For Those Facing Addiction, Medicaid Is a Lifeline
Advocates attend a 24-hour vigil at the U.S. Capitol to share stories and urge lawmakers to protect Medicaid on May 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Credit - Leigh Vogel—Getty Images/Caring Across Generations
The fluorescent lights of the intake office hummed on Thanksgiving Eve in 2014, a stark contrast to the chaotic darkness I'd been living in. I was terrified, exhausted, and sick of myself. My addiction had stripped away everything: my career, my home, my dignity. I was at the absolute bottom, a place where the idea of work was not just impossible, but utterly irrelevant. My only focus was survival, and that meant finding a way out of the hell of active heroin addiction. Beyond the addiction itself, I was suffering from unresolved trauma, and with my substance use came untreated mental health challenges, including severe depression and at times suicidal ideations. A power greater than myself helped me find recovery—but so did Medicaid.
It was my lifeline, the one thing that stood between me and a death I felt was inevitable.
Now, as Congress debates sweeping Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' I see that lifeline being severed for millions of Americans struggling with addiction and mental health challenges. This isn't just about budget lines; it's about lives. It's about reversing the hard-won progress we've made in the fight against the overdose crisis, and condemning countless vulnerable individuals to a fate I barely escaped.
In the depths of my addiction, I was unemployable. The idea of holding down a job, showing up consistently, or even performing basic tasks was a cruel joke. My days were consumed by the relentless pursuit of the next fix, driven by a physical and psychological dependence that overshadowed all else. When I finally found a bed in a treatment center, it was Medicaid that covered the cost. Without it, I would have been left to die on the streets, another statistic in a crisis that already claims far too many.
Here is the stark reality: Medicaid is the single largest payer for mental health and substance use disorder (SUD) services in the United States. It covers nearly 40% of all adults with SUD. This isn't a minor player; it's the backbone of our nation's addiction and mental health treatment infrastructure. When we talk about cutting Medicaid, we're talking about dismantling this critical support system.
While the House of Representatives has made an exemption for individuals with substance use disorders from work requirements in the bill, there are dangerous nuances in the proposed changes. The bill still threatens to rip away healthcare from people with mental health challenges, without recognizing the critical link between substance use disorder and mental health. These are often co-occurring disorders, and denying care for one inevitably impacts the other. Taking away mental health care and essential healthcare services from low-income populations puts an already vulnerable group at a significantly higher risk for addiction. We've learned from the so-called "diseases of despair" that without adequate mental health care, individuals will often turn to illicit substances to cope, putting them at a higher risk of overdose.
The idea that these cuts will somehow incentivize people to enter the workforce is a dangerous fantasy. Access to treatment is not a reward for being "ready" or "worthy"; it is a fundamental human right and a public health imperative.
When people are denied access to care, they don't magically get better. They get sicker. They cycle through emergency rooms, jails, and homelessness, costing taxpayers far more in the long run. . Economists estimate the total cost of opioid use disorder in the United States reached $4 trillion in 2024. Investing in treatment through programs like Medicaid is not an expense; it's an investment in a healthier, more productive society. The estimated $280 billion in savings over six years that the CBO projects from Medicaid changes will be dwarfed by the increased costs to the government in emergency services, incarceration, and lost productivity.
Read more: The Truth About Fentanyl Is Scary Enough. Myths About It Don't Help
We are at a critical juncture in the overdose crisis. After years of escalating deaths, we've begun to see glimmers of hope, thanks in part to expanded access to treatment. Drug overdose deaths in the U.S. significantly decreased in 2024, marking the largest one-year decline ever recorded, a testament to the power of comprehensive approaches that include accessible healthcare. To reverse course now, to pull the rug out from under those who are fighting for their lives, would be an act of profound negligence. It would destroy lives and undo the fragile progress we've painstakingly made.
While the House package has passed, it is now time for the Senate to do the responsible thing and ensure millions of Americans aren't left in harm's way with no access to doctors, emergency rooms, or treatment. I want to imagine a world where people are allowed to live despite our struggles. Where we're not shunned as criminals or treated like lepers. I imagine us as valued citizens who are part of society.
My own journey to recovery was paved by the grace of a higher power, but also by the practical, tangible support of Medicaid. It allowed me to get the treatment I needed, to heal, and to rebuild a life I thought was lost forever. Congress has a choice: To continue down a path that will inevitably lead to more suffering and death, or to embrace compassion, evidence-based policy, and the understanding that for millions, Medicaid isn't a luxury—it's a lifeline.
