Trump's Tax Bill Would Decimate the Affordable Care Act
President Donald Trump and Republicans' 'big, beautiful,' tax bill already promises to leave millions of Americans without access to Medicaid and food assistance programs. The GOP is using Congress' massive budget reconciliation bill to slash taxes on the wealthy and enact a host of right-wing policy dreams, and among them is the fulfillment of their more than decade-long fixation on gutting the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Republicans plan to allow for the expiration of subsidies that help people afford individual health insurance plans, a move that would lead to a steep rise in prices for Americans who purchase coverage through the ACA marketplace.
The version of the reconciliation bill passed Thursday by the House of Representatives would also prohibit passive re-enrollment for ACA plan users who receive financial assistance; increase penalties for incorrect reporting of income; place further restrictions on enrollment periods; and create new bureaucratic hurdles to obtaining premium tax credits, in ways that experts say will cause many to forgo or lose coverage.
In addition to the bill's efforts to force millions off Medicaid and trim payments to health care providers for patients on the safety-net program, which provides health insurance to low-income and disabled Americans, the legislation would slash states' funding for Medicaid if they allow undocumented migrants or 'lawfully present' individuals (mostly children) to enroll in ACA plans.
The sum total of Republicans' health care policies — including their changes to Medicaid and the ACA, and the expiration of expanded premium subsidies — are expected to result in roughly 14 million Americans losing their health insurance coverage. In a letter to House leadership, 18 state-level ACA marketplaces warned of the potential devastation.
'The Americans who depend on the marketplaces include working parents, small business owners, farmers, gig workers, early retirees, and lower and middle-class individuals of all ages, political views, and backgrounds who drive our local economies and make both our rural and urban communities thrive,' they wrote. 'These proposals, in total, will drastically diminish the progress on health coverage that the United States has made in the last decade via marketplaces. Only the sickest patients may remain in the marketplaces, skyrocketing costs for everyone.'
'Millions of Americans will lose their health coverage, local hospital systems will face unprecedented financial strain, state operational costs will spike in order to implement burdensome new federal rules, and all of this is likely to result in insurance carriers pulling out of local insurance markets. Some states may even be forced to walk away from state-based marketplaces entirely,' they warned.
'This bill's intent is to drown Americans in paperwork in order to make it harder to get on and stay on coverage,' Anthony Wright, Executive Director at Families USA, told Rolling Stone.
'Right now, if you are apply, if you are in the exchange — whether it's DC Health Link, or Covered California, or New York State of Health, or healthcare.gov — and you are applying for coverage with a tax credit, right now most of those systems are based on electronic verification,' Wright says, explaining that state marketplaces have access to federal systems so they can — 'not automatically, but pretty seamlessly' — verify a person's eligibility.
The current Republican bill would eliminate provisional eligibility for advanced premium tax credits, and deny the tax credits to consumers while they await a determination. It would also prohibit 'passive re-enrollment' for individuals who've purchased ACA plans with advanced premium tax credits. The new system would require plan-holders to re-submit their verification during the enrollment period. If not, they would be re-enrolled in a plan without a tax credit, which would in effect put them on the hook for the full price of their premium, which they likely cannot afford given their income status qualified them for a tax credit. According to the Commonwealth Fund, 93 percent of ACA marketplace enrollees use an advanced premium tax credit to pay for their plans.
While some of the changes would result in direct coverage denials, the majority of lost coverage would likely be due to individuals opting out of the system due to the much higher premium costs they'd be expected to absorb, as well as the confusing, time-consuming, and nonsensical red tape Republicans are deliberately placing on them.
'They're actually taking us back to the Stone Age of what it means to sign up for coverage in terms of paperwork and bureaucracy,' says Wright, adding that there are electronic systems to make the process 'much easier, and we have been doing it for the last 15 years.'
Larry Levitt, executive vice president at the health research organization KFF, tells Rolling Stone that the tax bill is 'not [a] repeal of the Affordable Care Act, but it, in many ways, has the same effect of dramatically increasing the number of people without health insurance.'
After the House passed the reconciliation bill Thursday, Levitt wrote on X that 'it would represent the biggest rollback in federal support for health care ever.'
