A moral moment for Montana: Medicaid cuts considered in the U.S. Senate
Last week, by a single vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act.'
This is sweeping reconciliation bill that promises to reshape the American social safety net. At the heart of this legislation are more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, a program that serves as a lifeline for tens of thousands of Montanans with disabilities.
Medicaid pays for some of the most basic services many people with disabilities need to get by each day, like the basic personal care supports someone with a physical disability may need to get out of bed in the morning, the more intensive skill training and safety supervision someone with an intellectual disability may need to learn to live more independently, and it pays for medication to maintain a person's mental health and more intensive community supports when they have mental health emergency. For Montanans with disabilities, this bill is not just a policy shift – it's a direct threat to our lives.
The bill imposes new administrative hurdles, including requiring Medicaid recipients to reverify their eligibility twice a year. For people with disabilities – many of whom already navigate complex bureaucracies – this change increases the risk of losing coverage due to paperwork errors or missed deadlines. Here in Montana, we know this isn't a mere possibility, it was our reality. In 2023 and 2024, Montana required Medicaid recipients to submit paperwork to verify their continued eligibility. When Montanans tried to follow the rules to verify their eligibility, they found the state's phone lines were left unanswered and many people were kicked off for administrative reasons without ever looking at their clinical need.
Though the bill includes exemptions, these are often poorly implemented. In practice, people are misclassified, denied exemptions, or fall through the cracks due to inaccessible systems. People with legitimate disabilities are stripped of their health care and there is a big administrative burden on the individual and the state eligibility system to sort through wrongful denials and terminations. When Arkansas implemented work requirements in 2018 similar to the work requirements in the new federal reconciliation bill, more than 18,000 people lost coverage, many of them wrongfully, and there was no meaningful impact on employment.
At Disability Rights Montana, we have been here for 50 years serving the disability community and we hear from people every day who rely on Medicaid to live independently, to work, to go to school, and to participate in their communities. These are veterans with PTSD, children with autism, adults with spinal cord injuries, and seniors with dementia. Defunding disability services is a major step backwards in history to a time when people with disabilities were excluded from society and warehoused in poor institutional conditions. This bill sends a clear message to people with disabilities that their lives are not as valuable as tax cuts for the rich.
Even if you don't have a disability or don't use Medicaid, you will feel the cuts. It is well known in health care circles that even Montanans who don't rely on Medicaid for their insurance coverage will feel the effects of this bill, especially in rural communities. For example, this year the state legislature heard from hospital administrators and healthcare providers who explained the impact Medicaid expansion has had on our state. It has allowed rural hospitals to add or expand specialty services like orthopedic surgery and mental health care. Without this funding, these services may disappear and that will affect all patients, not just those who are covered by Medicaid. Hospitals and other health care providers serve the rich and poor alike. When the money for poor people goes away, so do the therapists, nurses, and doctors that money paid for. If you lose funding to cover portions of health care professionals' salaries, those positions go away completely because you can't hire 60% of a doctor in a rural hospital.
The bill is now before the Senate. Given the slim political margins there, Sens. Daines and Sheehy could cast deciding votes. Budgets are moral documents. Just a couple months ago, the state legislature decided the moral choice was to maintain a robust Medicaid program for Montana. Now Senators Daines and Sheehy must answer the same moral question. What will they do?
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
As Cava, Chipotle Sink, Left-for-Dead Rivals Stage Comeback
(Bloomberg) -- As inflation and a slowing economy start taking their toll on the US consumer, the pain is mounting across the restaurant industry. Shares of Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Cava Group Inc. and Sweetgreen Inc. — hot names in what had been a booming fast-casual segment — have each sunk around 20% or more since reporting lackluster second-quarter earnings. Even McDonald's Corp., among the most resilient of fast-food standbys, is barely keeping pace with the broader market. Why New York City Has a Fleet of New EVs From a Dead Carmaker Trump Takes Second Swing at Cutting Housing Assistance for Immigrants Chicago Schools Seeks $1 Billion of Short-Term Debt as Cash Gone Neom's Desert Ski Resort Strains Saudi Prince's $1.5 Trillion Plan We Need a Reality Check on Crime, Safety and Transit All of which makes the robust earnings and stock rallies coming from a slightly more expensive segment of the restaurant world surprising. Casual-dining chains are posting strong sales growth that is suddenly rekindling investor interest in a business that many had condemned in recent years to a slow demise. Wall Street is taking notice: shares of Cheesecake Factory Inc. — known for massive portions and over-the-top decor — are up nearly 29% this year, more than tripling the S&P 500 Index. Other names, such as Chili's owner Brinker International Inc., have also delivered double-digit gains. For many of the casual-dining brands, it's been a story of small adjustments. Long seen by consumers as far too expensive for what they offered — how much better is it, really, to sit down (and pay a tip) at a Chili's rather than grab a meal at Chipotle? — they have made incremental but well-targeted changes that drew diners looking to get maximum value for their money: trimming prices, spiffing up interiors and pouring money into marketing. Some are also working hard to tempt clients with more expensive items such as drinks and desserts once they're through the door. Even Applebee's, which has struggled with years of weak sales, seems to be making the formula work. In March, it relaunched a promotion featuring two entrees and an appetizer for $25. The response was swift, as diners flocked to sample honey-glazed chicken and six-ounce sirloin steaks. Sales climbed last quarter for the first time since 2023. Telling inflation-weary diners how much their night out would cost was key, said John Peyton, CEO of Dine Brands Global Inc., which owns Applebee's. 