'Big, beautiful bill' Medicaid cuts don't honor Preamble to the US Constitution
When I was in fifth grade, I was caught cheating on a test.
The test was identifying the state capitals, and it was my third time taking the test. I still can't tell you the state capitals. Shortly after that, we had a test on the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, I could not memorize that. My brain doesn't work that way. So, in true Catholic school fashion, I had to write it numerous times. In the middle of who knows how many iterations, I finally connected what I was writing with the School House Rock song on TV. I never forgot it from that moment.
There has been a lot of talk about the U.S. Constitution over the last few years, and I think it is the Preamble that has been lost. We are so focused on the rights provided to us that we forgot why they were provided to us.
Here's what it says and how I interpret what it says:
"We the People (all of us, not kings, rulers) of these United States, in order to form a more perfect Union (better than where we came from), establish justice (Supreme Court; federal, appeals, state courts), insure domestic tranquility (so we can all live and flourish in peace), provide for the common defence (Department of Defense to protect our country), promote the general welfare (Congress, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security), and secure the blessings of liberty (freedom) to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Opinion: No, Democrats don't need White men to win elections, actually
Think about this when you vote. Is the person you are voting for living up to the Preamble? Or are they taking bits and pieces of the Constitution, mixing them up to make it sound like it's what they are doing? Watch what they do and how they vote, not what they say.
Kentucky, a focal point of the "big, beautiful bill" is "nearly $800 billion in reduced spending in the Medicaid program."
This will result in many Kentuckians being removed from insurance provided by Medicare and Medicaid (also known as Aetna Better Health of KY, Anthem KY Managed Care Plan, Humana Health Plan, Molina Healthcare of KY, Passport Health Plan, United Healthcare of KY, Wellcare Health Insurance, Passport, the Affordable Care Act).
That includes doctor visits, personal care homes, mental health services and physical therapy services.
Gerth: Former political powerbroker now spending millions on a religious shrine | Opinion
Don't think you are safe just because you have commercial insurance. Remember the days of pre-existing conditions? I do; I was in $20,000 debt for medical bills.
I have no doubt insurance companies will again be given free rein to cover only what they want to cover, and charge you a fortune for it.
Here's how our congressmen voted. Are they protecting you?
Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor.
Angela Schardein is a licensed clinical social worker. Schardein has worked in community mental health for 22 years, including rural and urban areas in and around Louisville and Eastern Kentucky.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky will hurt from Medicaid cuts in proposed bill | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: I still can't believe Republicans chose Trump over stability | Opinion
Axios
27 minutes ago
- Axios
Congress' "doc fix" spurs value-based care concerns
Physicians are divided over how the massive Republican budget bill moving through Congress would insulate doctors from future Medicare cuts without continuing financial incentives to provide better care through alternative payment models. Why it matters: The "doc fix" championed by the American Medical Association, among other groups, would solve a long-standing complaint about the way Medicare pays physicians. But some physician groups worry it would maintain a system long criticized for tying pay to the volume of procedures delivered and the number of patients seen. State of play: Physician practices that agree to be paid based on patient outcomes get bigger payouts in exchange for taking on the extra financial risk are in line, under current law, for a pay boost through a key adjustment called the conversion factor, starting next year. But the version of the GOP budget bill that passed the House of Representatives would instead create a single conversion factor for all physicians that's updated based on Medicare's measure of inflation. That would leave providers in the performance-based payment models getting higher payments than currently prescribed from 2026 through 2028, but lower payments than outlined in current law after that through 2035, according to an analysis from Berkeley Research Group viewed by Axios. Primary care physicians and providers embracing value-based care worry that removing an incentive for participating in the models will set back efforts to move Medicare toward a more holistic payment system that's meant to improve patient care. "Signals matter in health care," said Shawn Martin, CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians. "I think it's a signal [to physicians] of an entrenchment back in fee-for-service." The American College of Physicians, the trade group for internal medicine doctors, told lawmakers last month that it's concerned the policy as structured will disincentivize doctors' participation in value-based care. "It's being marketed as a long-term fix," said Mara McDermott, CEO of value-based care advocacy group Accountable for Health. "I don't read it that way. I read it as creating a new cliff." Zoom out: Many provider groups are also concerned that the legislation doesn't fix the 2.83% cut to physicians' Medicare payment that took effect in January. The American College of Surgeons in a May statement praised lawmakers for recognizing that Medicare physician payments have to be adjusted for inflation, but that the legislation's provision "is not sufficient to make up for the 2025 cut, and more work is needed." The other side: The AMA wrote to House leadership last month that it "strongly supports" the provision to consolidate into one conversion factor and tie updates to inflation starting in 2026. Reductions made to the conversion factor over the past half-decade to keep the physician fee schedule budget neutral have made private practice financially impossible for many doctors, the AMA said. "It is absolutely vital that this issue be addressed," the letter to House leaders said. The AMA disagrees that the provision would discourage participation in alternative payment models, it told Axios in an email. Although payment updates to alternative payment model physicians starting in 2029 would be lower than current law provides, those doctors will still get positive payment updates overall, it said. Between the lines: The policy would go into effect as the Trump administration seeks to leverage Medicare alternative payment models to drive HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s priorities of prevention and personal choice in health care. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Axios it does not comment on proposed legislation, but said it's continuing to prioritize policies that encourage providers to join payment models that reward high-value and coordinated care. Reality check: Just about all physicians and physician trade organizations agree that stable Medicare payment updates with some link to inflation is necessary to ensure continuous access for Medicare patients, AAFP's Martin said. It's "extraordinarily healthy" for physician advocacy groups to have different opinions on exactly how to reach that conclusion, he added. The Senate is currently debating what to include in its own version of the reconciliation bill.
