Republican says he's been called ‘racist' by House colleagues over Medicaid work requirements
'I think work matters in America. I've been criticized by that, I've been called a racist because I think you should work, by members of the Ways and Means Committee,' Hern said during an interview with NewsNation reporter Joe Khahil at the Hill Nation Summit on Wednesday.
He told Khahil that he ran on the idea that the government should get out of the way of businesses so that 'they can create jobs and put Americans to work.'
'That's what President Turmp's doing every single day, he's bringing business back to America…you create jobs so people can work, not be dependent on the government.'
Republicans insist the work requirements will only impact able-bodied Americans abusing Medicaid. However, independent analysts say millions of eligible people will lose coverage due to increases in red tape under the law.
Khahil also pressed Hern on his thoughts on the impact of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' on rural hospitals. The Republican representative said he was more concerned about the impact of Obamacare, noting that work requirements won't kick in until after next year's midterms.
'Yeah, but what nobody's talking about, reporting on, is how much Obamacare destroyed the rural hospital,' he said.
'There's going to be a lot of demagoguery about this. A lot of these cuts to Medicaid, a lot of these work requirements, and others don't even go into effect until 2027,' he added.
The new law cuts roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid, mainly through new work requirements and a reduction on how states can fund their Medicaid programs through provider taxes and state-directed payments. Adults between the ages of 19 and 64 will need to work at least 80 hours a month to qualify for Medicaid coverage unless they qualify for certain exemptions.
Republicans did not extend enhanced ObamaCare subsidies in their megabill, meaning millions of Amerericans are set to face sky-high premiums and unaffordable coverage without legislative action. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 4.2 million Americans could lose health insurance coverage.
Many Republicans aren't interested in extending them and have criticized Democrats for offering the subsidies in the first place, arguing the cost was unsustainable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but the left will never admit it
There is seemingly no worthwhile accomplishment or good deed authored by President Trump that the left will give him credit for achieving. That in and of itself speaks to the bottomless pits of partisanship and rhetorical poison some have eagerly embraced in the 'Age of Trump.' Unfortunately for the Democratic Party as a whole, such anger-fueled denial has a spillover effect that hurts the party's electoral chances. In speaking with former high-level Democrats, I am told that one of the main reasons Trump sailed to victory last November was because almost the entirety of the Democratic and far-left echo chamber mortgaged its energy and treasure seeking to demonize Trump rather than addressing the solvable real-world problems plaguing their constituents and fellow Americans. But at what cost is this coming to the Democratic Party or, more importantly, Americans looking to it for desperately needed help? Don't take my word for it. Billionaire businessman Mark Cuban recently laid into Democrats for having no policy or strategy beyond 'Trump sucks.' 'We picked the wrong pressure points,' said Cuban on 'Pod Save America.' 'It's just 'Trump sucks.' That's the underlying thought of everything the Democrats do. 'Trump sucks.' Trump says the sky is blue. 'Trump sucks.' That's not the way to win! It's just not! Because it's not about Trump — it's about the people of the United States of America — and what's good for them! And how do you get them to a place where they're in a better position, and it's less stressful for them.' Cuban — who a growing number of Democrats believe might make a credible presidential candidate in 2028 — is correct. When will it be peak 'theater of the absurd' for that echo chamber? When do working-class and disenfranchised Americans once again matter to it? When does national security once again matter to it? When does the performance art — aimed at literally just a few thousand entrenched elites living in bubbles — stop? If you only got yours information from that echo chamber, you would believe that Trump never accomplished anything; never built anything; was never successful; never made a correct decision; and never had a worthwhile instinct. Ever. And that was before he became president. Since Trump became president, inhabitants of that echo chamber have seemingly been in a constant state of rage. One of the issues that has most made them apoplectic is Trump being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the last three decades or longer, the Nobel Prize Committee has become for many the poster child for a 'woke,' in-the-tank for the left organization. Especially when it comes to the Peace Prize. