GOP bill raises fears of major reduction in home care for seniors, disabled
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' proposes cutting billions from social benefit programs, including $800 billion from Medicaid and $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Chu called the proposed reduction in Medicaid funding the most 'devastating cut to services for seniors in our lifetime' since it will force states to heavily reduce the amount of money they spend on at-home care for older people and people with disabilities.
'This will be really tough for seniors if these cuts go through,' Chu said during The Hill's Health Safety Net Programs: Will Older Adults Fall Through?
More than 7 million Americans over 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, and 11 million adults between the ages of 50 and 64 receive health care coverage through Medicaid, according to the program's website.
Medicaid also provides health insurance coverage to about 5 million disabled Americans.
Medicaid is also a major funder of nursing home care. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for Americans 65 and older, only covers short nursing home stays. Medicaid will often pay for Longer-term nursing home stays and at-home care for low-income Americans who qualify.
The program pays more than 60 percent of long-term care residents in nursing homes, according to reporting from KFF Health News.
The proposed Medicaid cuts have received pushback from disabled and older Americans across the country. Medicaid cut protesters disrupted a House Committee on Energy and Commerce meeting last week as lawmakers began a marathon markup session.
Capitol Hill police arrested 26 people and removed several protesters in wheelchairs as they shouted phrases like 'keep your greedy hand off our Medicaid' and 'no cuts to Medicaid' at lawmakers.
Protests urging lawmakers to oppose the proposed Medicaid cuts have popped up around the country, including in New York, New Hampshire, and California.
Several Democratic lawmakers, including Chu, have held town halls in their districts about the proposed Medicaid cuts in the federal spending package. Chu told The Hill that her constituents in southern California are 'incredibly fearful' and 'anxious' over the possible cuts.
'They feel devastated by the potential cuts that could happen to them and to their fellow neighbors,' said Chu. 'I have never seen such passion in my life, they have turned out in record numbers at the town halls, the pack each one of them.'
It's clear, she added, that Americans across the country are 'feeling these devastating cuts very personally.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
23 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Oversight Committee to hold hearing with Bowser, DC leadership in September
House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-K.Y.) said he plans to hold a hearing with Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser (D), Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D), and Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) in September following President Trump's announcement that he will take federal control of the city. 'Alongside President Trump, the House Oversight Committee is also advancing legislative solutions to protect Americans in their capital city and plans to hold a hearing with District Attorney General Brian Schwalb, DC Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, and Mayor Muriel Bowser this September,' Comer said in a statement on Monday. 'The committee looks forward to continuing its constitutional duty to oversee DC and will work with the Trump administration to ensure a safe, beautiful, and prosperous capital,' he continued. Trump announced on Monday that in addition to taking federal control of the city's police department, he would deploy the National Guard in an effort to take on crime in the city. The president also announced that he was declaring a public safety emergency in the District, 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it,' Trump said from the White House press briefing room. Under the Home Rule Act, Trump can temporarily take control of the District's police department if he determines 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' It is unclear if the administration coordinated its actions on Monday with D.C. officials. A spokesperson for Mayor Muriel Bowser's (D) office declined to comment just before Trump began speaking. DC Ward 6 Councilmember Charles Allen (D) pushed back on Trump's announcement, calling it 'dangerous.' 'The President taking over local control of MPD & putting the US military onto the streets of DC under the guise of public safety is wrong,' Allen said in a post on X. 'It's an extreme, outrageous, and dangerous move for our city and the safety of all our residents. '
CNN
31 minutes ago
- CNN
Caffeinated coffees are mostly free of toxins, with a few exceptions
That cup of joe that jolts you awake in the morning is pretty safe when it comes to contaminants and toxins, a new investigation has found. Well … almost. 'While some contaminants were present, most were found at minimal levels and well below the European Union's safety limits per 6-ounce serving. This means coffee is generally safe,' said Molly Hamilton, executive director of the nonprofit Clean Label Project, which conducted the investigation into caffeinated coffees. That's great news because coffee has a stellar résumé: Studies have found drinking about 3 cups of black coffee a day provides health benefits, such as reducing risk for such issues as heart disease, multiple sclerosis, type 2 diabetes, liver disease, prostate cancer, stroke, dementia and more. But here's the grind — the testing found traces of a worrisome herbicide called glyphosate and one of its byproducts. Glyphosate is a popular herbicide that has been linked to hormone disruptions and neurotoxic effects, including the development of autism and other developmental disorders in children. The first MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) Commission