CNET
27 minutes ago
- CNET
Tariffs Explained: What to Expect as Trump Confirms Increase in China Rates
As Donald Trump's wide-ranging taxes on imports face scrutiny in court, rates on steel and aluminum have been doubled. James Martin/CNET President Donald Trump's second-term economic plan can be summed up in one word: tariffs. When his barrage of import taxes went into overdrive a month ago, markets trembled and business leaders sounded alarms about the economic damage they would cause. Despite recent uncertainties, Trump has continued to barrel forward, doubling the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and announcing a new deal that would see the rate against China increase to 55%. That all came after Trump's plans hit their biggest roadblock yet in court, when late last month the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had overstepped his authority when he imposed tariffs, effectively nullifying the tariffs, after concluding that Congress has the sole authority to issue tariffs and decide other foreign trade matters, and that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 -- which Trump has used to justify his ability to impose them -- doesn't grant the president "unlimited" authority on tariffs. The next day, an appeals court allowed the tariffs to go back into effect for the time being, while the administration calls for the Supreme Court to overturn the trade court ruling altogether. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs Click to unmute Video Player is loading. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Next playlist item Unmute Current Time 0:01 / Duration 9:42 Loaded : 1.04% 0:01 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 9:41 Share Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Close Modal Dialog This is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button. Should You Buy Now or Wait? Our Experts Weigh In on Tariffs However, things shake out in the end, the initial ruling certainly came as a relief to many, given the chaos and uncertainty that Trump's tariffs how caused thus far. For his part, Trump has recently lashed out against companies -- like Apple and Walmart -- that have reacted to the tariffs or discussed their impacts in ways he dislikes. Apple has been working to move manufacturing for the US market from China to relatively less-tariffed India, to which Trump has threatened them with a 25% penalty rate if they don't bring manufacturing to the US instead. Experts have predicted that a US-made iPhone, for example, would cost consumers about $3,500. During a recent earnings call, Walmart warned that prices would rise on things like toys, tech and food at some point in the summer, which prompted Trump to demand the chain eat the costs themselves, another unlikely scenario. Amid all this noise, you might still be wondering: What exactly are tariffs and what will they mean for me? The short answer: Expect to pay more for at least some goods and services. For the long answer, keep reading, and for more, check out CNET's price tracker for 11 popular and tariff-vulnerable products. What are tariffs? Put simply, a tariff is a tax on the cost of importing or exporting goods by a particular country. So, for example, a "60% tariff" on Chinese imports would be a 60% tax on the price of importing, say, computer components from China. Trump has been fixated on imports as the centerpiece of his economic plans, often claiming that the money collected from taxes on imported goods would help finance other parts of his agenda. The US imports $3 trillion of goods from other countries annually. The president has also, more recently, shown a particular fixation on trade deficits, claiming that the US having a trade deficit with any country means that country is ripping the US off. This is a flawed understanding of the matter, as a lot of economists have said, deficits are often a simple case of resource realities: Wealthy nations like the US buy specific things from nations that have them, while those nations might in turn not be wealthy enough to buy much of anything from the US. While Trump deployed tariffs in his first term, notably against China, he ramped up his plans more significantly for the 2024 campaign, promising 60% tariffs against China and a universal 20% tariff on all imports into the US. Now, tariffs against China are more than double that amount and a universal tariff on all exports is a reality. "Tariffs are the greatest thing ever invented," Trump said at a campaign stop in Michigan last year. At one point, he called himself "Tariff Man" in a post on Truth Social. Who pays the cost of tariffs? Trump repeatedly claimed, before and immediately after returning to the White House, that the country of origin for an imported good pays the cost of the tariffs and that Americans would not see any price increases from them. However, as economists and fact-checkers stressed, this is not the case. The companies importing the tariffed goods -- American companies or organizations in this case -- pay the higher costs. To compensate, companies can raise their prices or absorb the additional costs themselves. So, who ends up paying the price for tariffs? In the end, usually you, the consumer. For instance, a universal tariff on goods from Canada would increase Canadian lumber prices, which would have the knock-on effect of making construction and home renovations more expensive for US consumers. While it is possible for a company to absorb the costs