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, if the committee members admit that they have morphed into a propaganda arm for the far left and its causes. But they won't. Instead, they — like the Pulitzer Prize Committee — proclaim their nonpartisanship while actively discriminating against conservatives or those they perceive to be on the right. In 2015, one of its members, Geir Lundestad — possibly suffering a pang of guilt — had the good grace to admit to a mistake. That mistake being the laughable and sycophantic decision to award President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for literally doing nothing. Obama had been in office for less than nine months when he got the award. Liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called it 'premature.' Obama himself felt so self-conscious about getting the award that he gave serious thought to skipping the ceremony. Years later, while giving that 2015 interview, Lundestad said, 'Even many of Obama's supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn't achieve what it had hoped for.' Well, the committee did achieve what it set out to do, which was to fawn over a far-left president by giving him an award he never earned. It just didn't anticipate the immense blowback and ridicule. Again, it seems that, for the left, Trump should never be given any credit for anything. No matter how patently obvious that he deserves it. Even about keeping the peace and saving lives. For years prior to him becoming president — when many powerful Democrats courted his friendship and money — Trump spoke out against the war in Iraq and the needless waste of lives, something he continued to do as president. Just as he has done about the war in Ukraine. Did those calls against war and to save hundreds of thousands of lives ever register with the Nobel Committee? What about in 2020 when Trump created the Abraham Accords, an agreement that normalized relations between Israel and Arab countries? Again, in 2009, the committee awarded Obama the award for 'his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.' Except, that is not what he did — and yet, he still got the award. Trump established the Abraham Accords — and was ignored by the committee. In 1998, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to John Hume and David Trimble for 'their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland.' Okay, let's compare. Just recently, Trump was instrumental in preventing all-out war between India and Pakistan. Two nuclear-armed nations. Is that more valuable to the world than finding a 'peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland?' Apparently not to the committee. In 2019, the committee awarded the Peace Prize to Abiy Ahmed 'for his efforts to achieve peace and international cooperation, and in particular for his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighboring Eritrea.' Again, earlier this year, Trump brokered a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. While much of the mainstream media sought to bury the accomplishment, surely the committee knew of it. Mark Cuban was correct to call out the Democrats for only having one failed campaign policy. Trump is correct to call out the Nobel Prize Committee for its obvious and shameful bias. Brokering peace and saving lives should always be recognized — no matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican.
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Smithsonian exhibit monkeys around with the scientific evidence on human origins
The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives,' leading GOP Sen. Jim Banks last week to introduce a bill prohibiting the Smithsonian from promoting woke ideology, as The Post exclusively reported. But American history isn't the only domain in which the Smithsonian, with an ideological ax to grind, advances misinformation. The National Museum of Natural History's Hall of Human Origins vastly distorts the scientific evidence on human evolution, seeking to convince visitors that there's nothing special about us as human beings. 'There is only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees,' the exhibit starts, with large photos of a human and apes. 'You and chimpanzees [are] 98.8% genetically similar.' 6 The Trump Administration recently called out the Smithsonian Institution for pushing 'one-sided, divisive political narratives.' Shutterstock / Paulm1993 No doubt you've heard this statistic before because many science popularizers say the same thing. Yet it's been known for years that these numbers are inaccurate. Thanks to a groundbreaking April paper in the journal Nature, we know just how wrong they are. For the first time, the paper reports 'complete' sequences of the genomes of chimpanzees and other apes done from scratch. When we compare them to humans, we find our genomes are more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees'. That means the true genetic differences between humans and chimps are more than 10 times greater than what the Smithsonian tells us. The museum distorts human origins in other areas, too. Again, the purpose is to diminish the exceptional place of humans in nature. 6 The David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins exhibit is seen at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. AP The museum's Human Origins fossil hall claims the ancient species Sahelanthropus tchadensis was an 'early human' that walked 'on two legs.' But leading paleoanthropologists sharply dispute this claim. A Nature article found that 'Sahelanthropus was an ape,' and many features 'link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.' A 2020 Journal of Human Evolution paper showed that Sahelanthropus' femur was like that of a chimp-like quadruped — in other words, it didn't walk upright, and it wasn't a human ancestor. 6 The Smithsonian exhibit presents ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us, but many scientists don't agree with this characterization, according to reports. Courtesy of Casey Luskin Similarly, the Human Origins exhibit presents the ape-like australopithecines as 'early humans' who walked upright 'on the ground' much like us. Some paleoanthropologists agree. But other scientists strongly disagree, pointing out that some australopithecines showed evidence of ape-like knuckle-walking and only limited capacity for running. Their upright-walking ability was likely best suited for walking along tree limbs, not 'on the ground' exactly like we do. Large questions remain about how they walked, and the Smithsonian gives no hint of the scientific controversy. 6 The museum had a display of *Australopithecus africanus* bust in 2010. