logo
Republicans now own America's broken health care system

Republicans now own America's broken health care system

Vox3 days ago
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017.
Senate Republicans have passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' a move that will make major changes to Medicaid through establishing a work requirement for the first time and restricting states' ability to finance their share of the program's costs. If the bill ultimately becomes law after passing the House and receiving Trump's signature — which could all happen before Friday — American health care is never going to be the same.
The consequences will be dire.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would slash Medicaid spending by more than $1 trillion and that nearly 12 million people would lose their health insurance. Republicans added a last-minute infusion of funding for rural hospitals to assuage moderates skittish about the Medicaid cuts, but hospitals say the legislation will still be devastating to their business and their patients.
The Logoff
The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
When combined with the expiration of Obamacare subsidies at the end of this year, which were not addressed in the budget bill, and the other regulatory changes being made by the Trump administration, the Republican policy agenda could lead to an estimated 17 million Americans losing health coverage over the next decade, according to the health policy think tank KFF.
Fewer people with health insurance is going to mean fewer people getting medical services, which means more illness and ultimately more deaths.
One recent analysis by a group of Harvard-affiliated researchers of the House Republicans' version of the budget bill (which included the same general outline, though some of the provisions have been tweaked in the Senate) concluded that 700,000 fewer Americans would have a regular place to get medical care as a result of the bill. Upward of 200,000 fewer people would get their blood cholesterol or blood sugar checked; 139,000 fewer women would get their recommended mammograms. Overall, the authors project that between 8,200 and 24,600 additional Americans would die every year under the Republican plan. Other analyses came to the same conclusion: Millions of Americans will lose health insurance and thousands will die.
After a painful legislative debate in which some of their own members warned them not to cut Medicaid too deeply, Republicans succeeded in taking a big chunk out of the program to help cover the costs of their bill's tax cuts. They have, eight years after failing to repeal Obamacare entirely, managed to strike blows to some of its important provisions.
So, for better or worse, they own the health care system now, a system that is a continued source of frustration for most Americans — frustrations that the Republican plan won't relieve. The next time health care comes up for serious debate in Congress, lawmakers will need to repair the damage that the GOP is doing with its so-called big, beautiful bill.
How the Republican budget bill will drive up health care costs for everyone
The effects of the budget bill won't be limited only to the people on Medicaid and the people whose private insurance costs will increase because of the Obamacare funding cuts. Everyone will experience the consequences of millions of Americans losing health coverage.
When a person loses their health insurance, they are more likely to skip regular medical checkups, which makes it more likely they go to a hospital emergency room when a serious medical problem has gotten so bad that they can't ignore it any longer. The hospital is obligated by federal law to take care of them even if they can't pay for their care.
Those costs are then passed on to other patients. When health care providers negotiate with insurance companies over next year's rates, they account for the uncompensated care they have to provide. And the fewer people covered by Medicaid, the more uncompensated care hospitals have to cover, the more costs are going to increase for even people who do have health insurance. Republicans included funding in the bill to try to protect hospitals from the adverse consequences, an acknowledgement of the risk they were taking, but the hospitals themselves are warning that the funding patches are insufficient. If hospitals and doctors' offices close because their bottom lines are squeezed by this bill, that will make it harder for people to access health care, even if they have an insurance card.
