blasted Richardson following the report about the meeting. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., referred to the Reuters report when he wrote on X, "And I'm unaware of why he hasn't been fired yet." Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., also took aim at Richardson, writing on X, "Bare minimum requirement for the leader of FEMA: know when hurricane season is." President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly floated the idea of terminating the emergency disaster agency. During a visit to North Carolina in January to survey the damage of Hurricane Helene, which swept across the state late last year, Trump suggested overhauling or doing away with FEMA, calling it 'very bureaucratic' and 'very slow.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has also suggested that FEMA should be eliminated. But without an alternative plan and with hurricane season approaching, Noem has also quietly made efforts to keep the agency running, sources familiar with the situation have told NBC News. This article was originally published on