Trump bill's health effects won't be felt until after midterms
But the real effects likely won't be felt until well after the ballots are cast.
Why it matters: Despite negative polls and headlines, bill supporters could be insulated from political blame by a slow drip of policy changes that will play out over the next decade — a contrast to when the GOP tried to repeal Obamacare in 2017.
"Republicans backloaded a lot of the Medicaid and ACA cuts," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president at KFF. "There will be few tangible effects in health care from this bill before the midterms."
That creates a messaging challenge for Democrats, he added. "There's not going to be a day where everyone wakes up and all of a sudden ... more people are uninsured."
What's inside: Medicaid work requirements, which account for many of the nearly 12 million people projected to lose coverage under the bill, generally won't kick in until 2027, and some states could get extensions.
Though beneficiaries will get warnings ahead of time, able-bodied recipients ages 19 to 64 wouldn't actually be dropped from program rolls for failure to meet or properly report the required 80 hours a month until after November 2026.
The bill also increases the frequency of Medicaid eligibility checks to every six months, starting on Dec. 31, 2026. People in the Medicaid expansion population who retain coverage under the new system could have to pay up to $35 in cost-sharing per service starting in October 2028.
The phasedown of Medicaid provider taxes and state-directed payments, which states use to help fund their share of program costs and which hospitals in particular have come to rely on for funding, only begins in 2028.
The legislation's $930 billion cut to federal Medicaid funding will likely force states to make corresponding cuts to their programs or pick up a greater share of obligations, but those wouldn't take effect right away, either.
Yes, but: People covered through the Affordable Care Act exchanges will see changes more swiftly. The bill does not extend the Biden-era enhanced premium subsidies, which are set to expire on Jan. 1, 2026. The GOP-led Congress still can do so, but has shown little appetite so far.
Obamacare premiums would increase by more than 75% on average for enrollees next year without the enhanced subsidies.
That would give Democrats "a very potent talking point going into the midterms," Levitt noted.
Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood will also be cut off for next year under the bill — a change the family planning organization said could result in the closure of nearly 200 clinics.
Restrictions on which lawfully residing immigrants can access Medicaid will go into effect on Oct. 1, 2026, just before the primaries.
Reality check: Hospitals and clinics have to plan ahead and already are making contingencies for the Medicaid cuts and coverage losses. That could translate into facility closures or the elimination of some services.
Case in point: Community Hospital in McCook, Nebraska, announced last week that it's closing as a result of uncertainty over the upcoming Medicaid cuts, per Nebraska Public Media.
What to watch: Patient advocates and provider groups will likely press Congress to further delay the provisions, or stop them from taking effect.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who argued against the steep health insurance cuts before voting for the package, said he would"do everything in his power" to reverse the future Medicaid cuts.
"The fact that this all plays out over a period of time creates an opportunity for opponents to try to delay and overturn," Levitt said.
Democrats, meanwhile, plan to launch the first fusillade of ads about the cuts in swing states this week, and want to turn the August recess into a referendum on the bill at town halls and through mobilization efforts.
"House Democrats will spend every day of the next 16 months making sure moms, dads, seniors, and veterans know that Republicans took away their health care, raised their energy bills, and hiked their grocery costs," Democratic Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts said in a statement.
The bottom line: If nothing changes, it will take nine years for the effects of the bill to fully play out.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
a minute ago
- Associated Press
Trump's immigration crackdown brings checkpoints and new fears to Washington
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal authorities have used checkpoints around the nation's capital to screen vehicles, sometimes asking people for their immigration status after stopping them, as President Donald Trump's crackdown reaches the two-week mark in Washington. The use of checkpoints, which can be legally controversial, is the latest indication that the White House's mass deportation agenda is central to its assertion of federal power in Washington. Federal agents and hundreds of National Guard troops have surged into Washington this month, putting some residents on edge and creating tense confrontations in the streets. The city's immigrant population, in particular, is rattled. A daycare was partially closed on Thursday when staff became afraid to go to work because they heard about federal agents nearby. An administrator asked parents to keep their children at home if possible. Other day cares have stopped taking kids on daily walks because of fears about encountering law enforcement. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser acknowledged Thursday that the proliferation of traffic checkpoints are an inevitable aspect of the federal law enforcement operations. 