250k Tennesseans could lose TennCare, private insurance under Congressional spending bill
U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)
Proposed cuts in federal healthcare spending on Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act could force more than 250,000 Tennesseans to join the ranks of the uninsured, an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation found.
Healthcare advocates are closely following House debate over a legislative package that would make significant changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplaces.
The reconciliation bill would cut Medicaid spending nationwide by at least $716 billion, representing the single largest cut in the program's history, a separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found.
The bill would achieve those cuts in a variety of ways, including by introducing stricter enrollment and work requirements for the low-income and disabled Tennesseans who rely on TennCare, Tennessee's Medicaid program.
The bill would also eliminate so-called premium tax credits that have helped individuals purchase their own health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
Together, the two provisions could cost between 190,000 – 310,000 Tennesseans access to TennCare or private insurance through the healthcare marketplace, according to Kaiser Family Foundation.
Much, however, remains in flux about the final language of the omnibus federal spending bill as it heads to a vote on the House floor. The bill includes a significant increase in spending on immigration enforcement and an extension of tax cuts created during President Donald Trump's first administration.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
A look at Trump's travel ban timeline throughout his first presidency
A look at Trump's travel ban timeline throughout his first presidency Show Caption Hide Caption What to know about travel bans and who they could affect Immigration law allows presidents to restrict travel into the U.S., but President Donald Trump's bans have been more sweeping than past presidents. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday banning or restricting travel of foreign nationals from several countries, reminiscent of his first administration when he banned travelers from seven majority-Muslim countries in 2017. The ban, which goes into effect on June 9, affects Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, will be partially restricted. The travel restrictions were first reported by CBS News. "We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm,"Trump said in a video posted on X, formerly Twitter. He said the list could be revised and new countries could be added. Since returning to the White House for his second term, the president has vowed to replicate the impact of his original travel bans, which stirred several legal battles with courts that blocked the mandate. Here's a timeline of what ensued then. See events of Trump's first travel ban Jan. 27, 2017: Trump issues an executive order entitled "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States." It suspends travel from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocks refugees for 120 days, and suspends travel from Syria indefinitely. Jan. 28: Chaos reigns at U.S. airports as Department of Homeland Security agents block travelers from entering the country, leading to protests and legal action. Feb. 3: Federal District Court Judge James Robart in Seattle issues a nationwide restraining order that blocks the travel ban from being implemented. Feb. 9: TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, refuses to reinstate the ban, ruling that it violates due process rights without a sufficient national security justification. March 6: Trump issues a revised travel ban targeting only six countries and exempting visa- and green card-holders in an effort to reverse his fortunes in the courts. March 15: Federal District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii issues a nationwide halt to the revised travel ban on immigrants and refugees. March 16: Federal District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland blocks part of the travel ban that applies to travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations. May 25: TheU.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upholds the ruling from Maryland on the basis of religious discrimination against Muslims. June 12: The 9th Circuit appeals court upholds the ruling from Hawaii, saying the ban discriminates based on nationality. But it clears the way for a review of screening practices. June 26: The Supreme Court upholds parts of the ban and schedules oral arguments for October. In the meantime, travelers in a wide range of visa categories must prove their connection to a U.S. organization or individual in order to avoid the ban. Sept. 24: Trump issues his third version of the ban following what the administration says was a deep dive into international vetting procedures. Included indefinitely: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Chad, North Korea and Venezuela. Chad was recently dropped from the list. Oct. 17: Judge Watson in Hawaii blocks the third version nationwide, writing that it "suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor" and "plainly discriminates based on nationality." Oct. 18: Judge Chuang in Maryland says much the same thing, ruling that it still constitutes a "Muslim ban" that violates the Constitution's protections against religious discrimination. Dec. 4: The Supreme Court rules that the ban can take full effect while legal challenges continue in federal appeals courts. The justices urge those courts to render decisions "with appropriate dispatch." Dec. 22: A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit appeals court rules against the ban in part, contending that Trump exceeded his authority under federal law. Jan. 19, 2018: The Supreme Court agrees to hear the Justice Department's appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling, leading to oral arguments. Feb. 15: The full 4th Circuit appeals court again declares the ban unconstitutional based on its discrimination against Muslims. April 25: The Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling. Conservative justices appear sympathetic to the administration's stance. June 26: The Supreme Court reverses the 9th Circuit's ruling, handing a major victory to Trump. June 31, 2020: Trump adds visa restrictions to six more countries including Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania. The White House said those nations failed to "comply with basic national security" requirements or to conduct "proper identity management" procedures. USA TODAY's Joey Garrison and Reuters contributed to the reporting of this story