The effects of the Republican budget bill are going to filter through the rest of the health care system and increase costs for everyone. In that sense, the legislation passage marks a new era for US health policy. Since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, Democrats have primarily been held responsible for the state of the health care system. Sometimes this has been a drag on their political goals. But over time, as the ACA's benefits became more ingrained, health care became a political boon to Democrats.
Going forward, having made these enormous changes, Republicans are going to own the American health care system and all of its problems — the ones they created and the ones that have existed for years.
The BBB's passage sets the stage for another fight on the future of American health care
For the past decade-plus, US health care politics have tended to follow a 'you break it, you buy it' rule. Democrats discovered this in 2010: Though the Affordable Care Act's major provisions did not take effect for several years, they saw their popularity plummet quickly as Republicans successfully blamed annual premium increases that would've occurred with or without the law on the Democrats and their new health care bill. Voters were persuaded by those arguments, and Democrats lost Congress in the 2010 midterms.
But years later, Americans began to change their perception. As of 2024, 44 million Americans were covered through the 2010 health care law and two-thirds of the country say they have a favorable view of the ACA. After the GOP's failed attempt to repeal the law in 2017, the politics of the issue flipped: Democrats scored major wins in the 2018 midterms after successfully campaigning against the GOP's failed plan to repeal the ACA. Even in the disastrous 2024 election cycle for Democrats, health care policy was still an issue where voters trusted Kamala Harris more than Trump.
Democrats have more work to do on explaining to the public what the bill does and how its implications will be felt by millions of people. Recent polling suggests that many Americans don't understand the specifics. A contentious debate among Republicans, with several solitary members warning against the consequences of Medicaid cuts, have given politicians on the other side of the aisle good material to work with in making that case: Democrats can pull up clips of Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on the Senate floor, explaining how devastating the bill's Medicaid provisions would be to conservative voters in Republican-controlled states.
Republicans will try to sell the bill on its tax cuts. But multiple analyses have shown the vast majority of the benefits are going to be reserved for people in higher-income brackets. Middle-class and working-class voters will see only marginal tax relief — and if their health care costs increase either because they lose their insurance or because their premiums go up after other people lose insurance, then that relief could quickly be wiped out by increased costs elsewhere. That is the story Democrats will need to tell in the coming campaigns.
Medicaid has served as a safety net for tens of millions of Americans during both the Great Recession of 2008 and since the pandemic recession of 2020. At one point, around 90 million Americans — about one in four — were covered by Medicaid. People have become much more familiar with the program and it has either directly benefited them or helped somebody that they know at a difficult time.
And difficult times may be coming. Economists have their eyes on concerning economic indicators that the world may be heading toward a recession. When a recession hits — that is, after all, inevitable; it's just the normal cycle of the economy — people will lose their jobs and many of them will also lose their employer-sponsored health insurance. But now, the safety net is far flimsier than it was in previous crises.
Republicans are going to own those consequences. They took a program that had become an essential lifeline for millions of Americans and having schemed to gut the law ever since the Democrats expanded Medicaid through the ACA more than a decade ago, have finally succeeded. This Republican plan was a reaction to their opponent's most recent policy overhaul; the next Democratic health care plan will need to repair the harms precipitated by the GOP budget bill.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that
Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that

