Sanders points to Nebraska medical center closure after GOP bill passes: ‘Dark day for rural America'
'While Republicans celebrate the passage of the largest Medicaid cut in history, the Curtis Medical Center in Nebraska announced it will shut down as a result of these horrific cuts — the first of many hospitals to close,' Sanders wrote in a Thursday statement on X.
'This is a dark day for rural America and for our country,' he added.
An hour prior, Community Hospital in McCook, Neb., announced its closure.
'Unfortunately, the current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years,' Troy Bruntz, President and CEO of Community Hospital, said in a news release, according to Nebraska Public Media.
Six of the state's hospitals could be forced to close due to provisions in the 'big, beautiful bill.'
'We currently have six hospitals that that we feel are in a critical financial state, three that are in an impending kind of closure or conversion over to the rural emergency hospital model,' Jed Hansen, executive director for the Nebraska Rural Health Association, said during a meeting this week, as reported by Nebraska Public Media.
'We would likely see the closures within a year to two years of once [the bill is] fully enacted.'
Other states are facing similar shutdowns due to reduced funding under the Republican backed bill approved by Congress.
A total of 760 hospitals are at risk of closure nationwide, according to Becker's Hospital Review.
Fifteen hospitals in New York are also at risk of closure in GOP districts, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
S&P 500 futures and dollar dip as Trump revives tariff tension
Equity-index futures fell and the dollar dipped after President Trump said his administration may start sending out letters imposing unilateral tariffs on trading partners as early as Friday. Ahead of his July 9 deadline for trade negotiations, the U.S. President told reporters on Thursday: 'We're probably going to be sending some letters out, starting probably tomorrow, maybe 10 a day to various countries saying what they're going to pay to do business with the U.S.' Now that the megabill has passed, expect a ton of short-term debt to be sold to finance the government's deficit 'I'm single': At 70, I have $500,000 in stocks and $220,000 in savings. How do I invest my $130,000 windfall? 'Today is my 61st birthday': I have my ex-spouse's Social Security benefits. Should I retire at 65 and travel? 'I do all the yard work, cooking and cleaning': I live with my daughter and her lazy boyfriend. She wants me to buy her house. Do I say yes? My wife and I are in our late 60s. Do I sell stocks to pay our $30,000 credit-card debt — or do it gradually over 3 years? U.S. stocks closed at record highs following a holiday-shortened session on Thursday. The S&P 500 SPX has surged 26% from its April low as investors welcomed Trump's retreat from his original draconian tariff strategy announced on April 2 that pushed import levies to 131-year highs. However, the President's latest comments suggest few trade deals are likely to be struck before the April 9 deadline and now markets face increased tariff uncertainty once again. Jim Reid, strategist at Deutsche Bank, noted that Trump later also said that the imposed tariffs, which may come into effect on August 1, could range in value from 10% to maybe 60 or 70%. 'So definitely one to keep an eye on, as the difference in that range would have significant economic implications for the various countries,' said Reid. U.S. equity and bond markets are closed for the Independence Day break, but stock-index futures are active, and the E-mini S&P 500 contract ES00 was 0.6% lower in early Friday action, with traders shrugging off news that the Republican's big tax-cutting bill had been passed. The U.S. dollar fell, down 0.4% versus the Japanese yen USDJPY, and losing 0.2% against the euro EURUSD. Global stock markets were mostly on the back foot, despite Wall Street's overnight record, with those countries arguably more vulnerable to a higher unilateral Trump tariff under most pressure. South Korea's KOSPI Composite Index KR:180721 fell 2%, while Germany's DAX DX:DAX was down 0.7% and the CAC 40 FR:PX1 in France lost 0.9% by mid afternoon in Europe. '[R]isk sentiment is draining from markets,' said Kathleen Brooks, research director at XTB. 'President Trump seems to have called time on trade negotiations before next Wednesday's deadline…This suggests that at this late stage he is willing to play hardball rather than negotiate,' she added. Concerns that higher tariffs across a broad range of countries would stymie trade and weaken the global economy saw copper futures HG00 fall 1.6% and oil futures CL.1 drop 1.3%. 'Optimism is evaporating at the end of the week, as the U.S. tariff deadline looms and the signs are that many countries will face higher duties than expected,' said Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown. The mildly risk-off tone caused bitcoin BTCUSD to slip 0.8% but saw gold GC00 give up early gains to trade little changed at around $3,342 an ounce. My wife and I have $7,000 a month in pensions and Social Security, plus $140,000 cash. Can we afford to retire? 'Finance makes me break out in hives': I inherited $240K from my parents. Do I pay off my $258K mortgage and give up my job? The Dow and Russell 2000 are joining the stock market's party. Is it a game changer for the bulls? My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum — or $355 a month for life? We're living in 'end times' when you can't retire on $1 million Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. 'The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
