logo
Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll

Most Republicans Enrolled in Medicaid 'Worried' About Funding Cuts—Poll

Newsweek14 hours ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
While Republicans in Congress have been pushing for major Medicaid cuts in the new budget, many Medicaid enrollees are worried about what this means for their health coverage — including those who identify as Republican.
A new poll from KFF revealed that 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid are worried about potential funding cuts. The survey also shows that 17 percent of Republicans identify as Medicaid enrollees.
This didn't come as a surprise to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek.
Why It Matters
Republican lawmakers have advanced sweeping changes to Medicaid as part of their budget reconciliation package, known as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."
The bill, which passed the House in late May 2025, proposes to cut over $700 billion in federal Medicaid spending, threatening coverage for millions of Americans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid coverage if the proposal becomes law.
Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025.
Beds and medical equipment are seen inside the US Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort while docked at the Port of Miami, Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida on June 3, 2025.
CHANDAN KHANNA/AFP via Getty Images
What To Know
Potential Medicaid reductions under the new legislation target several key areas, including the federal match for Medicaid expansion, spending caps, new work requirements, and more frequent eligibility checks.
While the GOP viewpoint has historically been pro-Medicaid reductions, cuts at this level could significantly impact the nearly 80 million Americans who rely on the program for health insurance, including a significant number of Republicans.
In the new KFF report, 76 percent of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid said they were worried about potential funding cuts. Additionally, more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees are Republican, including one in five who identify with MAGA.
"As a government program, Medicaid provides benefits to millions of Americans in 'red' and 'blue' states," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "As such, it should come as no surprise a sizable number of Republicans either receive benefits from the program or know someone who does."
The federal government currently pays 90 percent of Medicaid expansion costs, but proposed reductions would lower this rate, threatening financial stability for states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
Changes could also introduce per-capita caps or block grants, limit the use of provider taxes to finance Medicaid, and roll back simplified enrollment rules implemented under President Biden. Together, these measures could force states to limit enrollment, reduce benefits, or impose new costs on enrollees.
Republican leaders have tied these reductions to broader budget goals, including $4.5 trillion in tax cuts championed by former President Donald Trump.
"Many of the heavily Republican-controlled states are often the highest per capita recipients of government assistance," Thompson told Newsweek. "That's not meant to be disingenuous—it simply shows where the power lies: with the wealthy who control the districts and seats in those regions. The truth is, people often vote for their party and don't believe these policies will ever impact them personally—until they do."
House Republicans identified more than $880 billion in savings from Medicaid, with much of the debate focused on whether Medicaid should continue to support able-bodied adults without dependents, or remain narrowly focused on children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
The bill would also restrict Medicaid funding for certain health care providers, such as Planned Parenthood, and prohibit federal matching funds for gender-affirming care for minors.
Nationally, 54 percent of U.S. adults are worried that reductions in federal Medicaid spending would negatively impact their own or their family's ability to get and pay for health care, the KFF report found.
"It's a wake-up call for anyone who thinks Medicaid is just a Democratic issue," Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek. "Medicaid isn't red or blue. It's the safety net stretched under millions of American families, including a significant slice of the GOP base."
What People Are Saying
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Over the last three election cycles, the Republican base has expanded far past the days of simply promoting tax cuts and has a large number of supporters who rely on programs like Medicaid for essential services. And while cuts to the program could occur, we've already seen blowback to any proposed reductions. That's more than likely because some Republican members of Congress know cuts could dramatically affect their reelection chances."
Michael Ryan, a finance expert and the founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, told Newsweek: "There's a real disconnect between the political talking points and reality. Many Republican voters may not realize just how much their communities (especially rural ones) depend on Medicaid to keep hospitals open and doctors in town. The myth that Medicaid is for 'someone else' is crumbling fast."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "There will be a significant number of people kicked off the Medicaid program—either because they didn't submit their work requirements on time, were removed due to the rollback of Medicaid expansion, or simply no longer qualify."
What Happens Next
Ryan said if the cuts are enacted, rural hospitals will close, and working-class families will lose their health coverage.
"The fallout will land squarely in the heart of Republican country," Ryan said. "You can't gut the safety net and expect your own voters to walk away unscathed."
"Medicaid cuts are political dynamite. History shows voters punish politicians who take away health coverage. Just ask Missouri and Tennessee. If Republicans push too hard, they risk alienating their own base."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review
Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review