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The museum's hominid reconstructions also humanize apes while ape-ifying humans. Australopithecus afarensis (the iconic 'Lucy') is portrayed thoughtfully gazing up at the sky, while Australopithecus africanus is presented smiling, perhaps at a friend's wry remark. Yet australopithecines had brains about the size of a chimp's, and there's no fossil evidence they were capable of abstract thought — or humor. We should remember the famed Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooton's declaration that 'alleged restorations of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public.' 6 The exhibit asserts that humans and chimpanzees are '98.8% genetically similar,' but recently published research found our genomes are more like 15% different from chimpanzees. Courtesy of Casey Luskin The Smithsonian's exhibit also gives scientifically misleading support to the idea humans evolved slowly — saying 'we became human gradually,' much as Darwin imagined, from 'earlier primates.' Again, the result is to blur distinctions between us and other creatures. Yet the great Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr acknowledged there is a 'large, unbridged gap' in the fossil record between the australopithecines and the first humanlike members of our genus, Homo. In his words, we're in a position of 'not having any fossils that can serve as missing links.' One scientific commentator even said this evidence calls for a 'big bang theory of human evolution.' Why doesn't the Smithsonian disclose any of this information? 6 July marks the 100th anniversary of the Scopes 'monkey' trial. AP This month is the centennial of the Scopes 'monkey' trial, remembered as a warning against hiding scientific information about human evolution. How ironic that 100 years later, the nation's premier science museum obscures scientifically objective data on the very same subject. To fail to correct this exhibit is to use taxpayer money to miseducate the public about a question of profound scientific, sociological, and philosophical importance. Casey Luskin is the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture's associate director and co-author of the book 'Science and Human Origins.' He holds a geology Ph.D. from the University of Johannesburg.
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Democrats' approval rating craters to 35-year low: WSJ poll
Democrats' approval rating with registered voters has plunged to a 35-year low, while Republicans maintain an edge on most of the top issues Americans care about, a new poll found. A whopping 63% of registered voters view Democrats unfavorably, dramatically eclipsing the 33% who had a positive impression, marking the lowest rating they scored since 1990, according to a Wall Street Journal survey. That abysmal rating for Democrats comes against the backdrop of lackluster figures for President Trump and Republicans. Trump's approval rating sits at 46%, with 52% who disapprove of the commander in chief. The figure is higher than this point during his first term, which was 40%. Republicans' approval rating clocked in at a net seven points unfavorable. If congressional elections were held today, 46% of voters indicated they'd back a Democrat, compared to 43% who would support a Republican. 3 The poll suggests that House Democrats have their work cut out for them to ensure they can flip control of the lower chamber. AP 3 Democrats are also carefully eyeing pickup opportunities in Senate races. AP A majority, 51%, also said the change Trump is bringing has resulted in dysfunction and chaos, compared to 45% who agreed the president was making positive adjustments. Still, across the board, voters preferred the GOP approach over the Dem position on a range of key issues. Voters trusted Republicans over Democrats on inflation by about 10 points; on immigration by 17 points; and handling illegal immigrants by 17 points, the survey found. In one unique finding, respondents disapproved of Trump's tariffs by 17 points and Republicans still scored 7 points higher than Democrats on that issue. 'The Democratic brand is so bad that they don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump or the Republican Party,' John Anzalone, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey, told the outlet. 'Until they reconnect with real voters and working people on who they're for and what their economic message is, they're going to have problems.' Anzalone teamed up with Republican Tony Fabrizio, Trump's trusted pollster during the 2024 campaign cycle, to conduct the survey for the Wall Street Journal. 3 President Trump's approval rating was underwater but higher than at this point during his first term, the poll showed. REUTERS One area where congressional Democrats topped Republicans was vaccine policy and healthcare, per the poll. Democrats are still reeling from their 2024 election loss, and key figures within the party have openly vented that the party doesn't have a strong message or sense of direction. Typically, the party out of power in the White House is favored to have a strong performance in the midterm elections, which is why many observers believe the Democrats are well-positioned heading into 2026. However, the Wall Street Journal poll shows Democrats are still remarkably anemic as the party struggles to find its footing. Around this time in 2017, voters called themselves Democrats over Republicans by 6 percentage points, per the poll. Democrats later went on to flip 40 House seats in the 2018 midterm elections. This go-around, Republicans have a 1-point edge in party identification over Democrats. Republicans have a threadbare 219 to 212 House majority and are scrambling to defy history by retaining control during the 2026 midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll sampled 1,500 registered voters between July 16–20 with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points.
