logo
Chaos in Congress as HIV-positive disabled woman is wheeled out after wild Trump health policy meltdown

Chaos in Congress as HIV-positive disabled woman is wheeled out after wild Trump health policy meltdown

Daily Mail​16-05-2025

Capitol Hill was blanketed in protesters earlier this week as lawmakers debated the 'big, beautiful bill' that would slash health spending by about $880 billion over 10 years and lead to 8.6 million poor and disabled people to lose their insurance by 2034.
One of those protesters was Olga from Youngstown, Ohio.
She was present at Tuesday's House Ways and Means Committee meeting about the proposed budget from the White House and changes to policy that would gut the federal health program.
From a wheelchair, the woman yelled: 'You will kill me [if you cut Medicaid]! I'm HIV positive. For 20 years, I have survived on my meds that are $10,000 a month.'
She was slowly wheeled out Capitol Police after yelling 'Look at me!' to lawmakers on the dais.
Hearing rooms across the Hill were filled with tense debates this week over the White House's proposed budget bill, which must be fine-tuned, debated, and voted on by Congress.
But to pay for the staggering $5 trillion in tax cuts that President Donald Trump is requesting, Republicans are seeking to slash federal spending and Medicaid is on the chopping block, leaving people like Olga potentially responsible for staggeringly high drug costs.
Without insurance, infusions of HIV drugs such as Trogarzo and Lenacapavir can cost between $9,000 and $12,000 per month. Without them, people with advanced or drug-resistant HIV can die.
Other Medicaid Beneficiaries with various health conditions – high blood pressure, bipolar disorder, and rheumatoid arthritis, for instance – could soon see their out-of-pocket costs go from zero to several thousand dollars, as well.
Olga's explosive presence in the Ways and Means Committee hearing room was just one of many on Capitol Hill as people seek to pressure lawmakers to abandon proposed cuts to Medicaid as well as the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and policies that would disqualify millions from coverage.
The proposed Republican bill would require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to meet new eligibility conditions, including working at least 80 hours per month, participating in an education or job training program for the same amount of time, or fulfilling a combination of both.
It exempts people who are disabled, pregnant or in postpartum care.
More than 70 million Americans rely on Medicaid for health care, including one in six adults and two in five children.
Critics of the work requirement proposal say it imposes significant bureaucratic hurdles on both beneficiaries and state agencies, often leading to eligible people losing coverage due to paperwork issues rather than actual non-compliance.
Georgia's experiment with Medicaid work requirements — a conservative alternative to full Medicaid expansion- had the opposite effect on money spent per person on healthcare.
The state's per-enrollee spending surged to $13,360 annually, more than five times initial projections. Instead of funding care, most of these costs were swallowed by administrative bureaucracy — verifying compliance with work rules, paperwork processing, and managing enrollment churn.
Meanwhile, thousands lost coverage, and the state saw no significant improvement in health outcomes.
Despite projections that 240,000 low-income residents would gain coverage, only 6,500 enrolled in the program's first 18 months, as complex paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles locked out eligible applicants.
That policy is still in place.
Meanwhile, in a House Energy and Commerce meeting, Capitol Police removed 26 protesters, including disability advocates, from the hearing as chants of 'protect Medicaid' and heated denials of program abuse allegations disrupted proceedings.
Several Republicans, though, have stood up against the cuts.
The bill failed to advance out of the House Budget Committee on Friday after five Republicans broke ranks to join all Democrats in opposition, with Medicaid cuts being a major sticking point.
Conservative hardliners Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) rejected the measure on ideological grounds, while Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) made a last-minute switch from 'yes' to 'no' to preserve the panel's ability to reconsider the legislation later.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The powerful politician no one's heard of who can torpedo Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'
The powerful politician no one's heard of who can torpedo Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

Daily Mail​

time10 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

The powerful politician no one's heard of who can torpedo Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'