USA Today

time28 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review

Wildfire smoke, shark pardons and lost 401(k) accounts: Your week in review Show Caption Hide Caption Smoke drifting into US from Canada wildfires could impact health Smoke from wildfires in Canada has drifted into Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Midwestern and East Coast states, and as far south as Florida. Canadian wildfire smoke hangs over U.S. Skies were looking milky across much of the United States for days as smoke from wildfires raging in Canada drifted into northern and Midwestern states and dipped even as far south as Florida. The Dakotas, Iowa and most of Minnesota and Wisconsin were under air quality alerts, and the haze hung over major cities including New York, Washington, Philadelphia and Boston. More than 200 wildfires were burning in Canada as of June 3, and more than half were classified as "out of control," Canadian forest fire authorities said. More news about our planet: Sign up for USA TODAY's Climate Point newsletter. Trump pardons Florida divers who freed sharks Presidential pardons have often sparked controversy, but Donald Trump's latest gesture had some teeth to it. Trump granted full clemency to two Florida divers, John Moore Jr. and Tanner Mansell, who were convicted of theft for cutting 19 sharks free from a fisherman's longline in 2020. They had assumed the gear was illegal; it turns out it belonged to a vessel permitted by the federal government to harvest sandbar sharks for research. "Whether people believe in his politics or not, he chose to pardon me ... and only ever wanted to help," Mansell said in a text. "I can't help but feel extremely grateful." A fortune sits in 'lost' 401(k) accounts You might think it would be hard to forget almost $60,000. But at least $1.7 trillion is wasting away in forgotten 401(k) accounts, the financial firm Capitalize found, and the average lost balance is $56,616. How does that happen? People who leave a job "usually have a bunch of things going on,' said David John of the AARP Public Policy Institute, and simply lose track. (More than 47 million Americans quit their jobs in the Great Resignation of 2021.) And someone who leaves a job after only a year or two might be especially prone to overlook a modest balance − which, thanks to the magic of tax-free investment growth, eventually turns into a big balance. Loretta Swit, 'M*A*S*H's beloved 'Hot Lips,' dies Fans, friends and co-stars were remembering Loretta Swit, who starred as Major Margaret "Hot Lips" Houlihan through all 11 seasons of TV's hugely popular Korean War dramedy "M*A*S*H" and gave depth and strength to a character who began as an oversexed blond stereotype. Swit, 87, died May 30. "More than acting her part, she created it," star Alan Alda, 89, posted on X. Jamie Farr, 90, who played Corporal Maxwell Q. Klinger, told USA TODAY she was his "adopted sister … as close as family can get." The cast was a tight-knit group through the years, Swit once said: "We might as well be joined at the hip." Close isn't good enough for the New York Knicks Some teams just want to win NOW. Maybe that's why the New York Knicks fired coach Tom Thibodeau, stunning much of the basketball world, just days after the franchise flirted with the NBA Finals for the first time in 25 years before falling to the Indiana Pacers. Not bad for a team that had won just 21 games in the 2019-20 season before Thibodeau took over. The Knicks might be forgiven for being a little impatient after their magical run, however: They have not won a title since 1973. (The NBA Finals, with the Pacers facing the Oklahoma City Thunder, tipped off June 5). − Compiled by Robert Abitbol, USA TODAY copy chief

I'm a gay man. Pride has always been special, but this year it's so much more.
I'm a gay man. Pride has always been special, but this year it's so much more.

USA Today

time28 minutes ago

  • USA Today

I'm a gay man. Pride has always been special, but this year it's so much more.

