Medicaid on a spit after Republicans' budget bill passes House by single vote
The Trump administration's budget reconciliation bill has passed the US House of Representatives by a wafer-thin single-vote majority.
Passing the House by 215-214 votes and now set for a vote in the US Senate, observers warn that the bill, which the White House estimates will save the government around $900bn over the next decade, will have a profound impact on the US's Medicare and Medicaid health insurance programmes.
The bill outlines changes to Medicaid, including new work requirements for claimants. Critics have warned that such changes could inadvertently kick qualified candidates off the programme due to increased administrative hurdles such as stricter eligibility checks and a ban on using Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
Analysing policy options previously touted by Republicans to reduce Medicaid funding following the bill's release on 11 May, non-partisan think tank the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that it could cut the number of people eligible for coverage by around 8.6 million over the next decade and result in up to 13.7 million Americans losing their health insurance by 2034.
Calling the Medicaid and health insurance marketplace provisions currently included in the bill 'harmful', American Hospital Association (AHA) president and CEO Rick Pollack said the 'sheer magnitude' of the level of reductions to the Medicaid programme alone will 'impact all patients, not just Medicaid beneficiaries, in every community across the nation'.
'Hospitals – especially in rural and underserved areas – will be forced to make difficult decisions about whether they will have to reduce services, reduce staff and potentially consider closing their doors,' Pollack said.
'Other impacts could include longer waiting times to receive care, more crowded emergency departments, and hospitals not being able to invest in technology and innovations for clinical care.'
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserts that the bill will also have a disproportionate impact on healthcare for individuals with disabilities and block access to reproductive healthcare.
ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said: 'The bill asks poor and disabled Americans to pay more for medical care and imposes burdensome work requirements and bureaucratic paperwork designed to exclude people from the coverage they need.
'Let's call this what it is: taking Medicaid away from sick people and low-income families in order to fund tax cuts for billionaires and turbocharge deporting immigrants who have lived, worked, and raised their families here for years.
'The Senate must do its job, represent their constituents, and reject this upside-down world bill."
Following the vote in the House, President Trump took to his social media network, Truth Social, writing: 'THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' has PASSED the House of Representatives!
'This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country!'
"Medicaid on a spit after Republicans' budget bill passes House by single vote" was originally created and published by Medical Device Network, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the business world has to like (and not) in Senate version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill'
The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill" released Monday, but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee released its 549-page blueprint this week that contains significant changes from what the House passed in May, especially on taxes, Medicare funding and clean energy. The changes are still being digested by the business community but one proposal is already being embraced: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent for things like interest payments and new capital investments. One idea that may not be quite so popular is the survival of an idea for a so-called "revenge tax" that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from changes made by the Senate. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime in the Senate bill. Health care providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions to dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost saving measure with a slashing of the annual deduction for individual State and Local Taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is even described in the official summary of the bill as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling as he reiterated that he remains a no. This latest release comes only about two weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. The Senate is aiming to pass the bill by next weekend, Ed Mills of Raymond James pointed out in a note, "however, we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under intense debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners are a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like the depreciation of property, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for Opportunity Zones, which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime but in a more limited form. Employee will have annual deductions of up to $25,000 for tips and overtime — in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. Also present in the Senate blueprint is a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, the executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight (stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House) but are expected to remain a point of contention and also potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to have cut against the business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill but in a slightly diminished form: this so-called "revenge tax." That is an idea that would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case things like the digital services taxes the often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added "we still view late July as the real deadline." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices 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
New York Times
12 minutes ago
- New York Times
FIFA has taken us for fools over its promise to fight racism