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
44 minutes ago
- Washington Post
2026 races loom at Georgia Republican convention as Trump loyalty dominates
DALTON, Ga. — Steve Bannon took the stage Friday night at the Georgia Republican Convention to say it's too early to be talking about 2026. 'Don't even think about the midterms,' the Republican strategist told activists. 'Not right now. '26, we'll think about it later. It's backing President Trump right now.' But it didn't work. There was plenty of praise for Donald Trump. And while the party took care of other business like electing officers and adopting a platform, the 2026 races for governor and Senate were already on the minds of many on Friday and Saturday in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. 'Everybody campaigns as quick as they can,' U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene told The Associated Press Saturday. Lots of other people showed up sounding like candidates. Greene, after passing on a U.S. Senate bid against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff, laid out a slate of state-level issues on Saturday that will likely fuel speculation that she might run for governor. Echoing Trump's signature slogan, Greene told the convention to 'Make Georgia great again, for Georgia.' She called for abolishing the state income tax, infusing 'classical' principles into Georgia's public schools, reopening mental hospitals to take mentally ill people off the streets, and changing Georgia's economic incentive policy to de-emphasize tax breaks for foreign companies and television and moviemakers. 'Now these are state-level issues, but I want you to be talking about them,' Greene said. In her AP interview before the speech, Greene said running for governor is an 'option,' but also said she has a 'wonderful blessing' of serving her northwest Georgia district and exercising influence in Washington. 'Pretty much every single primary poll shows that I am the top leader easily, and that gives me the ability to think about it. But it's a choice. It's my own, that I will talk about with my family.' More likely to run for governor is Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who is expected to announce a bid later this summer. 'I promise you, I'm going to be involved in this upcoming election cycle,' Jones told delegates Friday. Like Greene, Jones is among the Georgia Republicans closest to Trump, and emphasized that 'the circle is small' of prominent Republicans who stood by the president after the 2020 election. Jones also took a veiled shot at state Attorney General Chris Carr, who declared his bid for governor in December and showed up Friday to work the crowd, but did not deliver a speech to the convention. 'Always remember who showed up for you,' Jones said. 'And always remember who delivers on their promises.' Carr told the AP that he didn't speak because he was instead attending a campaign event at a restaurant in Dalton on Friday, emphasizing the importance of building personal relationships. Although Trump targeted him for defeat in the 2022 primary, Carr said he's confident that Republicans will support him, calling himself a 'proud Kemp Republican,' and saying he would focus on bread-and-butter issues. 'This state's been built on agriculture, manufacturing, trade, the military, public safety,' Carr said. 'These are the issues that Georgians care about.' The easiest applause line all weekend was pledging to help beat Ossoff. 'Jon Ossoff should not be in office at all,' said U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, who is spending heavily on television advertising to support his Senate run. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' said state Insurance Commissioner John King, who is also running for the Senate. 'He's going to need a four-year majority to get the job done. And that starts right here in the state of Georgia.' Former University of Tennessee football coach Derek Dooley, who expressed interest Friday in running for Senate, did not address delegates. But one other potential candidate, U.S. Rep. Mike Collins, did. Collins told delegates that in 2026 it was a priority to defeat Ossoff and replace him with a 'solid conservative.' It's not clear, though, if Collins himself will run. 'We're going to see how this thing plays out,' Collins told the AP. 'I'm not burning to be a senator, but we've got to take this seat back.'


