4 ways Trump's ‘one big beautiful bill' would undermine access to Obamacare
Major changes could be in store for the more than 24 million people with health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, including how and when they can enroll, the paperwork required, and, crucially, the premiums they pay.
A driver behind these changes is the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the name given to spending and tax legislation designed to advance the policy agenda of President Donald Trump. It passed the House on May 22 and is pending in the Senate.
The changes also would come from regulations the Trump administration proposed in March and the potential expiration of larger premium subsidies put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Millions of people might drop or lose coverage by 2034 as a result, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Combined, the moves by Trump and his allies could 'devastate access' to ACA plans, said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the O'Neill Institute, a health policy research group at Georgetown University.
States that run their own Obamacare marketplaces and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners have also raised concerns about added costs and reduced access. But House Republicans and some conservative think tanks say the ACA needs revamping to rein in fraud, part of which they pin on certain Biden administration changes the measures would undo.
Senate Republicans must now weigh whether to include the House's proposals in their own bill, with the aim of getting it through the chamber by July 4.
Here are four key ways Trump's policies could undermine Obamacare enrollment and coverage.
The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which runs more than 1,000 pages, would create paperwork requirements that could delay access to tax credits for some enrollees, potentially raising the cost of their insurance.
More than 90% of ACA enrollees receive tax credits to defray monthly premiums for their coverage. There are two key provisions for them to watch.
One would end automatic reenrollment for most ACA policyholders each year. More than 10 million people were automatically reenrolled in their coverage for the 2025 plan year, with their eligibility for tax credits confirmed via a system that allows ACA marketplaces to check government or other data sources.
The House bill would instead require every new or returning policyholder each year to provide information on income, household size, immigration status, and other factors, starting in 2028. If they don't, they won't get a premium tax credit, which could put the price of coverage out of reach.
Louisiana Legislature targets out-of-state doctors who provide abortion pills
'Everyone who wants to either purchase or renew a marketplace plan will have to come with a shoebox filled with documents, scan in and upload them or mail them in, and sit and wait while someone reviews and confirms them,' said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor and co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.
She and other policy experts fear that many consumers will become uninsured because they don't understand the requirements or find them burdensome. If too many young and healthy people, for example, decide it's not worth the hassle, that could leave more older and sicker people for ACA insurers to cover — potentially raising premiums for everyone.
But supporters of the House bill say the current approach needs changing because it is vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse.
'This would ensure that enrollees need to return to the exchange to update their information and obtain an updated eligibility determination for a subsidy — best protecting the public against excess subsidies paid to insurers that can never be recovered,' the conservative Paragon Institute wrote in an April letter to top Department of Health and Human Services officials.
Today, people who experience life changes — losing a job, getting married or divorced, or having a baby, for instance — are considered provisionally eligible for tax credits to reduce their premiums if they sign up or change their ACA plans. That means they would be eligible to receive these subsidies for at least 90 days while their applications are checked against government data or other sources, or marketplaces follow up with requests for additional information.
The House bill would end that, requiring documentation before receiving tax credits. That could create particular hardship for new parents, who can't confirm that babies are eligible for premium subsidies until they receive Social Security numbers weeks after they're born.
Policy experts following the debate 'did not expect the end to provisional eligibility,' Corlette said. 'I don't know what the reaction in the Senate will be, as I'm not sure everyone understands the full implications of these provisions because they are so new.'
It can take up to six weeks for the Social Security Administration to process a number for a newborn, and an additional two weeks for parents to get the card, according to a white paper that analyzed provisions of the House bill and was co-authored by Jason Levitis, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, and Christen Linke Young, a visiting fellow with Brookings' Center on Health Policy.
Without a Social Security number, any application to add a newborn to an ACA policy would automatically generate a hold on premium tax credits for that family, they wrote — increasing their out-of-pocket costs, at least temporarily.
'It puts consumers on the hook for any delays the marketplace is taking,' while the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the ACA marketplaces, 'is cutting staff and adding a lot more paperwork to burden the staff they have,' Levitis said.
Provisions in the House bill that would require ACA enrollees to provide information each year that they reenroll — or when seeking to add or change a policy due to a life circumstance — would increase the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in 2034, according to the latest CBO estimate.