of tariffs without increasing prices, this is not at all likely, at least for now. Speaking with CNET, Ryan Reith, vice president of International Data's worldwide mobile device tracking programs, explained that price hikes from tariffs, especially on technology and hardware, are inevitable in the short term. He estimated that the full amount imposed on imports by Trump's tariffs would be passed on to consumers, which he called the "cost pass-through." Any potential efforts for companies to absorb the new costs themselves would come in the future, once they have a better understanding of the tariffs, if at all. Which Trump tariffs have gone into effect? Following Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements on April 2, the following tariffs are in effect: A 50% tariff on all steel and aluminum imports, doubled from 25% as of June 4. A 30% tariff on all Chinese imports until the new deal touted by Trump takes effect, after which it will purportedly go up to 55%. China, being a major focus of Trump's trade agenda, this rate has had a rate notably higher than others and has steadily increased as Beijing returned fire with tariffs of its own, peaking at 145% before trade talks commenced. 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico are not covered under the 2018 USMCA trade agreement brokered during Trump's first term. The deal covers roughly half of all imports from Canada and about a third of those from Mexico, so the rest are subject to the new tariffs. Energy imports not covered by USMCA will be taxed at only 10%. A 25% tariff on all foreign-made cars and auto parts. A sweeping overall 10% tariff on all imported goods. For certain countries that Trump said were more responsible for the US trade deficit, Trump imposed what he called "reciprocal" tariffs that exceed the 10% level: 20% for the 27 nations that make up the European Union, 26% for India, 24% for Japan and so on. These were meant to take effect on April 9 but were delayed by 90 days due to historic stock market volatility, which makes the new effective date July 8. Trump's claim that these reciprocal tariffs are based on high tariffs imposed against the US by the targeted countries has drawn intense pushback from experts and economists, who have argued that some of these numbers are false or potentially inflated. For example, the above chart says a 39% tariff from the EU, despite its average tariff for US goods being around 3%. Some of the tariffs are against places that are not countries but tiny territories of other nations. The Heard and McDonald Islands, for example, are uninhabited. We'll dig into the confusion around these calculations below. Notably, that minimum 10% tariff will not be on top of those steel, aluminum and auto tariffs. Canada and Mexico were also spared from the 10% minimum additional tariff imposed on all countries the US trades with. On April 11, the administration said smartphones, laptops and other consumer electronics, along with flat panel displays, memory chips and semiconductors, were exempt from reciprocal tariffs. But it wasn't clear whether that would remain the case or whether such products might face different fees later. How were the Trump reciprocal tariffs calculated? The numbers released by the Trump administration for its barrage of "reciprocal" tariffs led to widespread confusion among experts. Trump's own claim that these new rates were derived by halving the tariffs already imposed against the US by certain countries was widely disputed, with critics noting that some of the numbers listed for certain countries were much higher than the actual rates and some countries had tariff rates listed despite not specifically having tariffs against the US at all. In a post to X that spread fast across social media, finance journalist James Surowiecki said that the new reciprocal rates appeared to have been reached by taking the trade deficit the US has with each country and dividing it by the amount the country exports to the US. This, he explained, consistently produced the reciprocal tariff percentages revealed by the White House across the board. "What extraordinary nonsense this is," Surowiecki wrote about the finding. The White House later attempted to debunk this idea, releasing what it claimed was the real formula, though it was quickly determined that this formula was arguably just a more complex version of the one Surowiecki deduced. What will the Trump tariffs do to prices? In short: Prices are almost certainly going up, if not now, then eventually. That is, if the products even make it to US shelves at all, as some tariffs will simply be too high for companies to bother dealing with. While the effects of a lot of tariffs might not be felt straight away, some potential real-world examples have already emerged. Microsoft has increased prices across the board for its Xbox gaming brand, with its flagship Xbox Series X console jumping 20% from $500 to $600. Elsewhere, Kent International, one of the main suppliers of bicycles to Walmart, announced that it would be stopping imports from China, which account for 90% of its stock. Speaking about Trump's tariff plans just before they were announced, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said that they would generate $6 trillion in revenue over the next decade. Given that tariffs are most often paid by consumers, CNN characterized this as potentially "the largest tax hike in US history." New estimates from the Yale Budget Lab, cited by