Arkansans share concerns with Medicaid work requirements, cuts at meeting
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid but here in Arkansas some say their access to health care is being threatened.
Possible Medicaid cuts announced by President Donald Trump and a work requirement waiver suggested by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders pushed many to fire back at lawmakers.
'Medicaid is not a piggy bank that they can break and pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest people, and the wealthiest corporations in this country,' one person said at Monday's Medicaid Town Hall meeting.
Trump's vow to preserve Medicaid collides with House GOP plan for tax cuts
People at the meeting say they've been made to feel like a burden to taxpayers, but that's not the case, according to Brooke Hele.
'Most of the people who are on Medicaid, they do work, they already contribute back to society,' Hele said.
For those who are unemployed, Arkansas Advocates say health plays a part. Hele said limiting access to health care won't help.
'If you don't have people that are healthy enough to work then they're not going to be able to work,' Hele said.
For the last four years, Arkansas has been ranked 48th in America's health ranking report. Those at the meeting say a change in access to benefits could only make things worse.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announces planned Medicaid work requirement details
But for now, advocates like Neil Sealy are pushing those on Medicaid to fight back.
'Go to your representatives and your two senators and ask them to tell Governor Sanders to withdraw the work requirements,' Sealy said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Democrats are at odds over response as Trump announces the US has entered Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats seemed to remain at odds over policy toward Iran. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Donald Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tact, stating, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions, 'Horrible judgement' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war , even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of state who served under Democratic President Barack Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Progressive Democrats also are using Trump's ideas and words Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's own campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular in the so-called 'manosphere' of male Trump supporters. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats eyeing the party's 2028 primary. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear anti-war stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. Mainstream Democrats are cautious, while critical The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., said 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., posted on X. The progressives' pushback A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said their level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. ___ Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro in Washington 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 .
Hamilton Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump ignites debate on presidential authority with Iran strikes and wins praise from Republicans
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's bombardment of three sites in Iran quickly sparked debate in Congress over his authority to launch the strikes, with Republicans praising Trump for decisive action even as many Democrats warned he should have sought congressional approval. The instant divisions in the U.S. Congress reflected an already swirling debate over the president's ability to conduct such a consequential action on his own, without authorization from the House and Senate on the use of military force. While Trump is hardly the first U.S. president to go it alone, his expansive use of presidential power raised immediate questions about what comes next, and whether he is exceeding the limits of his authority. 'Well done, President Trump,' Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina posted on X. Alabama Sen. Katie Britt called the bombings 'strong and surgical.' The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, said Trump 'has made a deliberate — and correct — decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime.' Democrats, and a few Republicans, said the strikes were unconstitutional. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who called for an immediate classified briefing for lawmakers, said that Trump 'misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.' Some Republicans had similar concerns. Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican and a longtime opponent of U.S. involvement in foreign wars, posted on X after Trump announced the attacks that, 'This is not Constitutional.' But the quick GOP endorsements of stepped up U.S. involvement in Iran came after Trump publicly considered the strikes for days. Many congressional Republicans had cautiously said they thought he would make the right decision. The party's schism over Iran could complicate the GOP's efforts to boost Pentagon spending as part of a $350 billion national security package in Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax breaks bill , which is speeding toward votes next week. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies,' Wicker posted on X. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune both were briefed ahead of the strikes on Saturday, according to people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. Thune said Saturday evening that 'as we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Johnson said in a statement that the military operations 'should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.' House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford, R-Ark., said he had also been in touch with the White House and 'I am grateful to the U.S. servicemembers who carried out these precise and successful strikes.' Breaking from many of his Democratic colleagues, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, an outspoken supporter of Israel, also praised the attacks on Iran. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS,' he posted. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities.' Both parties have seen splits in recent days over the prospect of striking Iran, including some of Trump's most ardent supporters who share his criticism of America's 'forever wars.' Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio posted that 'while President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' 'This is not our fight,' posted Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Most Democrats have maintained that Congress should have a say, even as presidents in both parties have ignored the legislative branch's constitutional authority. The Senate was scheduled to vote soon on a resolution from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine that would require congressional approval before the U.S. declares war on Iran or takes specific military action. Kaine said the bombings were 'horrible judgment.' 'I will push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war,' Kaine said. Democratic Rep. Greg Casar, the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also called on Congress to immediately pass a war powers resolution. He said politicians had always promised that 'new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy.' 'Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly,' Casar said. 'Enough.' 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 .