'The surge of federal officers is allowing for different types of deployments, more frequent types of deployments, like checkpoints,' Bowser said. Since Aug. 7, when Trump began surging federal agents into the city, there have been 630 arrests, including 251 people who are in the country illegally, according to the White House. Trump has been ratcheting up the pressure since then, seizing control of the D.C. police department on Aug. 11 and deploying more National Guard troops, mostly from Republican-led states. Soldiers have been largely stationed in downtown areas, such as monuments on the National Mall and transit stations. However, federal agents are operating more widely through the city — and some may soon get a visit from the president himself. Trump is expected to join a patrol in D.C. on Thursday night. He told his plans to Todd Starnes, a conservative commentator. Not a normal traffic stop On Thursday morning, as Martin Romero rode through Washington's Rock Creek Park on his way to a construction job in Virginia, he saw police on the road up ahead. He figured it was a normal traffic stop, but it wasn't. Romero, 41, said that U.S. Park Police were telling pickup trucks with company logos to pull over, reminding them that commercial vehicles weren't allowed on park roads. They checked for licenses and insurance information, and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents came over. Romero said there were two agents on one side of his truck and three on the other. He started to get nervous as the agents asked where they were from and whether they were in the country illegally. 'We just came here to work,' Romero said afterwards. 'We aren't doing anything bad.' Two people in his truck were detained and the agents didn't give a reason, he said. He also saw three other people taken from other vehicles. 'I feel really worried because they took two of our guys,' he said. 'They wouldn't say where they're taking them or if they'll be able to come back.' Romero said he called his boss, who told him to just head home. They wouldn't be working today. Enrique Martinez, a supervisor at the construction company, came to the scene afterwards. He pondered whether to call families of the detained men. 'This has never happened to our company before,' Martinez said. 'I'm not really sure what to do.' Checkpoints are legal, to a point The Supreme Court has upheld the use of law enforcement and government checkpoints for specific purposes, such as for policing the border and for identifying suspected drunk drivers. But there are restrictions on that authority, especially when it comes to general crime control. Jeffrey Bellin, a former prosecutor in Washington and professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in criminal law and procedures, said the Constitution doesn't allow 'the government to be constantly checking us and stopping to see if we're up to any criminal activity.' He said checkpoints for a legally justifiable purpose — like checking for drivers' licenses and registrations — cannot be used as 'subterfuge' or a pretext for stops that would otherwise not be allowed. And though the court has affirmed the use of checkpoints at the border, and even some distance away from it, to ask drivers about immigration status, Bellin said it was unlikely the authority would extend to Washington. Anthony Michael Kreis, a professor at Georgia State College of Law, said the seemingly 'arbitrary' and intrusive nature of the checkpoints in the capital could leave residents feeling aggrieved. 'Some of the things could be entirely constitutional and fine, but at the same time, the way that things are unfolding, people are suspicious — and I think for good reason,' he said. From Los Angeles to D.C. There are few places in the country that have been unaffected by Trump's deportation drive, but his push into D.C. is shaping into something more sustained, similar to what has unfolded in the Los Angeles area since early June. In Los Angeles, immigration officers — working with the Border Patrol and other federal agencies — have been a near-daily presence at Home Depots, car washes and other highly visible locations. In a demonstration of how enforcement has affected routines, the bishop of San Bernardino, California, formally excused parishioners of their weekly obligation to attend Mass after immigration agents detained people on two parish properties. Immigration officials have been an unusually public presence, sending horse patrols to the city's famed MacArthur Park and appearing outside California Gov. Gavin Newsom's news conference last week on congressional redistricting. Authorities said an agent fired at a moving vehicle last week after the driver refused to roll down his window during an immigration stop. The National Guard and Marines were previously in the city for weeks on an assignment to maintain order amid protests. A federal judge blocked the administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops in Southern California but authorities have vowed to keep the pressure on. ____ Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Ashraf Khalil in Washington and Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed reporting.
Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
US Hits Greek Shipper in Expansion of Iran Max-Pressure Campaign
The US Treasury Department sanctioned a Greek shipper it said facilitated the transport of Iranian oil, broadening the Trump administration's maximum-pressure campaign against Tehran and a crackdown on its so-called shadow fleet. Antonios Margaritis was designated along with a web of companies overseen by him in Greece and the Marshall Islands. The move comes weeks after US Treasury's biggest Iran sanctions action in seven years, which targeted a network overseen by oil tycoon Hossein Shamkhani, whose father is a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
WIRED
a minute ago
- WIRED
Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way?
