The GOP's big bill would bring changes to Medicaid for millions
But what, exactly, would be a cut?
Hawley and other Republicans acknowledge that the main cost-saving provision in the bill – new work requirements on able-bodied adults who receive health care through the Medicaid program -- would cause millions of people to lose their coverage. All told, estimates are 10.9 million fewer people would have health coverage under the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. That includes some 8 million fewer in the Medicaid program, including 5.2 million dropping off because of the new eligibility requirements.
'I know that will reduce the number of people on Medicaid,' Hawley told a small scrum of reporters in the hallways at the Capitol.
'But I'm for that because I want people who are able bodied but not working to work.'
Hawley and other Republicans are walking a politically fine line on how to reduce federal spending on Medicaid while also promising to protect a program that serves some 80 million Americans and is popular with the public.
As the party pushes ahead on President Donald Trump' s priority package, Republicans insist they are not cutting the vital safety net program but simply rooting out what they call waste, fraud and abuse. Whether that argument lands with voters could go a long way toward determining whether Trump's bill ultimately ends up boosting — or dragging down — Republicans as they campaign for reelection next year.
Republicans say that it's wrong to call the reductions in health care coverage 'cuts.' Instead, they've characterized the changes as rules that would purge people who are taking advantage of the system and protect it for the most vulnerable who need it most.
What's in the bill
House Republicans wrote the bill with instructions to find $880 billion in cuts from programs under the purview of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has a sprawling jurisdiction that includes Medicaid.
In the version of the bill that the House passed on a party-line vote last month, the overall cuts ended up exceeding that number. The Kaiser Family Foundation projects that the bill will result in a $793 billion reduction in spending on Medicaid.
Additionally, the House Ways & Means Committee, which handles federal tax policy, imposed a freeze on a health care provider tax that many states impose. Critics say the tax improperly boosts federal Medicaid payments to the states, but supporters like Hawley say it's important funding for rural hospitals.
'What we're doing here is an important and, frankly, heroic thing to preserve the program so that it doesn't become insolvent,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on NBC's 'Meet the Press.'
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, has denounced the bill as an 'assault on the healthcare of the American people' and warned years of progress in reducing the number of uninsured people is at risk.
Who would lose health coverage
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the GOP's proposed changes to federal health programs would result in 10.9 million fewer people having health care coverage.
Nearly 8 million fewer people would be enrolled in Medicaid by 2034 under the legislation, the CBO found, including 5.2 million people who would lose coverage due to the proposed work requirements. It said 1.4 million immigrants without legal status would lose coverage in state programs.
The new Medicaid requirements would apply to nondisabled adults under age 65 who are not caretakers or parents, with some exceptions. The bill passed by the U.S. House stipulates that those eligible would need to work, take classes, or record community service for 80 hours per month.
The Kaiser Family Foundation notes that more than 90% of people enrolled in Medicaid already meet those criteria.
The legislation also penalizes states that fund health insurance for immigrants who have not confirmed their immigration status, and the CBO expects that those states will stop funding Medicaid for those immigrants altogether.
Why Republicans want Medicaid changes
'What we are trying to do in the One Big Beautiful Bill is ensuring that limited resources are protected for pregnant women, for children, for seniors, for individuals with disabilities,' said Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., in a speech on the House floor.
Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso argued that Medicaid recipients who are not working spend their time watching television and playing video games rather than looking for employment.
Republicans also criticize the CBO itself, the congressional scorekeeper, questioning whether its projections are accurate.
The CBO score for decades has been providing non-partisan analysis of legislation and budgetary matters. Its staff is prohibited from making political contributions and is currently led by a former economic adviser for the George W. Bush administration.
What polling shows
While Republicans argue that their signature legislation delivers on Trump's 2024 campaign promises, health care isn't one of the president's strongest issues with Americans.
Most U.S. adults, 56%, disapproved of how Trump was handling health care policy in CNN polling from March. And according to AP VoteCast, about 6 in 10 voters in the November election said they wanted the government 'more involved' in ensuring that Americans have health care coverage. Only about 2 in 10 wanted the government less involved in this, and about 2 in 10 said its involvement was about right.
Half of American adults said they expected the Trump administration's policies to increase their family's health care costs, according to a May poll from KFF, and about 6 in 10 believed those policies would weaken Medicaid. If the federal government significantly reduced Medicaid spending, about 7 in 10 adults said they worried it would negatively impact nursing homes, hospitals, and other health care providers in their community.
For Hawley, the 'bottom lines' are omitting provisions that could cause rural hospitals to close and hardworking citizens to lose their benefits.