As Denmark takes over the presidency of the European Union, Danes are more strongly pro-European than at any time in the past two decades – a shift in sentiment that can at least partly be attributed to US President Donald Trump. An eye-opening survey published in March by Berlingske, a Danish daily newspaper, said 41% of Danes now see the United States as a threat. It also said 92% of respondents either 'agree' or 'mostly agree' that the Nordic nation needs to rely more on the European Union than the US for its security. Given the recent tensions between Washington and Copenhagen, those statistics may not be surprising. Since his return to the White House, Trump has spoken frequently and aggressively about Greenland, an autonomous crown dependency of Denmark, saying he would like the US to own it. Vice President JD Vance and members of the Trump family have made what many see as provocative trips to and statements about the world's largest island. After Vance's visit to the US military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on his claim that Denmark isn't doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country 'a good and strong ally.' Back in Trump's first administration, too, Greenland was a hot topic. In 2019, he reportedly accused Frederiksen of making a 'nasty' and 'absurd' statement in discussions about the island. Lykke Friis, a prominent Danish international affairs analyst and a former minister, told CNN that the country has experienced 'a triple shock' that includes the war in Ukraine and the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU, known as Brexit. The biggest shock, however, has come in the form of Trump. 'Now we have a different Denmark,' she said. Speaking to CNN from Copenhagen, Marie Bjerre, the Danish minister for European affairs, conveyed a similar message – that the second Trump administration has changed Danish perspectives toward both the US and the European Union. 'Things have dramatically changed in Denmark and our attitude toward Europe,' she said, without mentioning the president's name directly. She was also very clear that Denmark feels a sense of disappointment in its longtime ally. Denmark would still like to have a strong relationship with the US, Bjerre said, 'but in a situation where the US is closing itself more around itself… is threatening us with tariffs and also criticizing Europe, our freedom of expression and all sorts of other things. Of course, in that situation, we have to be stronger on our own.' She added, 'The world order, as we have known it since the Second World War, is changing and we have to deliver to that geopolitical new situation that we are standing in.' The minister also referenced the historic ties and shared past experiences of both nations, expressing a degree of frustration, if not anger, about how that relationship has changed. 'You could not put a paper in between the US and Denmark, we have always supported the US. We went into war with our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan… Seeing us, as a country, being criticized for not being a good ally, of course, that does affect our opinion,' Bjerre said. Per capita, Denmark lost the second-highest number of soldiers of all the US-led coalition partners fighting in Afghanistan. In total, 43 Danish soldiers died, equating to 7.82 deaths per million citizens. The US, by comparison, lost 7.96 soldiers per million. 'We used to be a very, very transatlantic country… that has plummeted,' said Friis. 'There is now the feeling… we simply cannot trust him,' she said – the 'him' being Trump. The shift in Danes' opinions coincides with Denmark taking up the rotating, six-month EU presidency. Historically, the southernmost Scandinavian nation has tended to be Euroskeptic, Friis told CNN, never feeling European at heart. She described it as sustaining a transactional relationship with Brussels, based on 'pragmatic co-operation.' Denmark has long worried about the EU wading into Danes' lives, fearing in particular for its relatively unregulated labor market. It has various opt-outs on EU policy, including not joining the EU's single currency, the euro. 'We do things differently to other European nations,' said Bjerre. Politicians and citizens used to fear that the EU 'would become too dominating and too powerful,' Friis said, but now 'the fear is the complete opposite.' Danes feel the bloc is 'too weak' to deal with Putin to the East and Trump to the West, she said. Friis also described the prime minister's shift in tone as 'huge,' saying Frederiksen used to be 'very skeptical towards the EU.' In June, Frederiksen announced that Denmark was quitting the so-called 'Frugal Four,' an informal group of EU nations that had pushed to limit common spending, saying that 'the most important thing is to rearm Europe.' Laying out Denmark's priorities for the EU presidency later that month, she reiterated that view, saying: 'Now more than ever Europe needs to step up and stand together. We have to build an even stronger Europe, a more secure Europe where we are able to protect our democracies.' EU-commissioned, biannual polls show a clear trend of increased trust in the EU over the past two decades, rising from 46% in spring 2005 to 74% this past spring. Steeper increases can be seen during Trump's first term, after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as Trump's second term began. The war in Ukraine has had a significant influence on Danish views on the EU, Friis said. 'The very fact that you had a war in our backyard has sort of created a completely new sort of atmosphere around security in Denmark, people are worried. People are prepping now because they're scared about what could happen also to our own security,' she said. Bjerre said Copenhagen's EU presidency would prioritize a 'stronger Europe and a changing world,' with Europe having a real focus on security. Denmark takes the European helm, then, at a time of increasingly pro-European sentiment among its own population and a wider recognition in Europe that it must do more to stand on its own. The problem is that some of Europe's most pressing issues – Ukraine, trade tariffs and security – mean talking to the US and Trump. And at the moment, there may not be much love lost between the two. Kayla Williams contributed to this report.

Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that
Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

Denmark has long been Euroskeptic. Donald Trump helped change that

As Denmark takes over the presidency of the European Union, Danes are more strongly pro-European than at any time in the past two decades – a shift in sentiment that can at least partly be attributed to US President Donald Trump. An eye-opening survey published in March by Berlingske, a Danish daily newspaper, said 41% of Danes now see the United States as a threat. It also said 92% of respondents either 'agree' or 'mostly agree' that the Nordic nation needs to rely more on the European Union than the US for its security. Given the recent tensions between Washington and Copenhagen, those statistics may not be surprising. Since his return to the White House, Trump has spoken frequently and aggressively about Greenland, an autonomous crown dependency of Denmark, saying he would like the US to own it. Vice President JD Vance and members of the Trump family have made what many see as provocative trips to and statements about the world's largest island. After Vance's visit to the US military's Pituffik Space Base in Greenland in March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen pushed back on his claim that Denmark isn't doing enough for defense in the Arctic, calling her country 'a good and strong ally.' Back in Trump's first administration, too, Greenland was a hot topic. In 2019, he reportedly accused Frederiksen of making a 'nasty' and 'absurd' statement in discussions about the island. Lykke Friis, a prominent Danish international affairs analyst and a former minister, told CNN that the country has experienced 'a triple shock' that includes the war in Ukraine and the departure of the United Kingdom from the EU, known as Brexit. The biggest shock, however, has come in the form of Trump. 'Now we have a different Denmark,' she said. Speaking to CNN from Copenhagen, Marie Bjerre, the Danish minister for European affairs, conveyed a similar message – that the second Trump administration has changed Danish perspectives toward both the US and the European Union. 'Things have dramatically changed in Denmark and our attitude toward Europe,' she said, without mentioning the president's name directly. She was also very clear that Denmark feels a sense of disappointment in its longtime ally. Denmark would still like to have a strong relationship with the US, Bjerre said, 'but in a situation where the US is closing itself more around itself… is threatening us with tariffs and also criticizing Europe, our freedom of expression and all sorts of other things. Of course, in that situation, we have to be stronger on our own.' She added, 'The world order, as we have known it since the Second World War, is changing and we have to deliver to that geopolitical new situation that we are standing in.' The minister also referenced the historic ties and shared past experiences of both nations, expressing a degree of frustration, if not anger, about how that relationship has changed. 'You could not put a paper in between the US and Denmark, we have always supported the US. We went into war with our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan… Seeing us, as a country, being criticized for not being a good ally, of course, that does affect our opinion,' Bjerre said. Per capita, Denmark lost the second-highest number of soldiers of all the US-led coalition partners fighting in Afghanistan. In total, 43 Danish soldiers died, equating to 7.82 deaths per million citizens. The US, by comparison, lost 7.96 soldiers per million. 'We used to be a very, very transatlantic country… that has plummeted,' said Friis. 'There is now the feeling… we simply cannot trust him,' she said – the 'him' being Trump. The shift in Danes' opinions coincides with Denmark taking up the rotating, six-month EU presidency. Historically, the southernmost Scandinavian nation has tended to be Euroskeptic, Friis told CNN, never feeling European at heart. She described it as sustaining a transactional relationship with Brussels, based on 'pragmatic co-operation.' Denmark has long worried about the EU wading into Danes' lives, fearing in particular for its relatively unregulated labor market. It has various opt-outs on EU policy, including not joining the EU's single currency, the euro. 'We do things differently to other European nations,' said Bjerre. Politicians and citizens used to fear that the EU 'would become too dominating and too powerful,' Friis said, but now 'the fear is the complete opposite.' Danes feel the bloc is 'too weak' to deal with Putin to the East and Trump to the West, she said. Friis also described the prime minister's shift in tone as 'huge,' saying Frederiksen used to be 'very skeptical towards the EU.' In June, Frederiksen announced that Denmark was quitting the so-called 'Frugal Four,' an informal group of EU nations that had pushed to limit common spending, saying that 'the most important thing is to rearm Europe.' Laying out Denmark's priorities for the EU presidency later that month, she reiterated that view, saying: 'Now more than ever Europe needs to step up and stand together. We have to build an even stronger Europe, a more secure Europe where we are able to protect our democracies.' EU-commissioned, biannual polls show a clear trend of increased trust in the EU over the past two decades, rising from 46% in spring 2005 to 74% this past spring. Steeper increases can be seen during Trump's first term, after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as Trump's second term began. The war in Ukraine has had a significant influence on Danish views on the EU, Friis said. 'The very fact that you had a war in our backyard has sort of created a completely new sort of atmosphere around security in Denmark, people are worried. People are prepping now because they're scared about what could happen also to our own security,' she said. Bjerre said Copenhagen's EU presidency would prioritize a 'stronger Europe and a changing world,' with Europe having a real focus on security. Denmark takes the European helm, then, at a time of increasingly pro-European sentiment among its own population and a wider recognition in Europe that it must do more to stand on its own. The problem is that some of Europe's most pressing issues – Ukraine, trade tariffs and security – mean talking to the US and Trump. And at the moment, there may not be much love lost between the two. Kayla Williams contributed to this report.