Business Insider
19 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis react to the US strike on Iran's nuclear sites
President Donald Trump on Saturday confirmed that US warplanes had executed "massive precision" airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, in what he described in a press conference as a "spectacular military success." The military operation marks a significant escalation in the tensions between Iran and Israel and represents a new level of US involvement in the international conflict. Business leaders from Bill Ackman to Jason Calacanis reacted to the news. Bill Ackman Billionaire hedge fund manager Ackman, a longtime ally of the president's, was among the first to publicly react to the news with a post on X. "Thank you to our great military for its superb execution on ridding Iran of its nuclear threat," Ackman wrote shortly after the news broke. "All Americans are eternally grateful for you." Thank you to our great military for its superb execution on ridding Iran of its nuclear threat. All Americans are eternally grateful for you. — Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) June 22, 2025 He continued later, writing in a separate post: "To state the obvious, @realDonaldTrump's actions tonight are a lot better than relying on the IRGC's 'commitment' to not develop nuclear weapons." Jason Calacanis Serial entrepreneur Calacanis posted on X, "Five months into Trump's term, we're at war." In a subsequent post, he elaborated, saying that his initial statement was "just an observation, published without judgement." "We don't have the intelligence that our leaders have, so I will reserve judgement until we know more," Calacanis wrote. "It should be obvious to everyone, however, that no president can just stop conflicts on day one. We now have three conflicts were involved in." It's just an observation, published without judgement We don't have the intelligence that our leaders have, so I will reserve judgement until we know more. It should be obvious to everyone, however, that no president can just stop conflicts on day one. We now have three… — @jason (@Jason) June 22, 2025 Spencer Hakimian The founder of the hedge fund Tolou Capital Management responded to the strikes in a series of posts on social media, describing the US military operation as "completely undetectable," given that no flight trackers showed US military aircraft over Iran within 30 minutes of the strikes. "Say what you want," Hakimian wrote. "The United States military is A1 and there's not a close competitor at the moment." In a separate post, Hakimian added: "The most escalatory thing that Iran can do is not to bomb U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It's to close the Strait of Hormuz. And if that happens, Oil goes above $100 in the blink of an eye. Iran is no military match for the United States. But they can wreak havoc via inflation. Just like Russia in 2022." The most escalatory thing that Iran can do is not to bomb U.S. military bases in the Middle East. It's to close the Strait of Hormuz. And if that happens, Oil goes above $100 in the blink of an eye. Iran is no military match for the United States. But they can wreak havoc… — Spencer Hakimian (@SpencerHakimian) June 22, 2025 Shaun Maguire Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, praised Trump as the "Greatest President of my lifetime." "You may just not realize it yet," Maguire wrote in a post on X, alongside a picture of Trump with his fist in the air after he was wounded during an assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. "Bulletproof instincts and nerves of steel." James Fishback A vocal supporter of Trump and cofounder of Azoria investment firm, Fishback praised the US strikes — and criticized those who expressed concern over the rising geopolitical tensions — in a series of posts on X. "Iran can't possibly think this is the start of a U.S. offensive. Trump's been clear from the start: they can't have a nuke. We just accomplished that. We're done here," Fishback said in one post. "If Iran chooses to retaliate against a clearly telegraphed, one-and-done strike, they'd be signing their own death warrant. Trump was right." In a separate post, he added: "The Fordow nuclear site was a uranium enrichment facility, not a mosque. Not everything is Islamophobia. Calm down. Leave your weird identity politics out of this."
