Proposed health care cuts threaten thousands of Rhode Islanders. We must protect their coverage.
Advertisement
These tax credits go to 40,000 working class Rhode Islanders who earn just a little bit too much to qualify for Medicaid, do not get health insurance through work, and do not earn nearly enough to afford good health insurance in the marketplace. When the enhanced tax credits expire, these former recipients will see their premiums jump by an average of 85 percent — but some will face even bigger rate hikes.
Advertisement
For example, a 45-year-old working 30 hours a week making minimum wage would see her monthly premium increase by 387 percent. A couple, both age 64, making $85,000 combined would see their monthly premium jump from $602 to $1,992 — meaning they would be paying 28 percent of their income just to enroll in coverage.
When health insurance becomes this expensive, people drop it. They skip preventive care, delay treatment, and risk financial ruin from unexpected medical bills. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that
That's why we've introduced the
We know this won't solve every challenge in our health care system. But at a time when dysfunction in Washington threatens to undermine hard-won progress, Rhode Island has an opportunity to protect tens of thousands of our residents from dramatic increases in their health insurance costs.
Advertisement
These are our neighbors, our co-workers, our family members. They deserve to know that their state has their back.
We urge our colleagues in the General Assembly — and Rhode Islanders across the state — to support the Individual Market Affordability Act. And we thank the
Because when everyone has access to health care, we're all stronger for it.
State Representative June S. Speakman represents District 68 in Warren and Bristol. Senator Pamela J. Lauria represents District 32 in Barrington, Bristol, and East Providence. They are the sponsors of the Individual Market Affordability Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
35 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.''
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tariffs could pay for his tax cuts -- but it likely wouldn't be much of a bargain
WASHINGTON (AP) — The tax cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act would likely gouge a hole in the federal budget. The president has a patch handy, though: his sweeping import taxes — tariffs. The Congressional Budget Office, the government's nonpartisan arbiter of tax and spending matters, says the One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by the House last month and now under consideration in the Senate, would increase federal budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. That is because its tax cuts would drain the government's coffers faster than its spending cuts would save money. By bringing in revenue for the Treasury, on the other hand, the tariffs that Trump announced through May 13 — including his so-called reciprocal levies of up to 50% on countries with which the United States has a trade deficit — would offset the budget impact of the tax-cut bill and reduce deficits over the next decade by $2.5 trillion. So it's basically a wash. That's the budget math anyway. The real answer is more complicated. Actually using tariffs to finance a big chunk of the federal government would be a painful and perilous undertaking, budget wonks say. 'It's a very dangerous way to try to raise revenue,' said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department. Trump has long advocated tariffs as an economic elixir. He says they can protect American industries, bring factories back to the United States, give him leverage to win concessions over foreign governments — and raise a lot of money. He's even suggested that they could replace the federal income tax, which now brings in about half of federal revenue. 'It's possible we'll do a complete tax cut,'' he told reporters in April. 'I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax.'' Economists and budget analysts do not share the president's enthusiasm for using tariffs to finance the government or to replace other taxes. 'It's a really bad trade,'' said Erica York, the Tax Foundation's vice president of federal tax policy. 'It's perhaps the dumbest tax reform you could design.'' For one thing, Trump's tariffs are an unstable source of revenue. He bypassed Congress and imposed his biggest import tax hikes through executive orders. That means a future president could simply reverse them. 'Or political whims in Congress could change, and they could decide, 'Hey, we're going revoke this authority because we don't think it's a good thing that the president can just unilaterally impose a $2 trillion tax hike,' '' York said. Or the courts could kill his tariffs before Congress or future presidents do. A federal court in New York has already struck down the centerpiece of his tariff program — the reciprocal and other levies he announced on what he called 'Liberation Day'' April 2 — saying he'd overstepped his authority. An appeals court has allowed the government to keep collecting the levies while the legal challenge winds its way through the court system. Economists also say that tariffs damage the economy. They are a tax on foreign products, paid by importers in the United States and usually passed along to their customers via higher prices. They raise costs for U.S. manufacturers that rely on imported raw materials, components and equipment, making them less competitive than foreign rivals that don't have to pay Trump's tariffs. Tariffs also invite retaliatory taxes on U.S. exports by foreign countries. Indeed, the European Union this week threatened 'countermeasures'' against Trump's unexpected move to raise his tariff on foreign steel and aluminum to 50%. 