Maybe ultimately, we're the fools. Because did we expect anything else from FIFA? Did we really believe world football's governing body was going to make use of the colossal platform available to it? Did we actually think it was going to do even the bare minimum? The news that FIFA has decided not to display any anti-racism or anti-discrimination messaging during games at the ongoing Club World Cup in the United States came with a grim inevitability. Despite rustling up some promotional materials for its 'no racism' and 'no discrimination' initiatives, none have been used so far in the first week of the tournament. There has been nothing in the stadiums, on social media, on captains' armbands. Anywhere at all, in fact. Advertisement When asked by The Athletic, FIFA did not comment on whether there was a link between this decision and the increasingly close relationship between its president Gianni Infantino and the competition's host nation's President Donald Trump, but as soon as it became clear that Infantino was prioritising nurturing that bond over, say, actually running FIFA, it probably should have been obvious that this was going to happen. Trump's attempts to eradicate anything that faintly smells of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) — three words which he has, astonishingly, managed to redefine as bad things — already appear to have spilt over into sport. February's Super Bowl was the first in four years not to have 'End racism' messaging in the stadium. In March, an article on the U.S. Department of Defense's website celebrating Jackie Robinson, the former soldier who became the first man to break the colour barrier in Major League Baseball (MLB), was removed amid a purge of government web content relating to DEI. The article on Robinson was eventually restored, but the direction of travel was clear. So, when it came to FIFA and launching its new, greatly expanded Club World Cup with this first edition in the States, this was probably a case of when, rather than if. From a strictly pragmatic, realpolitik point of view, you could argue that it's sensible for Infantino to cosy up to the president of the country hosting your next two global events, with much of the national-team World Cup next year being played in the U.S. too. But if that means abandoning any moral principles you have, or at least pretend to have, is it worth it? Instead, FIFA's big message for this tournament is its 'Football Unites the World' slogan, which is displayed on captains' armbands, but not in many other places. Advertisement Football unites the world. Sure. But behind what? What is the force for good here? If you're saying that football has a broader social impact beyond just the game, then you have to give us something tangible to prove the point. Otherwise, it's just meaningless. Still, perhaps that's the point. At various intervals, FIFA and Infantino have spoken solemnly about their commitment to anti-racism. In January 2024, he encouraged the idea that teams should forfeit matches in the event of racist incidents. FIFA's 2022 World Cup sustainability report included a promise to carry out 'diversity and anti-discrimination awareness-raising initiatives.' Good idea. If nothing else, football should be used to raise awareness. It's the most popular sport in the world, arguably the biggest cultural force on the planet. When, though, if not at the Club World Cup, the tournament FIFA has been telling us for years is going to be the greatest show on earth? Would this not have been a pretty good opportunity to plaster everything with strong messaging, to make sure that if any viewers took anything from watching these games in America, it was that FIFA was committed to anti-discrimination? It's a particularly Eurocentric point of view to label this tournament a waste of time, another brick placed on top of the Jenga tower that is the international football schedule. But it has much more value and holds much more interest to fans and clubs from other parts of the world. It is far from insignificant. So at the very least, it could have been used as a platform, a method of influencing and drawing attention to the things that FIFA say it is committed to. Football's messaging when it comes to discrimination messaging is generally dishwater-weak as it is. UEFA, the game's European governing body, used to display a video before games in its competitions where famous football figures would stare into the camera and intone, in their native language, 'No to racism'. A noble sentiment, although it's stretching credibility to think that a racist would see, say, Pavel Nedved telling them that this sort of thing is not on, and thus change their ways. Advertisement But at least it was something. FIFA isn't even doing that. Comparisons will be made to the row over the 'One Love' armbands a few teams suggested they were going to wear during matches at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, an idea that FIFA nixed pretty quickly, and indeed pre-emptively banned from the Women's World Cup in Australia and New Zealand the following year. That was an external initiative, though: from a corporate perspective, it was consistent with its stance that only FIFA-approved messaging could be used. This is different. This is FIFA actively jettisoning something it has previously declared to be a precious part of football's social fabric, apparently because it is politically inconvenient. It all begs the question: if you can't even rely on FIFA to publicise what it claims to stand for, then what's the point? FIFA didn't comment on its plans for the actual World Cup next summer, to be hosted in the United States, Canada and Mexico, but it doesn't bode well. What will the slogan be for that? 'Can everyone just be nice?' 'Please don't be mean to each other'? Could this be watered-down even further, to homeopathic levels? If anyone can, FIFA can. It shouldn't be that hard to present some sort of worthwhile message, even if these are often frustratingly milquetoast. Major League Soccer and MLB recently carried out Pride initiatives, as did the Premier League. Teams in England were still taking the knee before games at the end of the most recent domestic season. But even that seems beyond FIFA. Again, perhaps this is our fault. Expect nothing, and you won't be disappointed. Expect the most basic expression of humanity, and you will. This is FIFA, after all.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel–Iran is 'not like the other conflicts' in the Middle East
US President Trump left the G7 Summit early for unspecified reasons as tensions between Israel and Iran continue to intensify. Pangaea Policy founder Terry Haines joins Morning Brief with Brad Smith to discuss the Middle East conflict and its impact on the market — in particular, oil prices (CL=F, BZ=F). To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Morning Brief here. 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