He and other Republicans are especially concerned about the freeze on the providers' tax in the House's legislation that they warn could hurt rural hospitals.
'Medicaid benefits for people who are working or who are otherwise qualified,' Hawley said. 'I do not want to see them cut.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump tax law could trigger about $500B in Medicare cuts over decade without fix: CBO
Recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Medicare spending would see steep cuts over roughly the next decade absent congressional action, following passage of President Trump's major tax law last month. The nonpartisan budget scorekeeper crunched the numbers of potential across-the-board cuts that federal programs could see under the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 as a result of the enactment of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' — which it estimates could cost trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. The 2010 law, enacted under the Obama administration, seeks to require Congress to ensure new legislation is budget-neutral and can be enforced with the threat of automatic cuts, also known as 'sequestration,' to counter excess costs. But Congress has often enacted legislation over the years to avoid those cuts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. CBO noted in a June letter that sequestration has never been triggered under the law since its enactment in 2010. However, in its analysis, conducted at the request of Democrats, CBO estimated the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would be required to issue a 'sequestration order not more than 14 days after the end of the current session of Congress' to cut fiscal 2026 spending by $415 billion, if Congress does not act. The office estimated that reductions in Medicare spending would be limited to about $45 billion for fiscal year 2026 under the 2010 law, leaving '$370 billion to be sequestered from the federal budget's remaining direct spending accounts in that year.' CBO also noted that the law exempts large accounts that fund programs like Social Security, while further estimating that the OMB would 'have roughly $120 billion in budgetary resources available for cancellation in 2026 — less than the remaining amount that would be required to be sequestered.' CBO's analysis included a closer breakdown of how Medicare spending would fare under such circumstances. 'The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would continue to apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026,' it said. 'If OMB ordered a sequestration of $415 billion for each year through 2029 and $339 billion each year from 2030 through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to $76 billion in 2034 and would total $491 billion over the 2027–2034 period.' When factoring in fiscal 2026, the estimated spending reductions in store for Medicare would total more than $500 billion. 'After accounting for the reduction in Medicare spending, the required reduction in spending for other programs would exceed the estimated amount of resources available to those programs in each year over the 2027–2034 period,' CBO said. It added that, if the OMB 'sequestered all of the funding for those programs, the total amounts would be less than the reductions required by' the 2010 law. The Hill has reached out to OMB for comment. The CBO has estimated Trump's major tax package will add nearly $3.4 trillion to the nation's deficits over roughly the next decade, not factoring in macroeconomic and debt-service effects. However, Republicans have largely downplayed the cost of the tax cuts and argue the overall plan will help boost the economy.
NBC News
17 minutes ago
- NBC News
Sen. Josh Hawley to probe Meta AI policies for children following damning report
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Friday that he will investigate Meta following a report that the company approved rules allowing artificial intelligence chatbots to have certain 'romantic' and 'sensual' conversations with children. Hawley called on Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to preserve relevant materials, including emails, and said the probe would target 'whether Meta's generative-AI products enable exploitation, deception, or other criminal harms to children, and whether Meta misled the public or regulators about its safeguards.' 'Is there anything — ANYTHING - Big Tech won't do for a quick buck?' Hawley said in a post on X announcing the investigation. Meta declined to comment on Hawley's letter. Hawley noted a Reuters report published Thursday that cited an internal document detailing acceptable behaviors from Meta AI chatbots that the company's staff and contract workers should permit as part of developing and training the software. The document acquired by Reuters noted that a chatbot would be permitted to hold a romantic conversation with an eight-year-old, telling the child that 'every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply.' The Meta guidelines said: 'It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art'),' according to the Reuters report. The Meta chatbots would not be permitted to engage in more explicit conversations with children under 13 'in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable,' the report said. 'We intend to learn who approved these policies, how long they were in effect, and what Meta has done to stop this conduct going forward,' Hawley wrote. A Meta spokesperson told Reuters that 'The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed.' 'We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors,' the Meta spokesperson told Reuters. Hawley said Meta must produce documents about its Generative AI-related content risks and standards, lists of every product that adheres to those policies, and other safety and incident reports. Meta should also provide various public and regulatory communications involving minor safety and documents about staff members involved with the AI policies to determine 'the decision trail for removing or revising any portions of the standard.' Hawley is chair of the Senate Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, which will carry out the investigation. Meta has until Sep. 19 to provide the documents, the letter said.