The House bill would turn into law a Trump proposal to shorten the ACA open enrollment period. The start date would continue to be Nov. 1. But the window would be shortened by about a month, with an end date of Dec. 15. This affects people in states that use the federal marketplace as well as the 19 states and the District of Columbia that run their own, most of which offer open enrollment into at least mid-January.
Also, as soon as the end of this year, a special enrollment period the Biden administration created would be done away with. It allowed people with lower incomes — those who earn up to 1.5 times the 2024 federal poverty level, or about $38,730 for a family of three — to sign up anytime during the year.
Critics, including the Paragon Institute, argue that this enrollment opening led to fraud, partly blaming it for a steep increase last year in instances of insurance agents seeking commissions by enrolling or switching consumers into plans without their consent, or fudging their incomes to qualify them for tax credits so large they paid no monthly premiums at all.
But supporters — including some states that run their own ACA exchange — say there are other ways to address fraud.
'We anticipate that much of the improper activity can be prevented by security and integrity upgrades to the federal marketplace, which we understand the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is implementing,' the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote in a May 29 letter to congressional leaders.
The reason? Enhanced tax credits created during the pandemic expire at the end of the year. The House bill doesn't extend them. Those more generous payments are credited with helping double ACA enrollment since 2020.
The CBO estimates that extending the subsidies would cost $335 billion over 10 years. The House bill instead funds an extension of Trump's tax cuts, which largely benefit wealthier families.
If the enhanced credits are allowed to expire, not only would premium subsidies be smaller for many people, but there would also be an abrupt eligibility cutoff — an income cliff — for households above four times the federal poverty rate, or about $103,280 for a family of three for this plan year.
Taking into account the smaller subsidies and the cliff, KFF estimates a national average premium increase of 75% for enrollees if the enhanced subsidies expire. The CBO expects that about 4.2 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF and subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.
Hashtags

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


CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
DHS defends social media post calling for public to help ICE locate ‘all foreign invaders'
On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security posted a striking graphic on its official X account. Uncle Sam, a symbol of American patriotism, is depicted nailing a poster to a wall that reads, 'Help your country… and yourself.' Written underneath the poster is the sentence, 'REPORT ALL FOREIGN INVADERS,' and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement hot line. The post — which DHS and the White House also posted to Instagram — prompted a flood of criticism, with some social media users comparing the post to authoritarian propaganda. On Thursday, at least two far-right X accounts claimed to have a hand in creating or disseminating the image before it was shared by DHS. A source within DHS told CNN the agency did not create the graphic. The DHS's Uncle Sam post has more than 81,000 likes and comes as immigration protests roil Los Angeles and other cities around the country, amid a deportation crackdown by President Donald Trump and DHS. And it marks an escalation in the agency's communication strategy, after weeks of using social media to attack or mock perceived enemies, promote ICE arrests and ridicule media reports it disagrees with. In another recent post, DHS responded to a comment appearing to question a popular X user's immigration status with a meme of a character with magnifying glasses. In May, DHS also said it was reviewing a reality TV show pitch where immigrants would compete for US citizenship, which an agency spokesperson said at the time was in the early stages of vetting and had not yet been approved or denied. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem later told a Senate committee that she had 'no knowledge' of a reality show plan. The Uncle Sam graphic is reminiscent of media used previously by other governments to provoke fear, especially of immigrants, said Elisabeth Fondren, a journalism professor at St. John's University who has studied government propaganda and communications during war times. 'This poster fits within a long history of anti-immigrant rhetoric and, yes, state propaganda,' Fondren said. 'It evokes these remnants of Cold War, fake propaganda by the Russians, or, you know, authoritarian fear mongering messages … but what I think is so interesting is that this is a call to action in an environment where we're not in a war.' In defending the Uncle Sam post, the agency told CNN that it aligns with terminology used by other officials in the executive branch. DHS pointed CNN to a number of posts from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller using terms like 'invade' or 'invaders' when referring to undocumented immigrants. Asked for comment on this story, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told CNN that criticisms of the post 'are fundamentally unserious and reflect the completely juvenile state of mainstream journalism. These reporters should get off social media and start focusing on the very real victims of illegal alien crime.' 