report, released in May, raised concerns about the impact of glyphosate and other pesticides on children's health. The US Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies, however, say numerous studies and risk assessments have shown no adverse effects of glyphosate at levels found in the food supply. Plastics from packaging In addition to glyphosate, testing found some coffees also contained small amounts of phthalates, a plasticizer found in consumer products such as food storage containers, shampoo, makeup, perfume and children's toys. Phthalates have been linked with reproductive problems, such as genital malformations and undescended testes in baby boys and lower sperm counts and testosterone levels in adult males. Studies have also linked phthalates to asthma, childhood obesity and cancer. Testing found the highest levels of phthalates in coffee sold in cans, followed by pods and finally bags. The reason for that isn't yet clear, 'so our next study is going to be analyzing the packaging assembly line to discover why there is a change in contaminants,' Hamilton said. 'The Clean Label Project plays an important role in post-market testing for contaminants in everyday consumer products, including this recent report on coffee,' said David Andrews, acting chief science officer for the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group that maintains a database on personal care products that contain toxins. 'The higher phthalate levels found in coffee pods and canned coffee suggest that packaging could be a meaningful source of exposure to these chemicals of concern,' Andrews said. The National Coffee Association, which represents the US coffee industry told CNN that it was 'highly irresponsible to mislead Americans about the safety of their favorite beverage.' 'Decades of independent scientific evidence show that coffee drinkers live longer, healthier lives,' NCA President and CEO William 'Bill' Murray said in an email. Traces of a popular pesticide The Clean Label Project measures levels of heavy metals, pesticides and plasticizers in food and consumer products. The organization also checks to see whether the tested products' labels list those contaminants. To do the testing, Clean Label obtained samples of coffee from 45 popular brands — which they did not name. Coffee beans were grown in Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Peru and Hawaii. A certified lab conducted over 7,000 tests looking for pesticides, including glyphosate; heavy metals such as lead, mercury, arsenic and cadmium; mycotoxins, which are toxic chemical compounds produced by some molds that grow on crops; and phthalates, a plasticizer found in consumer products such as food wrapping, food storage containers, shampoo, makeup, perfume and children's toys. The tests found scant glyphosate, but 'significant' amounts of aminomethylphosphonic acid, or AMPA, a byproduct of glyphosate as it breaks down in the environment, according to the report. The half-life of AMPA is longer than that of glyphosate, which means it can persist in the environment and is easily absorbed by plants from soil and water. In addition, AMPA has been shown to damage cellular DNA in prostate cells and cause an increased risk of liver inflammation and metabolic disorders in young adults. Surprising finding in organic coffees Testing found organic coffees bested conventional coffees in total amounts of contaminants, but there was one oddity — there were levels of AMPA in all of the 12 organic coffees tested. Of the 45 samples of conventionally grown coffees, only 29 tested positive for aminomethylphosphonic acid, according to the report. While certified organic coffee growers cannot use pesticides like glyphosate, it's possible for organic fields to be contaminated by runoff from neighboring conventional farms, Hamilton said. 'Still, the detection of AMPA in 100% of organic samples we tested is definitely a wake-up call,' she said. 'We definitely need stronger safeguards and greater transparency in our food system.' Other contaminants in coffee Levels of heavy metals depended on where the coffee was grown. Africa has some of the lowest levels of heavy metals, while the highest were found in Hawaiian coffee. Hawaii, however, is a volcanic island and therefore expected to have more significant levels of heavy metals in the soil. An analysis also found 100% of the tested coffee samples contained small amounts of acrylamide, a colorless, odorless chemical formed when certain foods are cooked at high temperatures, such as when frying, baking and roasting. Acrylamide has been linked to cancer in animals when they are exposed to extremely high doses. However, the chemical is not thought to be toxic to humans at small levels of consumption. Despite that, the US Food and Drug Administration has advised manufacturers to attempt to lower levels in the food supply. Clean Label's testing found levels of acrylamide varied with the degree of roasting of coffee beans. The highest levels of acrylamide were found in medium roasts, followed by light roasts and dark roasts. 'The dark coffees are the best choice because they are roasted at lower temperatures for a longer period of time so acrylamide levels don't rise,' Hamilton explained. 'The light coffees are roasted minimally, so here too, acrylamide levels don't build up. 'However, medium roasts have the higher levels of acrylamide because they are roasted at higher temperatures long enough to darken the beans,' she said. What to do? What could a coffee lover take away from the testing? 'When you decide which coffee to buy, choose darker or the lightest roasts in bags or pods and consider where coffee is grown, which can impact the levels of heavy metals,' Hamilton said. 'But I want to stress that it's important to put these findings into context,' she added. 'Caffeinated coffee is still one of the cleanest product categories we've ever tested. 'Our report isn't meant to raise alarm or keep consumers from drinking coffee, but rather to empower people on how to choose the cleanest, safest cup of coffee.'