Axios, predict that Trump's new tariffs will cause a 2.3% increase in inflation throughout 2025. This translates to about a $3,800 increase in expenses for the average American household. Reith, the IDC analyst, told CNET that Chinese-based tech companies, like PC makers Acer, Asus and Lenovo, have "100% exposure" to these import taxes as they currently stand, with products like phones and computers the most likely to take a hit. He also said that the companies best positioned to weather the tariff impacts are those that have moved some of their operations out of China to places like India, Thailand and Vietnam, singling out the likes of Apple, Dell and HP. Samsung, based in South Korea, is also likely to avoid the full force of Trump's tariffs. In an effort to minimize its tariff vulnerability, Apple has begun to move the production of goods for the US market from China to India. Will tariffs impact prices immediately? In the short term -- the first days or weeks after a tariff takes effect -- maybe not. There are still a lot of products in the US imported pre-tariffs and on store shelves, meaning the businesses don't need a price hike to recoup import taxes. Once new products need to be brought in from overseas, that's when you'll see prices start to climb because of tariffs or you'll see them become unavailable. That uncertainty has made consumers anxious. CNET's survey revealed that about 38% of shoppers feel pressured to make certain purchases before tariffs make them more expensive. About 10% say they have already made certain purchases in hopes of getting them in before the price hikes, while 27% said they have delayed purchases for products that cost more than $500. Generally, this worry is the most acute concerning smartphones, laptops and home appliances. Mark Cuban, the billionaire businessman and Trump critic, voiced concerns about when to buy certain things in a post on Bluesky just after Trump's "Liberation Day" announcements. In it, he suggested that consumers might want to stock up on certain items before tariff inflation hits. "It's not a bad idea to go to the local Walmart or big box retailer and buy lots of consumables now," Cuban wrote. "From toothpaste to soap, anything you can find storage space for, buy before they have to replenish inventory. Even if it's made in the USA, they will jack up the price and blame it on tariffs." CNET's Money team recommends that before you make any purchase, especially a high-ticket item, be sure that the expenditure fits within your budget and your spending plans. Buying something you can't afford now because it might be less affordable later can be burdensome, to say the least. What is the goal of the White House tariff plan? The typical goal behind tariffs is to discourage consumers and businesses from buying the tariffed, foreign-sourced goods and encourage them to buy domestically produced goods instead. When implemented in the right way, tariffs are generally seen as a useful way to protect domestic industries. One of the stated intentions for Trump's tariffs is along those lines: to restore American manufacturing and production. However, the White House also claims to be having negotiations with numerous countries looking for tariff exemptions, and some officials have also floated the idea that the tariffs will help finance Trump's tax cuts. You don't have to think about those goals for too long before you realize that they're contradictory: If manufacturing moves to the US or if a bunch of countries are exempt from tariffs, then tariffs aren't actually being collected and can't be used to finance anything. This and many other points have led a lot of economists to allege that Trump's plans are misguided. In terms of returning -- or "reshoring" -- manufacturing in the US, tariffs are a better tool for protecting industries that already exist because importers can fall back on them right away. Building up the factories and plants needed for this in the US could take years, leaving Americans to suffer under higher prices in the interim. That problem is worsened by the fact that the materials needed to build those factories will also be tariffed, making the costs of "reshoring" production in the US too heavy for companies to stomach. These issues, and the general instability of American economic policies under Trump, are part of why experts warn that Trump's tariffs could have the opposite effect: keeping manufacturing out of the US and leaving consumers stuck with inflated prices. Any factories that do get built in the US because of tariffs also have a high chance of being automated, canceling out a lot of job creation potential. To give you one real-world example of this: When warning customers of future price hikes, toy maker Mattel also noted that it had no plans to move manufacturing to the US. Trump has reportedly been fixated on the notion that Apple's iPhone -- the most popular smartphone in the US market -- can be manufactured entirely in the US. This has been broadly dismissed by experts, for a lot of the same reasons mentioned above, but also because an American-made iPhone could cost upward of $3,500. One report from 404 Media dubbed the idea "a pure fantasy." The overall sophistication and breadth of China's manufacturing sector have also been cited, with CEO Tim Cook stating in 2017 that the US lacks the number of tooling engineers to make its products. For more, see how tariffs might raise the prices of Apple products and find some expert tips for saving money.