'Every American citizen should support federal law enforcement in their just effort to deport criminal illegal alien invaders from our country,' McLaughlin said in a statement. 'During the Biden Administration our borders were opened to an invasion by the very worst from around the world. Now President Trump and Secretary Noem are reversing the destruction of our nation.' Trump's overall handling of immigration tends to earn higher approval ratings than his performance on other issues, but there is also evidence that Americans are less supportive of the way he's carrying out deportations. A CNN poll in April showed 52% of Americans said Trump has gone too far in deporting undocumented immigrants. DHS's provocative social media strategy has led to a rapidly growing audience. Engagement with the DHS account has grown significantly since Trump took office; it's second only to the White House in online engagement among US government accounts, the agency said. DHS communication officials have in recent days frequently posted videos from the LA protests that it says indicate the demonstrations are not peaceful and highlight law enforcement efforts to quell disorder. The demonstrations have impacted a relatively small area of the city, mostly in a section of downtown LA, where largely peaceful daytime protests have been giving way to volatile, occasionally violent scenes each night that have resulted in hundreds of arrests. The curfew zone is about one square mile, in a city that covers more than 450 square miles. The agency's posts come as random and anonymous users on platforms like X and TikTok have also shared old and sometimes completely fake content about the unrest, projecting an image of chaos, often in an apparent attempt to juice their own engagement. The agency has also posted names, photos and alleged charges of people it has arrested as justification for ICE's operations in Los Angeles. And on Wednesday, DHS shared a post on X that said: 'Liberals don't know things.' Many of the posts to the DHS account are memes or content created by outside sources. The image of the Uncle Sam poster was posted on X last Friday, around the time tensions in Los Angeles escalated, by podcaster C. Jay Engel, who describes himself as 'Christian nationalist adjacent' and has claimed that 'nations cannot survive replacement migration.' After DHS shared the Uncle Sam image, Engel posted: 'This image came from my account. NEVER STOP POSTING.' 'The question is, 'Is there room for like-minded Christians and patriots in Tennessee?'' the podcaster, Engel, said in an October podcast, in response to a listener's question. 'Yes, there's an imperative for like-minded Christians to gather and fight with us.' Although Engel circulated the image of the Uncle Sam poster, another X user claimed to have created the image. That pseudonymous X account, which has the words 'Wake Up White Man' in its biography, is full of nativist rhetoric and reposted another X user who declared: 'Whites deserve our own nations, like everyone else is allowed to have.' The pseudonymous account appears to have been the first to post the image. CNN has requested comment from Engel and attempted to reach the X user who claimed to have created the image. CNN's Samantha Delouya contributed reporting.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Air India crash refuels Boeing and airline's problems
The fatal crash of a 787 Dreamliner that was being operated by Air India from Ahmedabad in northwestern India to London Gatwick Airport has once again fueled scrutiny of both Boeing and the airline, as the two companies have been trying to emerge from years of crises and poor reputations. The nearly 12-year-old Dreamliner crashed on a densely populated part of the city soon after takeoff, killing 241 of the 242 people on board on Thursday. The total death toll is expected to rise as the plane fell on a medical college hostel and rescue operations are still under way. The crash raises new concerns for Boeing, which continues to face mounting safety issues that have undermined public trust in its aircraft. These challenges come as the Seattle-based aerospace giant grapples with economic pressures from tariffs imposed by United States President Donald Trump, as well as increased regulatory attention that followed its recent safety issues. The reason behind the crash is not yet clear. But it is yet another fatal accident involving a Boeing aircraft, adding to a string of public relations crises that have made many travellers wary of flying on its planes. 