Aug 21, 2025 1:04 PM The Trump administration is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel, according to US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick. Experts say the unconventional deal could backfire. Photograph: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images The US government is aiming to take an equity stake in Intel in exchange for grants the company was already committed to receive under the Biden era CHIPS Act, according to comments US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick made in an interview with CNBC. The move is part of the government's efforts to boost US chip manufacturing. 'We should get an equity stake for our money, so we'll deliver the money which was already committed under the Biden administration,' Lutnick said. 'We'll get equity in return for it.' Previously, the government was discussing taking a 10 percent stake in Intel, according to the New York Times . The deal could help the venerable chipmaker fund its US-based semiconductor fabrication plants, or fabs, which have required billions of dollars to construct and maintain, even as demand for Intel chips has waned in recent years. Some chip industry experts and members of the Trump administration say that keeping Intel afloat is essential to US national security, because it lessens the country's reliance on chipmakers overseas. But analysts and one notable economist say a potential tie-up between Intel and the US government could present a conflict of interest, and may not result in the kind of domestic chip-making industry the administration is angling for. 'It's not the right policy to have the US government own things, to have privatization in reverse,' says Stephen Moore, a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a former senior economic advisor to Trump's 2016 campaign. 'That's similar to Europe's industrial model, and we haven't done that often here in the US because a lot of it ends up failing.' Government Intervention The US government has some history of investing in the private sector. Moore cites a 1980s program called the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, a federally-directed multibillion dollar investment in companies producing liquid fuels from coal, oil shale, and tar sands. It was hailed by President Jimmy Carter as 'the cornerstone of our energy policy,' and had fallen apart by 1986. Then, in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the US government stepped in with multibillion dollar bailouts to stop US automakers and some banks from going under. Those funds were issued either through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, in which the US Treasury Department bought up or guaranteed toxic assets, or in the form of bridge loans. Many were eventually repaid. More recently, the Department of Defense agreed to fund a US-based rare earth magnet company, MP Materials, via equity and loans, in order to expand production and decrease the country's reliance on China. The deal would in theory give MP Materials the capital to increase its manufacturing capacity from 3,000 to 10,000 metric tons. Moore says the ideal scenario is that these arrangements between the government and private industry have an endpoint. 'It should be an agreement to own a short-term stake, and then divest,' he says. But the current Trump administration has been taking some of these public-private business dealings a step further: In June, the administration approved a partnership between Japanese steel company Nippon Steel and Pittsburgh-based US Steel, dependent on a national security agreement and a so-called 'golden share' provision. The government insisted that it have a say in US Steel's company decisions, including board appointees and future relocation plans. (This deal was also designed to help the US compete with China on steel production.) Lutnick told CNBC that, in the case of Intel, the Trump administration would not get a voting stake or a say in the company's operations. 'Intel is deeply committed to supporting President Trump's efforts to strengthen US technology and manufacturing leadership,' Intel spokesperson Cory Pforzheimer said in a statement to WIRED. 'We look forward to continuing our work with the Trump Administration to advance these shared priorities, but we are not going to comment on rumors or speculation.' The US Department of Commerce did not respond to questions from WIRED prior to publication. Political Theater Patrick Moorhead, a longtime semiconductor industry analyst and CEO of the research firm Moor Insights & Strategy, says the deal could benefit Intel in the short term. 'It means Intel gets its cash without a bunch of strings attached,' he says. So far, the company has received $2.2 billion of up to the $7.86 billion it was granted through the 2022 CHIPS Act— $1.1 billion in the first quarter of 2024 and another $1.1 billion in January 2025. But these grants are tied to milestones around fabrication construction and output; if Intel doesn't reach its goals, it doesn't receive CHIPS Act funding. The company has also far outspent the $2.2 billion of grant payments in fab construction and research and development over the same time period. Intel is currently valued at $101 billion, a steep decline from its heyday in the early 2000s. Earlier this week, Softbank announced it's buying roughly $2 billion worth of Intel shares, which briefly boosted the chip firm's stock price. Intel went through a major shakeup in executive leadership this year. In December 2024, Intel announced the retirement of CEO Pat Gelsinger, a chip industry veteran, after he struggled to turn around the company's fortunes. Lip-Bu Tan, the longtime previous CEO of the electronics design firm Cadence Design Systems, succeeded Gelsinger as chief executive. Insiders describe Gelsinger's tenure as an expensive one, in which the company invested heavily in building cutting edge technology and fabs. Over the last five years, Intel invested $107.5 billion in capital expenditures and $78.8 billion in R&D expenditures, the vast majority of which were dedicated to expanding its US manufacturing capacity. Tan, in contrast, is more measured, and has told employees that Intel's investment in its newest chip node will be based on 'confirmed customer commitments,' adding that 'there are no more blank checks.' Since he took over, Intel announced it was cancelling plans for chip-making plants in Germany and Poland and slowing down construction of an Ohio fab. Intel also plans to lay off 15 percent of its workforce this year. Tan got caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration earlier this month: In reaction to a letter from Arkansas senator Tom Cotton flagging Tan's ties to investments that reportedly have links to the Chinese People's Liberation Army, Trump called on the CEO to resign from Intel. Less than a week later Trump met with Tan and began praising the CEO. Moorhead believes that it's essential for the US to support Intel so that the country has a thriving domestic chipmaker with research and development teams in close proximity to its fabs. He points out that even as TSMC builds out its US fab in Arizona, its research and development efforts still happen in Taiwan, and its top manufacturing engineers are kept close to home. For this reason and others, Moorhead says, even if the US government begins funneling money into US semiconductors, it might lag behind in staffing domestic fabs with top talent. Many questions remain: whether the deal with Intel will actually go through, if the administration plans to convert existing CHIPS Act grants to Intel into an equity investment or invest some other way, and whether the US government might try to coerce tech companies into buying more Intel chips. Money from Softbank and the US government might help Intel's balance sheet in the short term, but the company still needs to secure big customers. Until some of those questions are answered, Moorhead says, this proposed investment doesn't accomplish much. 'It's more political theater than anything else,' he explains. 'I think what it accomplishes is it gives the Trump administration the ability to say, 'What Biden did was a giveaway, and I'm making deals,'' he adds.