A rarely-talked-about, unelected bureaucrat within the Senate may have the power to tank President Donald Trump 's big beautiful bill. The Senate Parliamentarian, a position held by Elizabeth MacDonough since 2012, is about to weigh in on whether the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs afoul of the upper chamber's rules. The parliamentarian is more often than not an afterthought, typically because their role is to be the Senate's hall monitor, essentially making sure mundane processes on the floor are adhered to. However, the parliamentarian is thrust into the spotlight every time senators try to pass a bill through budget reconciliation, a process that allows the Senate to pass items with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Since Trump's big beautiful bill is going through reconciliation, MacDonough has the power to veto certain provisions that she feels aren't related to the budget or are solely policy objectives. The appeal of the reconciliation process is obvious. Since Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate, a united GOP can essentially pass the bill without input from a single Democratic senator. The catch is, MacDonough can pick and choose which line items in the bill need to be slashed with red ink. She will be responsible for interpreting whether the Big Beautiful Bill complies with something called the Byrd Rule, which has been around since 1985. If MacDonough decides to exercise her veto power, key provisions of President Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill could be deleted The Byrd Rule is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a key figure in instituting the guardrails around reconciliation packages like the one Trump is trying to ram through. The most important facet of the Byrd Rule states that reconciliation bills cannot have provisions in them that don't have an effect on the budget. Put simply, if a provision doesn't meaningfully increase or decrease federal spending, it can be considered extraneous and be tossed out of the bill. The Byrd Rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from overhauling Social Security or increasing the deficit for a fiscal year not included in the bill's purview. The test to see whether a bill complies with the rule has been referred to as the 'Byrd Bath.' MacDonough last used the 'Byrd Bath' to water down President Joe Biden's Build Back Better package in 2022. Specifically, she struck down three separate attempts by the Democrats to provide a pathway to citizenship for eight million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Now, she's in the position to take a major bite out of Trump's agenda, though its not entirely clear what she might take aim at. Many have speculated MacDonough will rule against a provision buried deep within the bill that will upend the US judicial system. Section 70302 of the bill would severely limit the power of federal courts to enforce injunctions or hold government officials in contempt. This comes as federal judges have slapped the second Trump administration with an unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days, most of which curtailed the government's ability to deport illegal migrants. During a townhall on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a constituent that she believed this provision has no chance of getting through the Senate. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills,' Ernst said. The big beautiful bill also contains a section that prohibits Medicaid funds from going to any clinic that provides abortions. Back in 2017, the parliamentarian found that a similar provision in a reconciliation bill violated the Byrd Rule, which could mean she'll strike it down again this time. The current bill's regulations on AI could also be cast aside in the impending Byrd Bath. There is precedent for firing the parliamentarian. In May 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. (left), fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove (right), because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill There is precedent for the Senate simply ignoring the parliamentarian. The declarations of MacDonough and all the other parliamentarians before her have been non-binding and lacking in actual enforcement power. Just two weeks ago, the Senate voted 51-44 to repeal a federal waiver that allowed California to institute an electric vehicle mandate, completely disregarding the parliamentarian's guidance on the issue. Democrats condemned the move by Republicans, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying, 'Republicans, I believe, I am certain, will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight.' Going back a bit further, there is also precedent of Senate leaders getting rid of the parliamentarian over disagreements on the Byrd Rule. On May 7, 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove, because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill. Exactly one month later, with a new parliamentarian in place, Bush was able to sign his first landmark tax cut into law. This scenario appears unlikely to repeat, since Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he isn't even willing to overrule the parliamentarian, let alone fire her. 'We're not going there,' Thune told reporters on Monday.

Wells Fargo's long road to lifting $1.95 trillion asset cap
Wells Fargo's long road to lifting $1.95 trillion asset cap

Reuters

time13 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Wells Fargo's long road to lifting $1.95 trillion asset cap

June 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve announced on Tuesday that Wells Fargo (WFC.N), opens new tab will no longer have to operate under a $1.95 trillion asset cap the regulator imposed on the bank in 2018 following its long-running sales practices scandal. The Fed said in a statement that the bank had made "substantial progress" in addressing its deficiencies, including improving governance and risk management programs, clearing the way for the central bank to remove the unprecedented growth restriction. Here is an overview of the bank's years-long effort to address its regulatory woes: Sources: Company statements, Reuters and media reports, regulatory filings

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store