An Iowa law rolling back trans civil rights protections in the state has taken effect. Here's what to know
An Iowa law removing gender identity as a protected class from the state's civil rights code took effect Tuesday, the first action of its kind in the United States. The new rollback of protections is the latest attack on trans people in the US and part of a broader movement across conservative-led states working to restrict LGBTQ rights. GOP Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the Republican-backed measure earlier this year, saying it 'safeguards the rights of women and girls.' But advocates worry about what they call the dangerous, far-reaching consequences for the trans community in the absence of state legal protections. 'It's really a dark moment in our history,' said Democratic Rep. Aime Wichtendahl, Iowa's first openly transgender lawmaker. 'Our government in the state of Iowa has been reducing rights across the board this past decade.' The new law marks the end to an 18-year legacy of civil rights protection for trans people in Iowa – a stark departure from the state's history of inclusive gender policies. 'The fundamental fact is, we were freer 10 years ago than we are today,' Wichtendahl said. While there are still federal and other anti-discrimination protections in place, President Donald Trump and conservative allies continue to take steps to chip away at trans rights since he returned to office. A state's civil rights code safeguards people from discrimination, often based on characteristics like religion, race and, in many cases, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity. Gender identity is no longer on the list of protected classes in Iowa. Iowa's new law also attempts to redefine gender as a synonym for biological sex, a shift that disregards contemporary medical and psychological understandings of gender identity. Under the law, transgender people are barred from correcting their gender marker on birth certificates, so their identifying documentation will show the sex they were assigned at birth. Transgender and nonbinary people in Iowa now face increased legal uncertainty, experts say. 'This isn't some nebulous law that won't really impact people,' said Max Mowitz, the executive director of LGBTQ advocacy group One Iowa. Without state civil rights protections, individuals who are fired, denied housing or refused medical treatment based on their gender identity have a narrower path to legal recourse. 'Folks would be able to discriminate against us if (we) were trying to get a hotel room, or go to a coffee shop, or even open a line of credit,' he said. Having identifying documents with gender markers that don't appear to match how a person is presenting themself could foster an uncomfortable, sometimes dangerous, situation for people who are forced to out themselves as trans to strangers. As a trans Iowan, Mowitz said he's been patted down by TSA because 'something was on my driver's license that didn't look the way that they thought it should.' Naomi Goldberg, executive director of the Movement Advancement Project, a nonprofit think tank providing resources to the LGBTQ community, said trans and nonbinary people will have a hard time going about daily life because of the new law. It will also increase the already high risk of harassment and violence for trans Americans, Goldberg added. More than a dozen states, mostly conservative, have never added gender identity as a protected class to their civil rights laws, according to data from the Movement Advancement Project. Meanwhile, 31 states prohibit some form of discrimination against people based on their gender identity. And bills in those states have not moved to strike gender identity from their civil rights statutes, Goldberg said. But protections for LGBTQ people vary greatly by state. In Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union is currently tracking 88 bills it says are anti-LGBTQ that have been introduced during the 2025 legislative session — more than any other state. By contrast, the ACLU is tracking zero in Vermont. At the federal level, new legislation and lawsuits targeting trans people have increased across the US. The Supreme Court could agree this week to hear arguments in the backlog of cases dealing with trans issues — putting transgender rights front and center for a second year in a row. The high court handed conservative states a win this Pride Month when it upheld Tennessee's ban on some medical treatments for transgender minors. Trump, who campaigned on ending 'transgender lunacy,' has taken steps to dismantle the Biden administration's efforts to be more inclusive of Americans' gender identification. He has signed a flurry of executive orders targeting trans people — including declaring there are only two genders, banning transgender women from participating in most women's sports, and barring transgender service members from serving in the military. Trump earlier this year pushed Iowa to follow his lead from the orders and pass the bill to 'remove Radical Gender Ideology from their Laws.' But trans people just want politicians to allow them to live freely, said Wichtendahl, the Iowa lawmaker. 'The ability to live our lives and be treated equally under the law and rights and dignity, to not have the government be this pernicious voice dictating who we are every step of the way,' Wichtendahl said, 'that's all we've ever asked for.'
