logo
Republicans are making boogeymen of their own voters on Medicaid

Republicans are making boogeymen of their own voters on Medicaid

The Hilla day ago
Republicans love their boogeymen; the grotesquely exaggerated villains they use to justify their worst policy ideas. President Trump loves to parade his favorite boogeymen: the ' criminal aliens,' the dishonest media, the Democrats, and so on. These dehumanizing caricatures help him rile up his base and lead them to back his cruelest initiatives.
As the GOP-controlled Congress argues the merits of the cuts included in Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' act — which is deeply unpopular with voters — they're discovering new boogeymen to deflect criticism.
Republicans are very defensive about their $1 trillion cut in Medicaid, which will deprive almost 12 million, mostly low-income and working-class Americans, of their health care coverage.
So with the aid of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Dr. Oz, they've conjured up a new boogeyman: ' able-bodied working-age Americans without dependents.' The emblematic figure here is a ' 25-year-old living in the basement.'
There's just one problem: In 2024, able-bodied adults who qualified for Medicaid (i.e., adults between the ages of 18-64 who make approximately $21,597/year or less) mostly voted for Donald Trump.
In 2024, Trump won the majority of voters who made less than $50,000 and was up 14 points with men between the ages of 19 and 29, and even expanded his margin with men under 50 compared to 2020. To add to this, Trump also won over two-thirds of voters in rural areas where 1 in 4 people are Medicaid recipients.
In other words, Republicans are making boogeymen of their own voters. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) seems to be one of the few congressional Republicans to grasp this point.
He says that 'slashing health insurance for the working poor… is both morally wrong and politically suicidal,' while noting that MAGA voters never signed up for Medicaid cuts. In fact, in Hawley's home state of Missouri, voters elected Trump as president and expanded eligibility for Medicaid on the very same ballot.
President Trump has repeatedly promised his voters, 'We're not cutting Medicaid,' and he would veto a bill that would do that. The White House website repeats the claim that there will be no cuts to Medicaid, just the surgical elimination of waste, fraud and abuse.
However, many nonpartisan groups, including the Congressional Budget Office, the National Patient Advocate Foundation and groups that focus on specific diseases, say the GOP Medicare cuts will do collateral damage to recipients who are eligible and already working, as well as all Americans, when rural hospitals close and health care costs increase.
Almost two-thirds of Americans view the law unfavorably, including many Republicans. When informed that the bill would increase the uninsured rate and decrease hospital funding, half of self-identified MAGA voters didn't support the bill.
When the public is informed that most people on Medicaid already meet the work requirement, but the paperwork connected to it would cause people to lose their insurance, only about one-third of people support work requirements in Medicaid.
In addition, as Republicans attempt to hobble Medicaid, public support continues to grow for the program, increasing by six percentage points since January to 83 percent.
Congressional Republicans don't seem to care that Medicaid covers our most vulnerable citizens, who can't just tap their bank accounts when they get sick or have an accident. Americans deserve to have a backup as they recover from job loss, as they care for their loved ones, and while they educate themselves.
Medicaid is there because having fewer people uninsured helps stabilize other parts of the health care system, like rural facilities and the cost for all health care users. This was also once the belief of Vice President JD Vance, too.
As for what congressional Republicans believe, it is unclear. It took less than a year for them to forget who voted them into power and go back to their usual 'tax breaks for the rich, shame on the working poor' stance.
Their law, which manages to be spendthrift and stingy at the same time, is most assuredly cutting Medicaid, no matter how much Trump tries to gaslight us into thinking otherwise. These cuts are cruel and, as Hawley predicts, will likely prove hazardous to the Republicans' political health in the midterm elections.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid

(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. 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

Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Trump and Putin will meet at an Alaska military base long used to counter Russia
Trump and Putin will meet at an Alaska military base long used to counter Russia

Washington Post

time10 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Trump and Putin will meet at an Alaska military base long used to counter Russia

WASHINGTON — In an ironic twist, President Donald Trump is set to discuss the war in Ukraine with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at a military base in Alaska that was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the height of Cold War and still plays a role today. The meeting is scheduled to take place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, according to a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. The base created by merging Elmendorf Air Force Base and Army Fort Richardson in 2010 has played a key strategic role in monitoring and deterring the Soviet Union during much of the Cold War. Throughout its long history, the base hosted large numbers of aircraft and oversaw operations of a variety of early warning radar sites that were aimed at detecting Soviet military activity and any possible nuclear launches. It earned the motto 'Top Cover for North America' at this time, according to the base website. While much of the military hardware has since been deactivated, the base still hosts key aircraft squadrons, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet. Planes from the base also still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace. The irony of Putin visiting an American military base that long has — and still does — aimed to counter Russian threats comes as Trump works to reach a ceasefire deal in a war that he promised during the 2024 campaign to end quickly. Officials from Ukraine and Europe fear that the one-on-one meeting they will not take part in could lead to an outcome that favors Russian goals. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump was 'very clear' that the United States wants to achieve a ceasefire at the summit. Macron spoke after a virtual meeting between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders. Trump has said any major agreement could involve land swaps and that Zelenskyy and Putin could meet next or he could meet with both leaders. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting, which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. 'It's going to be a very important meeting, but it's setting the table for the second meeting.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store