More from Rolling Stone
House Passes Bill That Would Gut Climate Tax Credits for Americans
Here's Where to Find Birkenstocks On Sale Before Their Tariff Price Hike
GOP Lawmaker Who Owns a Gun Shop Takes Credit for Silencer Tax Breaks
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Running a low-turnout Georgia runoff election could cost $100 per vote
ATLANTA (AP) — Miller County Election Supervisor Jerry Calhoun says he's not sure anyone will vote in an upcoming Democratic primary runoff. After all, the southwest Georgia county only recorded one vote in the June 17 Democratic primary for the state Public Service Commission among candidates Keisha Waites, Peter Hubbard and Robert Jones. Two other Democratic ballots weren't counted, probably because voters chose Daniel Blackman, who had been disqualified. Turnout wasn't much higher among Republicans, with 40 votes cast in Commissioner Tim Echols' victory over challenger Lee Muns. 'I'm going to tell you the truth, I'm worried about it for the runoff, but there's nothing I can do about it," Calhoun said of the July 15 Democratic runoff between Waites and Hubbard. Statewide turnout for the primary on June 17 reached just 2.8% of Georgia's 7.4 million active registered voters. That includes more than 15,000 people who likely voted for Blackman and didn't have their votes counted. But the Democratic runoff might struggle to reach 1% turnout statewide. And counties could spend $10 million statewide to hold the election, based on a sampling of some county spending. That could be more than $100 per vote. People who want to change Georgia's runoff system say this election shows how the state spends money only to have decisions made by a fraction of people who voted the first time. 'It's a terrible waste of resources," said state Rep. Saira Draper, an Atlanta Democrat. But key Republicans are opposed to two methods used elsewhere — letting someone win without a majority or using ranked choice voting to determine a majority. In the meantime, some Republican-dominated counties are using a state law to reduce the number of polling places for the runoff. In many states, finishing first is enough to win, even if it's far short of a majority. Georgia is one of only nine states, mostly in the South, that require runoffs. And it's one of only two states, along with Mississippi, that demand a runoff if no candidate wins a general election majority after a partisan primary. Historians say runoffs were created in part to make it harder for Black candidates to win office, giving white voters a chance to unify around a candidate. Georgia legislators in 1995 lowered the threshold to avoid a runoff, requiring a candidate to a earn only a 45% plurality. Republicans changed the threshold back to a majority after a GOP candidate lost a 1996 Senate race. Draper introduced a bill in 2023 to lower the threshold back to 45%, but it went nowhere. House Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Victor Anderson, a Cornelia Republican, is among many who believes a majority is an important electoral mandate. 'To actually win an election you should receive, in one form or fashion, at least 50% plus one of the vote. And so I am not in favor of a plurality system," said Anderson, whose committee oversees election legislation. Another option would be letting voters rank their choices and determining the winner using second or third choices. That's the system New York City voters are using to elect a mayor. Scot Turner, a former Republican state representative who champions that system, said turnout is typically lower for runoffs, silencing voters who don't return. He said ranked choice voting would broaden participation, ensure a majority chooses the winner and save money. 'It's a tweak of our existing system that maximizes turnout and lowers cost,' Turner said. 'Because we see these massive drop-offs in turnout for runoffs, those are disenfranchised voters. Their votes are tossed as if they never were cast.' Georgia issues ranked-choice ballots to military and overseas voters. But many Republicans oppose expansion, with the Georgia Senate passing bills to ban its further use. What some counties are doing is limiting the number of polling places for the runoff. State law allows a county to open only one polling place for a primary runoff if fewer than 1% of a county's registered voters cast ballots in the initial primary. That's likely to apply to some Republican-dominated counties. A few rural counties, including Miller County, already operate only one voting location. Cherokee County, with nearly 208,000 active voters, announced Friday that it would open only one polling place after fewer than 2,000 people cast ballots in the Democratic primary. Elections Director Anne Dover said the decision would cut the cost of the runoff in half, saving about $70,000. Travis Doss, president of the Georgia Association of Voter Registration and Election Officials, said Friday that as many as 20 counties are considering that option.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Here's how Wall Street sees the Israel-Iran conflict affecting recession odds
The Israel-Iran conflict raises concerns over a potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Goldman Sachs and other banks warn of recession risks if global oil supply is disrupted. Higher oil prices would impact global economic growth and inflation. Recession risks have come down significantly from their peak in April after Donald Trump's tariff announcements, but the Israel-Iran conflict has ignited fresh concerns about the path of global economic growth. After US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend, markets are worried about Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important oil-shipping chokepoints. Over the weekend, the odds of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz spiked to over 50% on Polymarket. The risk of further military escalation is a major reason Goldman Sachs said that it hasn't cut its recession probability, which hovers at 30%. With roughly 20% of the world's oil passing through the strait, a closure would bottleneck oil supply and send oil prices, and subsequently inflation, higher. At current levels around $73 a barrel of US oil and $76 a barrel for Brent, crude oil prices have increased around $10 per barrel since early June, which wouldn't be enough to pose a big threat to inflation and GDP growth, Jan