I'm a gay man. Pride has always been special, but this year it's so much more. | Opinion Pride Month is more than just a time to wave rainbow flags, show off cute outfits and watch a drag show while eating chicken-on-a-stick. At its heart, pride is an event to gather with people who care. Show Caption Hide Caption Listen to Stonewall riot veterans recount the infamous police clash Veterans of the 1969 riot at The Stonewall Inn reflect on the infamous clash with police and why the fight for equality continues over trans rights. A couple of years back, I wrote a guest column in the Detroit Free Press about what can feel like insincere corporate support for pride – how it can be a performative act to maximize profit, that at its worst erodes the authentic queer experience, and at its best gives us a surface level of seen-ness, a mainstream support that often feels as thin as a dollar bill. Since then, things have only gotten more worrisome for queer folks in America and are downright terrifying for our transgender siblings. Rights and respect for LGBTQ+ people had been moving forward for the past few decades, but now those rights are being peeled away. And the moment the political headwinds changed, support for LGBTQ+ Americans started to feel very flimsy. Pride has always had a special place in my heart, but this year I'm feeling it so much more. Opinion: A trans athlete won in California. Her peers cheered – and exposed the truth. I'm worried and exhausted. Can you feel it, too? Growing up, my parents and grandparents taught to me to believe in and to love America – a country, a place, a belief come to life – an idea that in execution is often severely flawed, but ultimately strives toward the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, be they an immigrant, gay, queer, women, men, trans, fat, thin, old, Black, Asian, disabled or able-bodied. But it seems our government, and as such, we the American people, are no longer striving – our country is feeling like a scarier, far less hopeful place. You can feel it, too, can't you? The exhausting weariness of trying to get by in a country where the truth, science and so many people matter far less than they did a few years ago; where the future for anyone who isn't a billionaire – and LBGTQ+ folks especially – grows darker and darker each day. Opinion: Hegseth stripping Harvey Milk's name off Navy ship is weak and insecure There are regular attacks on the middle and working classes through the increasing cost of living, cuts to Veterans Affairs, Medicaid and other health services and medical research. Attacks on trans and queer folks, and the executive orders policing the bodies of (mostly) women, transgender and nonbinary people seem to be the steps to a subjugation of queer people and, at some point in the not-so-distant future, of all women. Queer teen suicide ideation (already twice the rate of their straight-identifying counterparts) is up, along with the feeling that people just don't care about each other. And the odds of anything changing in the near term are down. Being an employed, White, gay, cisgender male with stable housing gives me some privilege, a bit of a shield against what's coming. But watching the erasure of trans folks, queer folks, women, people of color and more, I am very worried – concerned, confused and worn the hell out. I fluctuate between thinking I, or someone I love, will be disappeared or sent to a gulag, and thinking I'm crazy for worrying about being sent to a gulag. (A gulag, an El Salvadoran prison … without due process under the law, we are all at risk.) Share your opinion: Do you celebrate pride? Are you worried about Trump's impacts on it? Tell us. | Opinion Forum It's more important than ever to celebrate pride I don't know what the future holds, but I do know this … from Patroclus and Achilles to me and that dizzyingly dashing bantamweight MMA fighter, queer love has been with us since before recorded time, and it cannot be erased. It's not going anywhere. Alas, queer hate, using the smallest minority as a scapegoat to rally against, has been with us for nearly as long. And that's why we have pride. Pride Month is more than just a time to wave rainbow flags, show off cute outfits and watch a drag show while eating chicken-on-a-stick. At its very heart, pride is an event to gather with people who care, with folks who are sharing the same oftentimes lonesome and frightening experience, a place for all who are marginalized to feel accepted, heard and to be surrounded, supported and seen by people just like you. Just like me. Pride is a home, and you, queer reader, are pride. I don't know what we can do to save or reclaim our country, but maybe it's the same as what we can do to save or reclaim our sense of self: Rally likeminded individuals to support, to vote, to come together, to shout, to celebrate ourselves, our authentic existence, our lives, our liberty, our pursuit of happiness, our very survival and … our pride. Robert M. Nelson lives in Detroit. This column originally appeared in the Detroit Free Press.

Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'

USA Today

time28 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message'

Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about `troubling message' Jackson, one of the court's most liberal justices, wrote that her colleagues may be unintentionally showing preferential treatment for the Trump administration. Show Caption Hide Caption Ketanji Brown Jackson lights up stage at Broadway musical "& Juliet" Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson treated "& Juliet" fans to a special performance for one night only! WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson said the court `plainly botched' its evaluation of a Trump appeal Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. More Supreme Court wins for Trump In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship.

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