'You're not just getting the effect of a tax on the U.S. economy,' York said. 'You're also getting the effect of foreign taxes on U.S. exports.'' She said the tariffs will basically wipe out all economic benefits from the One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts. Smetters at the Penn Wharton Budget Model said that tariffs also isolate the United States and discourage foreigners from investing in its economy. Foreigners see U.S. Treasurys as a super-safe investment and now own about 30% of the federal government's debt. If they cut back, the federal government would have to pay higher interest rates on Treasury debt to attract a smaller number of potential investors domestically. Higher borrowing costs and reduced investment would wallop the economy, making tariffs the most economically destructive tax available, Smetters said — more than twice as costly in reduced economic growth and wages as what he sees as the next-most damaging: the tax on corporate earnings. Tariffs also hit the poor hardest. They end up being a tax on consumers, and the poor spend more of their income than wealthier people do. Even without the tariffs, the One Big Beautiful Bill slams the poorest because it makes deep cuts to federal food programs and to Medicaid, which provides health care to low-income Americans. After the bill's tax and spending cuts, an analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model found, the poorest fifth of American households earning less than $17,000 a year would see their incomes drop by $820 next year. The richest 0.1% earning more than $4.3 million a year would come out ahead by $390,070 in 2026. 'If you layer a regressive tax increase like tariffs on top of that, you make a lot of low- and middle-income households substantially worse off,'' said the Tax Foundation's York. Overall, she said, tariffs are 'a very unreliable source of revenue for the legal reasons, the political reasons as well as the economic reasons. They're a very, very inefficient way to raise revenue. If you raise a dollar of a revenue with tariffs, that's going to cause a lot more economic harm than raising revenue any other way.'' Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press 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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
5 Absurd Ways Republicans Are Defending Kicking People Off Medicaid
WASHINGTON — In their zeal to deliver a big win to President Donald Trump by passing his sweeping tax and spending bill, Republicans have been coming up with ridiculous ways to defend their plan to strip health care from an estimated 11 million low-income people. Experts don't matter. Prove you are worthy of health care. We're all going to die anyway. Somehow, these are actual arguments GOP lawmakers and officials have been making as they try to gloss over the pain their bill would impose on poor people and families while handing big tax breaks to mostly rich people. Here are five of the most absurd ways Republicans have tried to defend their so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which guts federal health and food assistance programs by nearly $1.3 trillion. It was her first town hall of the year, held at 7:30 in the morning at a rural area two hours away from Des Moines — possibly to keep national attention off the senator as much as possible. Yet Republican Sen. Joni Erst of Iowa last week still managed to step in it with a flippant remarkto a woman concerned about Republican plans to cut Medicaid. 'People will die!' the woman shouted at the senator. 'Well, we all are going to die,' Ernst responded with a smirk. 'For heaven's sakes, folks.' The glib comment quickly went viral on social media and Democrats pounced on her words, featuring them on signs at press conferences around the U.S. Capitol this week as they blasted the GOP tax and spending bill. It even spurred Democratic state Rep. JD Scholten to announce his entry into the race to unseat Ernst, who faces reelection next year, and election handicappers to shift the raceslightly toward Democrats. Ernst later doubled down by filming a sarcastic apology video from a cemetery. 'I'm very compassionate,' she told a swarm of reporters this week. From the minute Republicans started drafting the legislation this year, they knew two things: They would limit eligibility for the childless adults without disabilities covered under the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, saving hundreds of billions of dollars, and they would deny that the significant loss of coverage resulting from 'work requirements' — which would mostly kick people who have jobs off Medicaid by imposing new paperwork burdens on them — counted as a cut. In fact, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) explained in February, losing health care coverage would spur people to improve themselves, and they'd be better off for it. 'Work is good for you. You find dignity in work. And the people that are not doing that, we're going to try to get their attention,' Johnson said. 