Hatzius, the bank's chief economist, wrote in a note over the weekend. However, he sees the possibility of a much larger price move "in a tail scenario where the conflict expands significantly further and/or the Strait of Hormuz is closed. In that tail scenario, the risk of recession would climb sharply." In a worst-case scenario, oil volumes through the Strait of Hormuz could decrease by 50% for one month, then remain down 10% for another 11 months, Goldman Sachs commodities analysts predicted. That would lead Brent oil prices to peak at $110 per barrel before coming down to $95 per barrel in the fourth quarter of 2025. While Goldman Sachs' base case assumes Brent oil prices fall to $60 by year-end and deliver a modest boost to GDP growth, disruption in the energy supply could reduce global growth by 0.3 percentage points and send inflation rising by 0.7 percentage points. With regards to markets, Morgan Stanley also sees rising oil prices as a potential negative catalyst that sparks a potential 19% drop in the S&P 500. According to Mike Wilson, the bank's chief investment officer and chief equity strategist, a 75% year-over-year rise in oil prices has historically been disruptive enough to impact the business cycle and lead to a recession. Some forecasters see the potential for an even higher spike in crude prices. A 75% increase in oil prices isn't off the table, JPMorgan said. Commodities analysts at the bank see a 21% chance of a major disruption to energy production in the Persian Gulf, which could cause oil prices to rise to $120-$130 a barrel. However, such a scenario is not the bank's base case. JPMorgan sees crude oil averaging down to around $60 a barrel by the end of the year and into 2026, barring severe geopolitical escalation. Morgan Stanley's Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats believes a 75% spike in oil prices would only emerge as a result of prolonged supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. "Thus, while we're respectful of the risks, there's a long way to go on this basis," Wilson wrote. Read the original article on Business Insider Sign in to access your portfolio


Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Thomas Massie says he'll withdraw war-powers measure if Iran-Israel cease-fire holds
President Donald Trump already had Republicans scrambling to get their 'big, beautiful bill' to his desk by next week. Now he's got Congress grappling with something even bigger: the aftermath of his airstrikes on Iran. The issue could come to a head with a vote as soon as this week. Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution requiring congressional approval for military action in Iran ripens Friday but is expected to be on the floor sooner with the megabill set to eat up the back half of the week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is pushing to move up the vote. He's urging his party to support the measure, but Democrats expect to lose the vote of Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.). On the GOP side, keep an eye on Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who said Sunday on X 'Congress alone' has the power to authorize war. Lawmakers in both chambers are set to receive briefings Tuesday on the situation in Iran; they were on the books before the strikes. In the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) war powers resolution, which would block U.S. involvement in Iran, will not ripen until next week. But House GOP leadership is considering getting ahead of that: Speaker Mike Johnson could move this week to kill the effort with language getting rid of the privileged nature of the resolution, according to a person granted anonymity to relay the private discussions. Trump and GOP leaders are moving to unify the rank-and-file behind Trump's decision to strike, even as Trump openly muses about pursuing regime change in Iran. Take note of Trump's renewed attacks on Massie — a person familiar with the conversations who was granted anonymity to discuss them tells POLITICO it's part of an effort to keep members in line. Adding to the chaos for Republicans is Trump's Sunday evening musing about pursuing 'regime change' in Iran if its current leaders can't 'MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN.' 'This is not America First folks,' Massie said in response to Trump's Truth Social post. House Democrats are less unified. Most are questioning the constitutionality of the strike, but the party is split on where to go from there. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) has brought up impeachment. Others, like Rep. Steny Hoyer (Md.), were more supportive of the strike. That could be a problem for Democrats trying to strengthen their opposition. The top Democrats on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services are drafting their own resolution in response to the strikes, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the plan. There are likely a handful of pro-Israel Democrats who will vote against any war powers resolution. Even if the bill makes it to a House floor vote there likely won't be enough Republicans. What else we're watching: — Megabill's big week: Republicans will hold a closed-door meeting Monday night after votes for leadership to update members on the GOP megabill and its outstanding issues. Full bill text could land Monday, though it may also slip. While the 'big, beautiful bill' could hit the floor as soon as Wednesday, Thursday is looking more likely. — First Dem oversight vote: House Democrats' steering committee will vote this evening on who should be the party's leader on the Oversight Committee, followed by a full caucus vote Tuesday. California Rep. Robert Garcia, 47, is seen as the favorite in a field split along generational lines. He's running against Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, 44; Kweisi Mfume of Maryland, 76; and Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, 70. — Slashes to GAO funding: House Republican appropriators are proposing to cut funding for the Government Accountability Office by nearly half. It's the latest in a series of flash points between the GOP and the watchdog agency, which has been involved in clashes this year over DOGE, regulatory rollbacks and Trump's incursions into the power of the purse. Meredith Lee Hill, Jordain Carney, Nicholas Wu and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.