logo
Mike Johnson Insists It's ‘Moral' to Throw People Off Medicaid

Mike Johnson Insists It's ‘Moral' to Throw People Off Medicaid

Yahoo25-05-2025

Speaker Mike Johnson defended Donald Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' that the House passed last week in the middle of the night, claiming the newly added Medicaid work requirements are 'moral.' Meanwhile, the legislation will hand the rich a gigantic tax cut.
'We looked at your home state, and the projection is that nearly 200,000 Louisianans will lose their Medicaid coverage… How do you defend that to your constituents?' Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan asked Johnson on Sunday.
'We have not cut Medicaid, and we have not cut SNAP. What we're doing, Margaret, is working on fraud, waste and abuse, and everyone in Louisiana and around the country understands that that's a responsibility of Congress,' Johnson said. But the bill will ultimately kick beneficiaries off Medicaid coverage and SNAP benefits, according to multiple estimates.
He went on to claim that it is 'moral' to 'make young men work.' According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the vast majority of Medicaid recipients (92 percent) are either already working (64 percent) or may be eligible for an exemption because they are caregivers, in school, or disabled. That leaves just eight percent of Medicaid recipients who say they are retired, cannot find work, or are unemployed for another reason.
'You've got about 4.8 million people on Medicaid right now nationwide who are able-bodied workers, young men, for example, who are not working, who are taking advantage of the system,' Johnson claimed. 'If you are able to work and you refuse to do so, you are defrauding the system. You're cheating the system. And no one in the country believes that that's right. So there's a moral component to what we're doing. And when you make young men work, it's good for them, it's good for their dignity, it's good for their self worth, and it's good for the community that they live in.'
Johnson cited approximately $11 billion in improper SNAP payments to justify his argument, but that total (actually $10.5 billion) includes overpayments as well as underpayments and instances where payments did not comply with regulations — not just fraud.
Trump has also alleged the bill will not cut Medicaid, saying, 'We're not doing any cutting of anything meaningful,' Trump said last week. 'The only thing we're cutting is waste, fraud and abuse. … We're not changing Medicaid and we're not changing Medicare and we're not changing Social Security.'
Analysis by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that approximately 15 million people would lose health coverage by 2034 if all provisions in the House bill are enacted, thanks to Medicaid cuts, not extending tax credits on Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace premiums, and other devastating changes to the ACA marketplace. That number includes almost 8 million Americans who would stand to lose Medicaid coverage.
Sweeping changes to Medicaid in the bill would push states to stop using their own funds to cover undocumented immigrants (14 states plus D.C. cover documented and undocumented immigrant children, and seven states plus D.C. cover some undocumented adults, according to PolitiFact). The legislation also bars non-profits like Planned Parenthood, which provide comprehensive reproductive care, from accepting Medicaid funds. And, there are the much-discussed work requirements.
Adding a work requirement for Medicaid coverage would likely drown both states and recipients in administrative red tape while not moving the needle on employment. States would need to set up ways to verify recipients are working or searching for work, which could increase administrative costs. Further, it seems unlikely these requirements would actually help accomplish the GOP's stated goal to increase the workforce. A study on the implementation of Medicaid work requirements in the state of Arkansas found that it did not increase employment. The study also concluded that people who lost their Medicaid coverage experienced negative consequences in the following year, with half encountering problems paying off medical debt and more than half having delayed care or delayed taking prescribed medications due to cost concerns.
'Work requirements are not about waste, fraud, and abuse — they are fundamentally changing the rules of who is eligible for the program, and they are adding an immense set of bureaucratic obstacles and red tape for eligible people to keep coverage,' Benjamin D. Sommers, a professor of health care economics and medicine at Harvard University's T. H. Chan School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, told PolitiFact.
Studies have found that hospitals may close or reduce services amid Medicaid cuts, which total $700 billion in the Republican bill. 'Hospitals will be forced to make difficult decisions about whether they will have to reduce services, reduce staff, and potentially consider closing their doors,' said Colleen Kincaid, vice president of media relations and strategy at the American Hospital Association.
Another part of the bill would remove Medicaid coverage from people who are also on Medicare — the majority of those people are seniors or disabled individuals. New eligibility requirements mandating recipients prove their eligibility twice a year can also kick people off Medicaid because either they don't get or submit required paperwork or because the state doesn't process their paperwork, the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says.
'Relatively little of the bill is clearly related to trying to reduce fraud or error,' Leighton Ku, director of George Washington University's Center for Health Policy Research, told PolitiFact. 'There are some minor provisions about things like looking for dead people who are enrolled or checking addresses. But the major provisions are not fraud, waste or error by any means. They're things that reflect policy preferences of the Republican architects.'
The bill now heads for the Senate where it faces opposition not just from Democrats but also Republicans. Sen. Josh Hawley has publicly come out against the proposed cuts, and an anonymous GOP senator told The Hill there is a contingency of five to seven Senate Republicans who oppose cuts.
'There's probably five, six, seven of us who, if you do anything that cuts into benefits, you're going to have a real problem. The leader is aware of that,' the senator said last week.
More from Rolling Stone
Trump's Crypto Grift Is the Latest Corruption Mike Johnson Says He's Too 'Busy' to Care About
Judges Consider Managing Their Own Security Force Due to Rising Threats
Trump's ICE Detains U.S. Citizen, Claiming His REAL ID Was Fake
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

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees
Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

Bloomberg

time23 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

President Donald Trump's administration is pushing Serbia and other Balkan nations to take in migrants deported from the US, according to people familiar with the matter. The requests to countries in the region are ongoing and part of a broader strategy to find foreign governments willing to receive migrants sent from the US, including some who originally entered under Biden-era protections, according to the people, who requested anonymity because the talks were private.

Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President
Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President

Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin explained Wednesday why she believes tech billionaire Elon Musk could now actually 'tank Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda.' Griffin, a co-host on ABC's 'The View,' warned that Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill could sway Republicans in Congress, especially those worried about the consequences to their seats if they cross the world's richest person. Musk recently slammed the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' for how it will hike the national debt. He had previously staked his reputation on slashing federal spending in his now-ended role running Trump's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, for now, has remained silent on Musk's criticism. Griffin, who served in the Trump administration during his first term, noted how the bill has measures on energy, border security and extends Trump's tax cuts. 'If Republicans decide, 'Oooh, we don't want to get on the wrong side of Elon,' that is what Donald Trump is banking it all on,' she continued. 'And that is kind of devastating for his administration.' 'On the flip side, those Republicans, if you're in a House district, you're like, 'I'm afraid of Donald Trump,' but Elon Musk, because of the dark money system we live in, he can come in and primary you by just pouring millions and millions into your race.' All Musk needs to do, she suggested, is 'peel off a handful of Republicans' to tip the balance of power in the House. Watch here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call 'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration

Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally
Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally

Yahoo

time28 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump has demolished the liberal myth. Migrants shouldn't be treated equally

Sometimes the best policies are the ones that produce the shrillest wails from the Left. Such may be the case with Trump's latest travel ban, which by rights should spark serious soul-searching in Britain. Overnight, the President announced restrictions on the citizens of 12 countries. This was a response to the recent terror attack on Boulder, Colorado, in which an Egyptian national, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, is alleged to have thrown firebombs and sprayed burning petrol at a Jewish vigil on Sunday in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. Although Egypt is not on the list, Homeland Security officials said Mr Soliman was in the country illegally, having overstayed a tourist visa, but that he had applied for asylum in September 2022. So far, so Trumpian. (He took similar measures during his first term, after all, and they were repealed by Joe Biden who called them 'a stain on our national conscience'.) But then came the kicker. 'We will not let what happened in Europe happen in America,' Trump said. Ouch. If the months of Trump 2.0 have so far shifted the Overton window across the West, allowing even the likes of Sir Keir Starmer to contemplate – at least rhetorically – tackling immigration, then such a travel ban should be welcomed on these shores as well. Already, the usual suspects are accusing Trump of being 'racist'. But a glance at the range of countries on the list shows that this is not a question of race, or even religion. Rather, it is a question of homeland security, and that holds a stark lesson for Britain. A few months back, official data revealed that though foreigners comprise just 15 per cent of the population of our country, they commit 41 per cent of all crime and up to a quarter of sex crimes. In the first nine months of 2024, almost 14 per cent of grooming suspects were Pakistani, five times their share of the population. Two nationalities – Afghans and Eritreans – were more than 20 times more likely to account for sexual offence convictions than British citizens, according to the data. Overall, foreign nationals were 71 per cent more likely than Britons to be responsible for sex crime convictions. Based on convictions per 10,000 of the population, Afghans with 77 convictions topped the table with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times that of Britons. They were followed by Eritreans, who accounted for 59 convictions at a rate of 53.6 per 10,000 of their population. In March 2025, data from the Ministry of Justice revealed that foreigners, who claim £1 billion a month in benefits, were also responsible for large proportions of violence, robbery, fraud and drug offences, between 2021 and 2023. There was no data for terrorism offences or acts of anti-Semitism. But does anybody want to hazard a guess? Which brings us to a fundamental question. Why? Why does Britain need to allow the criminals of the world to come to our shores to abuse women and girls, run criminal enterprises, foster terrorism and anti-Semitism, and claim benefits in the process? Obviously not all foreigners from these countries behave in this way. But facts aren't racist. Large numbers are pulling down our pants, spanking our buttocks and pulling them up again. In fact, the problem is not one of race but one of politics and culture. In my new book, Never Again? How the West Betrayed the Jews and Itself, which is coming out at the end of September, I look at groundbreaking research published in April by cognitive scientists Scott Barry Kaufman and Craig Neumann. They found that 'citizens in democratic countries have more benevolent traits, fewer malevolent traits, and greater well-being' than those living under autocratic regimes. Based on a study of 200,000 people from 75 countries, people living under autocracies were found to be much more likely to exhibit the 'Dark Triad' of negative personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. In democracies, by contrast, more people displayed the 'Light Triad' of humanism, faith in humanity and 'Kantianism', or treating people with dignity in their own right rather than viewing them as a means to an end. Obviously, this is not related to race. Russians are hardly black, but they hardly live in a democracy either. It is a case of cognitive development. The problem occurs when, in an age of global travel, 'Dark Triad' migrants who grew up in despotic regimes encounter gullible 'Light Triad' officials in the democracies, whose empathies are easily played upon. That is why we find British judges ruling that an Albanian convict should avoid deportation because his son had an aversion to foreign chicken nuggets, a Pakistani drug dealer could stay so he could teach his son about Islam, and a paedophile of the same nationality should not be sent home since it would be 'unduly harsh' on his own children. These real-life cases, reported by the Telegraph, provide a clear collision of the 'Dark Triad' traits in the criminals and the 'Light Triad' tendencies in the judges. It is a chemical reaction waiting to happen, and the vast majority of the population, wherever they are born, are suffering the consequences. In other words, we are being taken for fools. No foreign criminal has a God-given right to set up home in Britain just because he fancies it. This is our home, and although we are delighted to welcome strangers, that generosity should be withdrawn from those who nick our television and threaten our children – even if their own happen to like the chicken nuggets in our fridge. Trump has now thrown down the gauntlet. What is the British Government going to do to set our own house in order? Will it take an anti-Semitic outrage like the firebombing in Colorado before the Prime Minister takes action? Will he take action even then? Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

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