'So everyone needs to take a deep sigh of relief and understand that we're not going to harm any Americans with this. What we're doing is the right thing by the people.' The Congressional Budget Office said this week the proposed work requirements — better understood as a limit on benefits for people who don't prove to their state government they've participated in 80 hours per month of qualifying 'community engagement' activities — would reduce Medicaid enrollment by 5.2 million and save $344 billion over a decade. Ultimately, 4.8 million fewer people would have insurance in 2034. This week, Johnson's office pointed to a new analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that unemployed Medicaid recipients who would be affected by the law typically spend 4.2 hours per day watching TV and playing video games, compared with 2.7 hours per day of TV and video games for Medicaid recipients with jobs. For Republicans, unemployed gamers are about as deserving of government assistance as undocumented immigrants, who are also targeted in the legislation. 'The next time a Democrat makes false claims about 'Medicaid cuts,' just remember that what they're really saying is they want illegal aliens and able-bodied adults playing video games at home to continue stealing resources from those who need it,' Johnson's office said in a statement. In a major analysis of work requirements that have been tried in various federal programs, however, the CBO found in 2022 that booting unemployed people off Medicaid didn't boost their employment. The budget office pointed to what happened when the first Trump administration let Arkansas implement a Medicaid work requirement in 2018. 'There, many of the targeted adults lost their health insurance as a result of the work requirement,' the CBO said. 'Employment did not appear to increase, although the evidence is scant. Research indicates that many participants were unaware of the work requirement or found it too onerous to demonstrate compliance.' Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), lead author of the Republicans' Medicaid proposal, has said lawmakers learned from the Arkansas example and that the compliance paperwork in this case would be less onerous. GOP lawmakers have sought to undermine the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan federal agency that analyzes the fiscal effects of legislation, after it estimated that the massive tax cut package will add $2.4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years and eliminate health insurance for nearly 11 million people. Republicans have argued that these tax cuts will spur economic growth and eventually pay for themselves, something that studies have shown did not happen after they made similar arguments about their 2017 tax cut bill. They also have a very vocal critic to contend with in billionaire Elon Musk, their one-time ally who has savaged the bill as an 'abomination' for how it will balloon the deficit. Appearing Thursday on CNN, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) also dismissed the CBO's projections about the nearly 11 million people who stand to lose their health care coverage. 'Can you say for certain no one will lose their health insurance?' CNN anchor Pamela Brown asked Scott. 'You just can't look at those numbers at face value and say they're going to happen,' Scott responded. Republicans who are willing to at least acknowledge that cutting Medicaid will lead to people losing health insurance argue that they will instead be able to find a job and receive employer-sponsored health care. 'People are screaming and saying, 'Hey, it's kicking people off Medicaid.' It's not kicking people off Medicaid,' Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said in an interview with CNBC. 'It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So, yes, we've got 10 million people that are not gonna be on Medicaid, but they then are gonna be on employer-provided health care.' That's an extremely optimistic prediction, especially since the GOP bill doesn't explicitly create any jobs itself. Even if those people who lose their Medicaid coverage are able to find a job at some point, not every employer offers health care, particularly for part-time roles. 'Few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage and none would be eligible for the premium tax credit,' CBO Director Phillip Swagel said in a letter to members of Congress on Wednesday. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the former TV personality now running the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said people should have to 'prove that you matter' to get Medicaid coverage. During a Wednesday interview on Fox Business, Oz defended the bill's harsh, new work requirements for Medicaid. The bill requires states to deny coverage to people age 19 to 64 applying for Medicaid if they're not already working at least 80 hours a month. It also requires states to kick people off Medicaid if they can't prove they're meeting the work requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these work requirements alone will result in 5.2 million people losing their health coverage. 'We're asking that able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school,' Oz said. 'Do something that shows you have agency over your future.' If people aren't doing those things, he said, they'll have to get a job and get health insurance there because they shouldn't be covered by Medicaid anymore. 'Go out there. Do entry-level jobs. Get into the workforce. Prove that you matter,' Oz said. 'Get agency into your own life.' In fact, under the GOP bill, most people are projected to lose Medicaid coverage due to red tape, with states not automatically exempting certain people from work requirements who should be exempted. At least 2 in 3 enrollees would be kicked off Medicaid despite working or qualifying for an exemption, like having a disability or going to school, per the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