Axios
44 minutes ago
- Axios
Gender stereotypes shape reactions to Trump-Musk outburst
Elon Musk and Donald Trump's very public clash is rekindling a debate over gender stereotypes. Why it matters: The reality is few leaders could get away with feuding on social media. But the debacle revealed competing views about how powerful men — and women — might be expected to communicate. Driving the news: The fight drew observations on social media and various media outlets that the president and world's richest CEO were acting more like " Real Housewives" — or defying the trope that women are the ones more prone to emotional outbursts. Yet even those observations received backlash in some feminist circles for invoking gender references at all to slam their behavior. "One of the oldest and most persistent gender stereotypes is that women are too emotional," Harvard Business Review contributors wrote in a research paper disputing the stereotype last year. It "hurts women's leadership prospects as they are seen as less fit for leader roles because they are perceived to be more likely to make irrational, emotion-driven decisions than men." State of play: In Trump's case, he won two elections after casting two women opponents (Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris) as temperamentally unfit for the job. Some Americans may have agreed with him: A Georgetown University poll released in 2019 found about 13% of Americans said men were better suited emotionally than women for political office. In a pithy reference to stereotypes, journalist Sam Stein posted on X: "Are men maybe too emotional for positions of leadership?" CNN's Abby Phillip also quipped on air: "These men, too emotional to lead, apparently." Case in point: At one point in the war of words Thursday, Trump wrote that he "took away" Musk's electric vehicles mandate in the "one big, beautiful bill" at the root of their breakup, and his former adviser "just went CRAZY!" By Friday, the president told CNN's Dana Bash: "I'm not even thinking about Elon." What they're saying: "Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?" Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told a reporter Thursday in D.C. (Some people got the meme she's referencing, which originated from rapper Azealia Banks. Others saw it as negatively coded toward women or girls.) Right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec posted on X: "Some of y'all cant handle 2 high agency males going at it and it really shows," he wrote. "This is direct communication (phallocentric) vs indirect communication (gynocentric)." New York Times opinion writer Jessica Grose responded to Posobiec's view of masculinity: "Historically, 'phallocentric' communication was that you walked over to a guy and punched him in the face, or asked him to step outside." "Hurling epithets over social media ... is not behavior that I think of as traditionally male; if anything, it's passive-aggressive and female coded," she wrote. The bottom line: It's hard to imagine a woman CEO — let alone president — engaging in a public feud with a onetime ally on apps they respectively own.


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump warns of possible military action if Iran enriches more uranium: ‘We're going to have no choice'
WASHINGTON — President Trump warned Friday that Iran will not be allowed to enrich uranium — hinting at possible military strikes following the revelation that Tehran has been secretly building out a near weapons-grade nuclear program for months. 'They won't be enriching. If they enrich, then we're going to have to do it the other way,' Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday. 'And I don't really want to do it the other way but we're going to have no choice,' he added. 'There's not going to be enrichment.' 5 'They won't be enriching. If they enrich, then we're going to have to do it the other way,' President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday. AP Israel also reassured the White House earlier this week that it won't launch an attack on Iranian nuclear sites unless Trump signals that ongoing talks with Tehran about its nuclear program have failed, Axios reported. 'He may go into a war. But we're not getting dragged in,' Trump had said of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a Time magazine interview in April to mark his first 100 days in office. 'I may go in very willingly if we can't get a deal. If we don't make a deal, I'll be leading the pack.' In May, the president said he'd warned Netanyahu not to bomb Tehran's nuclear facilities because the US had been 'having very good discussions with' Iranian negotiators. But Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that ending uranium enrichment was '100%' against his country's interests — and lashed out at the US for being 'arrogant' in its proposal for a revamped nuclear deal. That drafted agreement, submitted by Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff on May 31, permitted low-level uranium enrichment for civilian use. 5 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday that ending uranium enrichment was '100%' against his country's interests. via Getty Images 'Who are you to decide whether Iran should have enrichment?' Khamenei said in a televised speech. 'If we had 100 nuclear power plants while not having enrichment, they are not usable for us.' On Tuesday, the State Department clarified that the US did not support Iran enriching uranium at any level. 5 Levels of 90% uranium enrichment are considered weapons-grade. REUTERS 'The fact is, President Trump tweeted that there is going to be no uranium enrichment,' spokeswoman Tammy Bruce told reporters. The US and Iran have already gone through five rounds of talks over the nuclear issue — without any breakthroughs. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency last week reportedly disclosed that, in the background, Tehran had been upping its 60%-enriched uranium stockpile — from 274.8 kilograms to 408.6 kilograms between February and May — a roughly 50% jump between February and May. 5 A nuclear deal proposal, submitted by Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff on May 31, would permit low-level uranium enrichment for civilian use. Getty Images Levels of 90% are considered weapons-grade, and US officials have warned that Iran could convert their stockpile to reach that threshold needed for a single weapon in two weeks' time. That prompted Netanyahu to call on international allies 'to stop Iran,' sounding the alarm about the uranium enrichment levels being only appropriate for 'countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons.' Trump previously revived a 'maximum pressure' of sanctions on Iran after returning to the White House — and European nations privy to the UN nuclear report's findings may also be considering further snapback sanctions previously lifted under former President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Tehran. 5 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week called on international allies 'to stop Iran,' sounding the alarm about the uranium enrichment levels being only appropriate for 'countries actively pursuing nuclear weapons.' AP That 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, was supposed to reduce Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium by 98%, though the UN findings have undercut that. Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018.