'That was sort of a moment where you bonk your head and you say: 'Wow, we had the answer all along,'' Peyton said in an interview. Trading Up The shift is, in some ways, a microcosm of the nation's economic moment. While growth continues apace, the job market has become more fragile and wage gains have largely stalled. Meanwhile, inflation has slowed from its blistering post-pandemic pace but continues grinding higher. Although consumers haven't pulled back on spending in a meaningful way, many are trying to make their dollars go further, boosting the appeal of a $25 night out at Applebee's versus, say, a $17 salad from Sweetgreen. 'You would typically assume or expect casual dining to suffer in this environment because it is a higher ticket,' said Eric Gonzalez, an analyst at Keybanc Capital Markets Inc. However, 'people have figured out that they can get a decent meal at a casual-dining restaurant for not quite what it costs to eat at McDonald's or one of the fast-food guys.' It's a trend that Chili's executives sensed more than a year ago, when they spotted irate fast-food diners posting receipts for pricey meals on social media. Sensing an opportunity, the once-beleaguered chain launched a combo offering a burger, fries and a drink — on top of unlimited chips and salsa — for $10.99 (a medium Big Mac Meal with fries and a beverage, by comparison, was listed for $9.69 at a Chicago McDonald's in August). 'One of the promises of fast food is that it's convenient and that it's a really great value,' said Kevin Hochman, chief executive officer of Chili's owner Brinker. 'I think people were feeling like the promise was being broken.' The impact on Brinker's top line wasn't long in coming. Same-store sales have grown by double digits, including a 24% gain in the latest quarter. The company's shares are up almost 15% this year. Hochman also noted that each Chili's patron spends, on average, $22 before tax and tip — suggesting that many are adding on more expensive offerings, even if they initially came for an advertised deal. Chili's has taken other steps aimed at enhancing diners' experience, pouring some $100 million into repairing restaurants, cutting down 25% of its menu to turn around orders faster and adding more workers to stores to improve service. The chain has also upgraded its meals and simplified how some products are made to boost consistency. Of course, fortunes can shift quickly. Shares of Cracker Barrel Old Country Stores Inc. tumbled on Thursday amid a wave of negative social media posts surrounding a recently unveiled change to the company's logo. And some limited-service brands are managing just fine. Drive-through coffee chain Dutch Bros Inc. grew same-store sales even faster than the prior quarter, while Taco Bell managed to lift traffic once again with a combination of novel limited-time offers and a dirt-cheap value menu. Some of the chains that have struggled, meanwhile, are now fighting back. Sweetgreen, for example, has launched $13 limited-time offers and a new loyalty program featuring some discounts. Still, many on Wall Street are betting that the recent weakness in some of the companies' shares will continue. Short interest as a percentage of float — the number of shares sold short as a proportion to the total available for trading — for Sweetgreen and Jack in the Box Inc. recently stood at above 20%, according to data from S3 Partners LLC. That compares to 15% and 8.6% a year ago, respectively. Other stocks in the category, including Shake Shack Inc., have also attracted heavy bearish bets. At the same time, there's little indication that the casual-dining chains are resting on their laurels. In April, Chili's added another option to its $10.99 promotion. Applebee's is hawking a new burger, drink and fries deal starting at $9.99. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers Inc. has a similar offer, which it has said is driving traffic. 'It wasn't long ago that everybody wanted to be the Chipotle of this or the Chipotle of that,' said Dan Ahrens, overseer of the AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF. 'Now, they're emulating the casual-dining experience.' --With assistance from William Selway. (Updates prices and chart, adds context and news on Cracker Barrel in paragraph 15.) Foreigners Are Buying US Homes Again While Americans Get Sidelined Volkswagen EVs Outsell Tesla in Europe a Decade After Dieselgate What Declining Cardboard Box Sales Tell Us About the US Economy Women's Earnings Never Really Recover After They Have Children Survived Bankruptcy. Next Up: Cultural Relevance? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
KC Fed's Schmid wary of September rate cut, notes 'very consequential' data in coming weeks
Kansas City Fed president Jeffrey Schmid said on Thursday the August jobs report due out Sept. 5 will be "very consequential" in shaping the central bank's next move. 