New York Times
22 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Orders Investigation of Biden and His Aides
President Trump ordered his White House counsel and the attorney general on Wednesday to investigate former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his staff in Mr. Trump's latest attempt to stoke outlandish conspiracy theories about his predecessor. In an executive order, Mr. Trump put the power and resources of the federal government to work examining whether some of Mr. Biden's presidential actions are legally invalid because his aides had enacted those policies without his knowledge. The executive order came after Mr. Trump shared a social media post over the weekend that claimed Mr. Biden had been 'executed in 2020' and replaced by a robotic clone, following a pattern of suggestions by the president and his allies that Mr. Biden was a mentally incapacitated puppet of his aides. 'The White House issued over 1,200 presidential documents, appointed 235 judges to the federal bench, and issued more pardons and commutations than any administration in United States history,' the executive order said, after asserting that 'former President Biden's aides abused the power' of his office. A central claim of the conspiracy theory, as described by Mr. Trump himself, is that Mr. Biden's use of the autopen system — which reproduces a person's signature to be affixed to official documents — can legally invalidate those documents. Mr. Trump has claimed, for example, that some pardons Mr. Biden had made during his time in office were invalid because they were signed using an autopen. (There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon.) Mr. Trump has acknowledged that his administration uses the autopen system on occasion. But his executive order asserts without evidence that the Biden administration's own use of the system may have 'implications for the legality and validity' of some of Mr. Biden's actions as president. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had weighed in on this issue at the request of President George W. Bush in 2005. Howard C. Nielson Jr., the top official at the Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that 'the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.' He added that the president instead could direct 'a subordinate to affix the president's signature to such a bill, for example by autopen.' Mr. Nielson is now a Federal District Court judge in Utah, nominated to the position by Mr. Trump during his first term.
Washington Post
22 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump proclamation seeks to restrict international students from Harvard
President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening sought to restrict international students and scholars from entering the country to attend, conduct research or teach at Harvard University, further escalating the administration's strong-armed attempts to force change in higher education. The proclamation, 'Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University,' comes days after a federal judge blocked the administration's attempts to revoke the school's ability to host foreign students and scholars. The administration has said forceful action is needed to address complaints of antisemitism after protests disrupted college campuses during the 2023-2024 academic year over the Israel-Gaza war. The temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs last week halted a Department of Homeland Security move to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. The administration alleged that Harvard allowed 'anti-American, pro-terrorist' foreigners 'to harass and physically assault individuals … and obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.' The administration has demanded that Harvard comply with numerous directives it says are aimed at ensuring more forceful action against campus antisemitism, among other concerns. Harvard has contested the actions with two lawsuits challenging the administration's actions as unconstitutional and unlawful, and has said it has and is continuing to take measures to address discrimination on its campus. In response, the Trump administration has taken a number of actions, including announcing that billions of dollars of federal grant funding is under review, terminating research contracts, launching investigations and threatening to revoke the school's tax-exempt status. Harvard has called those actions retaliation for its refusal to relinquish its academic independence. Trump's proclamation says 'it is necessary to restrict the entry of foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard University,' because entry of those foreign nationals is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.' He said the denial of access would continue until the university shares information the federal government requires 'to safeguard national security and the American public.' DHS had demanded information about foreign students that included known illegal activity or threats against students or faculty. According to the proclamation, Harvard provided data on misconduct by only three students, which 'was so deficient that the DHS could not evaluate whether it should take further actions.' 'Harvard's actions show that it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students,' Trump's proclamation states. Spokespeople for Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but the school has said in the past that it responded to DHS requests for information as required by law but was told its responses were insufficient. More than 7,000 international students and scholars are currently at Harvard, and the school is expecting thousands more to arrive for the summer and fall terms. More than a quarter of Harvard students come from other countries, drawn by the university's internationally known reputation and opportunities. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on social media Wednesday that the Justice Department would 'vigorously defend the President's proclamation suspending the entry of new foreign students at Harvard University based on national security concerns.' This story is developing and will be updated.