Some Social Security Recipients Will See Wage Garnishment in Just Weeks
Some Social Security Recipients Will See Wage Garnishment in Just Weeks

Newsweek

timean hour ago

  • Newsweek

Some Social Security Recipients Will See Wage Garnishment in Just Weeks

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. In roughly 20 days, some Social Security recipients could experience wage garnishment as a higher Social Security claw back rate returns. Roughly 2 million Americans owed money to the Social Security Administration due to overpayments in 2023, according to KFF and Cox Media group. Starting July 24, the higher wage garnishments will go into effect until the full overpayment has been resolved. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has implemented a wide range of changes to the Social Security Administration (SSA). In addition to ending the use of paper checks by October, Trump also appointed former Fiserv CEO Frank Bisignano as the new SSA commissioner. The Department of Government Efficiency also instructed the agency to cut 7,000 SSA jobs. For beneficiaries who have been mistakenly overpaid, losing Social Security benefits could have severe consequences on their ability to pay for basic necessities. Roughly 21 percent of married couples and 45 percent of single recipients rely on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their income, according to SSA estimates. A sign is seen outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California. A sign is seen outside a US Social Security Administration building, November 5, 2020, in Burbank, California. VALERIE MACON/AFP via Getty Images What To Know In some circumstances, the SSA overpays Social Security recipients due to either miscalculations on their part or the recipient failing to update their earnings information. In March, the SSA said it would be bringing back its 100 percent claw back rate for Social Security recipients who were mistakenly overpaid by the government. During Joe Biden's presidency, that rate was set at 10 percent to allow seniors more breathing room to pay for their basic necessities. However, the SSA updated that garnishment rate to 50 percent in April. "When we determine an individual receiving Title II benefits is overpaid, we send them a notice requesting a full and immediate refund and inform them of their right to request reconsideration or a waiver of recovery," the SSA said in April. "We usually provide 90 days for the individual to request a lower rate of withholding, a reconsideration, or waiver." The 90-day period from the SSA's statement on April 25 ends July 24, meaning more than a million recipients could see their payments impacted. However, those who have been overpaid can file for an overpayment waiver. Form SSA-632BK asks for forgiveness for the overpayment if it was not your fault and it would create financial hardship. To get this approved, you'll need proof that repaying the money would create a significant hardship. Beneficiaries can also file Form SSA-561 to appeal the claim you were overpaid. Newsweek reached out to the SSA for comment via email. What People Are Saying Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Most recipients don't realize they've been overpaid until they receive a letter from the SSA. Without regularly reviewing your earnings history and benefit statements, overpayments can go unnoticed. Even if the error wasn't your fault, you're still responsible for repayment—unless you appeal, request a waiver, or set up a payment plan within the 90-day period." What Happens Next The loss of income could be dire for many Social Security recipients who rely on the benefits for most if not all of their income. A recent report from Gallup found 86 percent rely on Social Security as a "major" or "minor" income source. "The consequences can be significant, especially for retirees living on a fixed income. With inflation still elevated, a 50 percent reduction in benefits could severely impact housing, food, and healthcare," Thompson said. "For many, Social Security is their only source of income—making these garnishments potentially devastating."

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