'I think the data coming between now and the September meeting is going to be very consequential," Schmid told Yahoo Finance from the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. "So if we do see patterns and [a] risk to the labor market itself, I think we'll start to consider and weigh the inflation data to the labor data.' Schmid described Fed's current monetary policy stance as "modestly restrictive." For four years, inflation has persistently been above the Fed's 2% target, and recent data suggests it might now be rising further. At the same time, growing evidence indicates a weakening labor market, with the July jobs report pushing markets to anticipate that the Fed will begin cutting rates next month. The Fed kept interest rates unchanged in a range of 4.25%-4.50% on July 31. Read more: How jobs, inflation, and the Fed are all related Schmid's comments on Thursday suggested risks on the Fed's mandate remain more tilted toward inflation remaining too high rather than the labor market softening aggressively. With investors all but certain the Fed will cut rates in the coming weeks — and with pressures building on the Fed politically to begin a rate-cutting cycle — this view appears to put Schmid among a dwindling number of Fed officials still focused on inflation pressures. "I think we're seeing and hearing, more importantly, in the [Kansas City Fed's] district, that some [of] the risk of [inflation] is higher than maybe seeing some of the labor numbers come back into line," Schmid said. Last week's Consumer Price Index (CPI) report showed that while headline inflation was lower than consensus forecasts, on a "core" basis prices rose more than expected. The Producer Price Index (PPI), a read on wholesale prices, also showed inflation pressures building. The July jobs report showed hiring slowed last month, while over 250,000 job additions were revised away from the May and June data. "We have a lot of things in balance right now in the economy, in my opinion," Schmid said. "And I'm just trying to be very careful to [not] try and do too much. That will create an imbalance." Fed Chair Jay Powell is set to speak in Jackson Hole on Friday in what is expected to be his signature policy speech of the year and his last at the symposium as Fed chair. Jennifer Schonberger is a veteran financial journalist covering markets, the economy, and investing. At Yahoo Finance she covers the Federal Reserve, Congress, the White House, the Treasury, the SEC, the economy, cryptocurrencies, and the intersection of Washington policy with finance. Follow her on X @Jenniferisms and on Instagram.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court throws out Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment
A New York appeals court has thrown out the half billion-dollar civil fraud judgment handed down last year against President Donald Trump, his family and his company. The Appellate Division's First Department upheld last year's ruling finding Trump, his eldest sons and his business liable for a decade's worth of business fraud. The appellate court, however, found the penalty of $454 million to be an excessive fine at odds with the Eighth Amendment. "The documentary evidence supports Supreme Court's conclusion that the Attorney General made a prima facie showing that each defendant participated in the fraudulent scheme," the opinion said. "The trial record is also replete with evidence supporting the court's determination that the individual defendants had the requisite intent to defraud, a necessary element of each Penal Law claim." MORE: Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience' However, said the opinion, "while harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State." The decision allows either side to pursue an appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. "Today's ruling by the New York appeals court is a resounding victory for President Trump and his company," said Trump's former personal attorney Alina Habba, who helped represent Trump in the case and was later named interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. "The court struck down the outrageous and unlawful $464 million penalty, confirming what we have said from the beginning: the Attorney General's case was politically motivated, legally baseless, and grossly excessive." After a three-month civil trial last year, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for committing a decade of business fraud by inflating his net worth to secure better business deals. In his written decision, Engoron said that Trump and his co-defendants engaged in frauds that "leap off the page and shock the conscience" including wrongly claiming that Trump's penthouse was three times its actual size and valuing his Mar-a-Lago estate as a personal residence, rather than a social club. "Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again," Engoron wrote, claiming that Trump and his co-defendants were "incapable of admitting the error of their ways." The former president has long criticized the case as politically motivated, including during an impromptu closing statement he delivered in court last year where he declared himself an "innocent man." "I've been persecuted by someone running for office," Trump said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case. "This statute is vicious. It doesn't give me a jury. It takes away my rights." In his February decision, Engoron temporarily barred Trump and his sons from leading New York-based companies and ordered Trump to pay a fine of more than $454 million. That number increased to around half a billion dollars based on interest accrued on the judgement. Trump has denied wrongdoing and argued that the alleged victims in the case were sophisticated counterparties who eagerly agreed to go into business with the Trump Organization and profited from the deals. Those arguments formed the crux of his appeal, filed in July, in which his lawyers argued that James violated the statute of limitations, misapplied the relevant law, and encouraged an exclusive penalty. MORE: Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience' During a hearing in September, several of the judges on the appellate panel appeared receptive to Trump's arguments seeking to reverse or reduce the his penalty, questioning the size of the massive judgment and the application of the fraud statute used to bring the case. Since Trump's reelection win in November, his lawyers have implored James to drop the case, citing the dismissal of Trump's federal criminal cases. Lawyers for James have rejected the request, arguing that Trump's return to the White House does not impact his civil cases. "The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President's official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution," New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale wrote in a letter to Trump's lawyer. Trump owed more than $550 million between three civil judgments, including a $83.3 million judgment in damages for defaming former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll and a $5 million judgment awarded after a jury found he sexually abused Carol in the 1990s. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.