'Boeing has become notorious and infamous with flyers at this moment, regardless of the model of the plane. Even the word 'Boeing' triggers a lot of people,' Adnan Bashir, an independent global communications and corporate affairs consultant who specialises in crisis communications, told Al Jazeera. The company's safety reputation began to unravel in October 2018 when a Lion Air flight operating a 737 MAX crashed due to a malfunction in the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), a programme designed to prevent stalls. That crash killed all 189 people on board. Just months later, in March 2019, an Ethiopian Airlines flight using the same aircraft model crashed for the same reason, killing all 157 people aboard. Turmoil resurfaced in January 2024, when a door panel detached mid-flight on an Alaska Airlines route between Ontario, California, and Portland, Oregon. But until now, the 787 Dreamliner aircraft had maintained a relatively strong safety record. 'This is the first fatal crash of the 787, so despite all of its problems in the early days and all the production issues that Boeing had with the aeroplane, this has had a perfect safety record up to this point,' aviation expert Scott Hamilton told Al launched in 2011, Boeing has sold more than 2,500 of the model globally. Air India bought 47 of them, and to date, Boeing has delivered 1,189 Dreamliners. The model has faced years of safety-related scrutiny. In 2024, John Barnett, a former Boeing quality manager, was found dead under suspicious circumstances after long voicing concerns about the 787. Barnett had alleged that Boeing cut corners to meet production deadlines, including installing inadequate parts. He also claimed that testing revealed a 25-percent failure rate in the aircraft's emergency oxygen systems. In 2019, The New York Times published an expose that revealed Boeing had pressured workers not to report safety violations, citing internal emails, documents, and employee interviews. More recently, another whistleblower, Sam Salehpour, told lawmakers he was threatened for raising safety concerns about Boeing aircraft. Today's crash is the latest fatal incident to occur under the leadership of Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg, who returned from retirement in 2024 to replace Dave Calhoun. Ortberg had pledged to restore the company's safety reputation. Previously, the last fatal Boeing incident occurred in December, when a Jeju Airlines flight crashed after a bird strike, killing 179 of the 181 people on board. Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice reached a settlement with Boeing that allowed the company to avoid prosecution for previous crashes. The deal required Boeing to pay $1.1bn, including investments to improve safety standards and compensation to victims' families. On Wall Street, Boeing's stock dropped nearly 5 percent from the previous day's market close. At this point, experts believe that ultimately, Boeing executives will be careful with their words because of the looming legal challenges they may face if an investigation finds the fault lies with the plane-maker. 'You can almost guarantee there's going to be lawsuits of some sort. Right now, they're likely triaging internal and external communication plans with their legal team. Because anything they say in public right now could be used as evidence. And so what they're going to be doing right now is staying quiet, most likely until more facts come out,' Amanda Orr, founder of the legal and policy communications consultancy firm Orr Strategy Group, told Al Jazeera. In response to today's crash, Boeing said, 'We are in contact with Air India regarding Flight 171 and stand ready to support them … Our thoughts are with the passengers, crew, first responders and all affected.' Boeing did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for comment. For Air India, which has been undergoing a major reinvention in the last few years, today's crash is a major setback in its efforts to rebrand and modernise. Founded in 1932, the airline was nationalised in 1953. After years of financial struggles and mounting debt, Tata Group acquired the airline for $2.2bn in 2022. As India's only long-haul international carrier to Europe and North America, Air India has a strong hold on global travel from across the country. In 2023, the carrier ordered 220 Boeing aircraft, including 20 Dreamliners, 10 777x jets, and 190 of the embattled 737 MAX. For now, Air India is focused on its response to the crash. 'At this moment, our primary focus is on supporting all the affected people and their families. We are doing everything in our power to assist the emergency response teams at the site and to provide all necessary support and care to those impacted,' said N Chandrasekaran, chairperson of Tata Sons, the holding company of Tata Group, in a statement provided to Al Jazeera. 'I express our deep sorrow about this incident. This is a difficult day for all of us at Air India. Our efforts now are focused entirely on the needs of our passengers, crew members, their families and loved ones,' Craig Wilson, the airline's CEO, said in a video statement. The airline has experienced a few fatal accidents in recent years. In 2020, an Air India Express flight skidded off the runway in Kozhikode in India, killing 20. A similar accident in Mangalore involving a 737-800 claimed 156 lives. Despite the shock of today's crash, flying remains one of the safest modes of travel. According to a 2024 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the risk of dying in a commercial airline accident is one in every 13.7 million passengers. This continues to be the safest decade in aviation history.