Politico
44 minutes ago
- Politico
5 questions for Alexandra Reeve Givens
Alexandra Reeve Givens, a leading consumer protection advocate, is the CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights. She previously served as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel covering technology and consumer protection, and directed Georgetown University's Institute for Technology Law & Policy. She talks to us about the problems with age verification and the importance of federal regulators in the age of artificial intelligence. The following has been edited for length and clarity. What's one big, underrated idea? Remembering that widespread adoption of AI is contingent on people's trust. AI agents that carry out routine tasks will work best if they connect with your email and calendar, know your preferences and routines — but users won't take that leap of faith unless companies are thinking seriously about privacy, security and robust user controls. Smart regulation can ensure the protections people need in our AI future, creating a baseline for consumer trust. What technology right now do you think is overhyped? I'm concerned by the wave of age verification tools being rolled out in response to new laws like the U.K.'s Online Safety Act without serious consideration of the trade-offs. The fact that sites are collecting users' driver's licenses, or images of users' faces, raises serious concerns about privacy, data breaches and people's right to access information anonymously. Many of the privacy-preserving techniques are under-theorized, relying on predictive tools that estimate users' ages from photos, which may not work well for everyone and relies on uncertain guarantees that the photos will be deleted. Or analyzing users' online behavior, which raises major privacy and accuracy questions, too. What do you think the government could be doing now about tech that it isn't? Honestly, I'm more worried about what the federal government is doing with technology right now. The Trump administration has taken extraordinary steps to access and consolidate sensitive data about hundreds of millions of people living in this country. From the Department of Homeland Security gaining access to Internal Revenue Service taxpayer and Medicaid information to target immigrants; to the administration demanding that states hand over personal information about the tens of millions of people who have applied for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits; to the Justice Department seeking the details of voter rolls with personal information and party affiliation from at least 19 states. These demands violate longstanding laws and precedents, are being used to profile and target people. [...] This moment should shock the conscience of people on the right and left. What has surprised you most this year? The political firings at the federal agencies charged with protecting consumers, workers, families and voters surprised me for their brazenness. Agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Election Commission and Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board play an essential role protecting Americans. [...] The rule of law and well-functioning government serves everyone, consumers and businesses alike. The EEOC has been doing important work on the risk of algorithmic discrimination in hiring and management and firing decisions. [...] The FEC was doing important work on how to boost authentic and trusted sources of information in elections, so also navigating this AI era. And then the PCLOB is the main body charged with overseeing the government's surveillance capabilities. What book most shaped your conception of the future? Reading deeply about the Reconstruction era changed the way I view the world. I still remember as a young person facing the sobering reminder that progress isn't linear, that might can indeed overpower right. And that we have extraordinary forebears in history who persisted in the fight for justice anyway. Obviously, CDT is a tech organization, but we are at bottom a human rights organization. And so, when I view what our job is and what our digital future is, it's about what human rights look like in 2025. That's why this period of history is so relevant. Papers, please The Supreme Court refused to pause a Mississippi age verification law, POLITICO's Gabby Miller reports. The justices on Thursday denied an emergency appeal from NetChoice to temporarily block enforcement while its lawsuit challenging the law plays out in district court. Mississippi enacted the law in 2023, which compels platforms with a substantial portion of pornographic content to implement age-gating measures. NetChoice — an industry group that represents Meta, YouTube and X — argues the age verification requirements violate its members' First Amendment rights. MaryAsa Lee, communications director at the Mississippi Attorney General's Office, told POLITICO in a statement that the state is 'grateful' for the decision as 'the case proceeds in a way that permits thoughtful consideration of these important issues.' Yet the decision isn't a slam-dunk for Mississippi. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurrence that NetChoice was likely to prevail in demonstrating the law violates speech rights, but that it was too early to block it. AI bootcamp House and Senate staffers attended the fourth annual Congressional Boot Camp on AI this week at Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered AI, POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio reports. Chase interviewed HAI's Executive Director Russell Wald to see how the three-day training session is helping staffers write more sophisticated laws for their bosses to push in Congress. The program included attendees from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who is now the director of Stanford's Hoover Institution, also joined to give her thoughts. Wald said there was particular interest in the technological advancement of smaller AI models. These models fulfill narrower tasks like answering patients' health care questions or gathering smart device data, as opposed to larger general-purpose models like ChatGPT. The event also featured a discussion on how the U.S.'s approach to AI differs from China's. The U.S. has traditionally taken a 'brute force approach' by throwing compute power into models, said Wald. U.S. models also tend to be proprietary. China on the other hand has invested more in STEM and public education, and embraced open-source systems, Wald said. post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Aaron Mak (amak@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