Los Angeles Times
19 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
The gift Trump never meant to give: the spotlight to Democratic adversary Gavin Newsom
SACRAMENTO — President Trump craves attention and will stoop to any depth to grab it — even pour gasoline on a kindling fire in Los Angeles. But this time he unwittingly provided priceless attention for an adversary. Because Trump needlessly deployed National Guard troops and — more ridiculous, a Marine battalion to L.A. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was granted a prime-time speaking slot on national cable television to respond. 'We honor their service. We honor their bravery,' Newsom said of the troops. 'But we do not want our streets militarized by our own armed forces. Not in L.A. Not in California. Not anywhere … . 'California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault right before our eyes. The moment we've feared has arrived.' I'm not sure the 'democracy is under assault' message has much traction, but keeping armed combat forces off our streets must be a salable pitch. Regardless, governors almost never get national TV time to deliver entire speeches, even as brief as Newsom's. You've practically got to be nominated for president. But the publicity-thirsty sitting president provided the cameras for California's governor. Newsom's strong address probably boosted his stock within the Democrat Party and revived dormant speculation about a 2028 presidential bid. No longer was the Democratic governor playing respectful nice guy and tempering criticism of the Republican president. Now he was standing up to the bully who loves to use California, Newsom and our progressive politics as a punching bag. Trump's red-state supporters love every swipe at this 'left coast' state. Newsom rose to the occasion, using his greatest asset: invaluable communication skills coupled with telegenic looks. He laid out his version of what happened to turn relatively peaceful protests against federal immigration raids into destructive street violence. And it's the correct version by objective accounts. On Saturday, Newsom said, federal immigration agents 'jumped out of an unmarked van' near a Home Depot parking lot and 'began grabbing people. A deliberate targeting of a heavily Latino suburb … . In response, everyday Angelenos' exercised their constitutional right to protest. Police were dispatched to keep the peace and mostly were successful, the governor continued. But then tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades were used — by federal agents, Newsom implied. Then Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops 'illegally and for no reason,' the governor asserted. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting president inflamed a combustible situation … . Anxiety for families and friends ramped up. Protests started again … . Several dozen lawbreakers became violent and destructive.' Newsom warned: 'That kind of criminal behavior will not be tolerated. Full stop.' And hundreds have been arrested. But he emphasized: 'This situation was winding down and was concentrated in just a few square blocks downtown. But that's not what Donald Trump wanted … . He chose theatrics over public safety.' In Trump's twisted view, if he hadn't sent in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would be completely obliterated.' Never mind that the violence was confined to a few downtown blocks, a fraction of a city that spreads over 500 square miles. 'We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free and clean again,' the president promised. Veteran Republican strategist Mike Murphy had it right, telling CNN: 'He's lighting the fire as an arsonist, then claiming to be the fireman.' It reminded me of President Lyndon B. Johnson's manufactured Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 that Congress passed, enabling him to vastly escalate U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Johnson reported a North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers that many experts later concluded never happened. But I think Trump mainly is obsessed with attracting attention. He knows he'll get it by being provocative. Never mind the accuracy of his words or the wisdom of his actions. Sending in the Marines certainly was an eye-opener. So is staging a military parade on his birthday — an abuse of troops for attention, personal glorification and exercise of his own power. He'll say anything provocative without thinking it through: Tariffs one day, suspended the next. He'll boast of sending San Joaquin Valley water to L.A. for fighting fires when it's physically impossible to deliver it. While Trump was playing politics with immigrants and L.A. turmoil, a poll finding was released that should have pleased him. Californians no longer support providing public healthcare for immigrants living here illegally, the independent Public Policy Institute of California reported. Adult state residents were opposed by 58% to 41% in a survey taken before the L.A. trouble erupted. By contrast, a PPIC poll in 2021 found that Californians favored providing state healthcare for undocumented immigrants by 66% to 31%. Polling director Mark Baldassare concluded the public opposition stems mostly from the view that California taxpayers can't afford the costly program — not that they agree with Trump's anti-immigrant demagoguery. In fact, Newson has proposed paring back the state's multibillion-dollar program of providing Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented immigrants because the state budget has been spewing red ink. Given all the rhetoric about the L.A. protests, the statement that particularly impressed me came from freshman Assemblyman Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), whose downtown district stretches from Koreatown to Chinatown. 'Rocks thrown at officers, CHP cars and Waymo vehicles set on fire, arson on the 101 freeway — have nothing to do with immigration, justice or the values of our communities,' he said in a statement Sunday. 'These are not protesters — they were agitators. Their actions are reckless, dangerous and playing into exactly what Trump wants.' Gonzalez is a liberal former chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party who stuck to his point: Hoodlums can't be tolerated. And, thanks to Trump, Newsom was able to make a similar point about the president on national TV: His dangerous, self-serving actions can't be tolerated either.