logo
New Englanders clash over Trump's sweeping health reforms

New Englanders clash over Trump's sweeping health reforms

Boston Globea day ago

And he is not alone. In a recent Globe survey of 11 New Englanders across the political spectrum, all seven respondents who voted against Trump
said they worry that basic health insurance and many vaccines will be harder to obtain for those who need them
if the Big Beautiful Bill becomes law.
The four respondents who voted for Trump, despite being
unfamiliar with many of the legislation's specifics, said they support changes to health care programs to repair what some of them called a broken, bloated system.
Advertisement
The voters were surveyed as part of an ongoing Globe series on their views on the first year of the Trump administration, with previous installments centered on
The cost of health care has been a major focus for Trump, who has said he wants to eliminate waste and fraud from programs such as Medicaid. The president has said he wants the legislation passed before July 4.
But along with savings, Trantham noted, many experts predict that more Americans will end up uninsured if Trump's vision becomes the new landscape of national health care.
Advertisement
'There will be more people who can't afford their medications. There'll be more people who avoid going to the doctor because they don't have the money,' said Trantham, who is an unenrolled voter and voted for former vice president Kamala Harris
in 2024.
'And then they'll end up needing a higher level of medical care, which then puts a broad burden on the rest of us,' he added.
Related
:
Trump's
passed by the House, many
The agency also predicted that 4 million people could see their access to food stamps reduced or eliminated.
In addition to benefit cuts, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the House bill would increase the US deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And on Thursday,
Joann Flaminio, 69, a retired Democrat from Providence, said she is concerned that few people are aware of the myriad dangers tucked into the sprawling bill.
'The devil really is in the details. And one of the proposals in the Big Beautiful Bill — that requires Medicaid recipients to re-enroll every six months — is a draconian measure designed to deny services to those most in need,' said Flaminio, who served as retirement administrator for the state of Rhode Island.
Advertisement
'My sister was on Medicaid in the final years of her life, and I know what the application process is like in order to get somebody approved. Many people hire a lawyer in order to do that, but it can be arduous, and it certainly is,' she added.
The president's bill also would impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients, from ages 19 to 64, who would need to work at least 80 hours per month if they did not qualify for exemptions. From her experience, Flaminio said, linking benefits to work requirements is impractical.
'We tried to mandate work requirements ... for those people who are on disability benefits,' Flaminio said. 'And I would say, for the most part, it's a waste of time and effort. The vast majority of recipients, an estimated 96 percent, cannot work, which is the reason why they apply for Medicaid in the first place.'
But for the survey's Trump supporters, trimming the Medicaid rolls is worthwhile if it rids the system of fraud and abuse.
Seth Sole-Robertson, a 45-year-old Republican from Medway, was asked if Medicaid cuts concern him.
'I'd be concerned if I was an illegal alien,' Sole-Robertson answered, 'and I'd be concerned if I were committing fraud.'
The goal is to strip benefits from 'people who are ineligible or taking it in two different states,' said Sole-Robertson, who owns a marine repair business. 'There's lots of hoopla or fake news about what's going on with Medicaid.'
Karen Sysyn, 54, an unenrolled Trump supporter from Londonderry, N.H., said she wasn't sure where the bill was headed or what was in it. 'I hear a lot of rumors that they're looking at cutting Social Security and disability and stuff like that,' she said.
Advertisement
If people are able to work, taxpayers should not bear their burden, said Sysyn, who is searching for work after losing her job as a housing inspector. But if people are genuinely in need of support from Social Security or Medicare, they should receive support, she added.
Another unenrolled Trump supporter, 56-year-old Brian Jankins of Sutton, was asked what he knew about the bill.
'Full disclosure, very little,' said Jankins, who works in banking.
However, he added, 'our current health care system is broken and dysfunctional ... I'm not versed in what this bill does to address that, but it is broken.'
Related
:
Respondents' opinions about Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary, also were sharply divided, with Trump supporters endorsing his stance against vaccines, among other initiatives, and the president's opponents saying Kennedy was endangering lives.
'I think more Americans are going to die under some of the changes that he's making around vaccinations,' said Vanessa Coppola, a 42-year-old Democrat from North Yarmouth, Maine.
Over the administration's first five months, Kennedy became a lightning rod for controversy because of his antivaccine stance, his references to autism as a preventable disease, and his ouster and replacement of the entire immunization advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Coppola, a job coach and consultant, is particularly worried about Kennedy's proposal to eliminate the COVID vaccine recommendation for healthy pregnant women. Those vaccinations provide coverage for newborns, who are particularly vulnerable to respiratory disease, she said.
Anand Sharma, 53, a Democrat from Shrewsbury and electrical engineer, called the rolling drama at the Department of Health and Human Services part of 'the chaos [that] is everywhere right now.'
Advertisement
And Justina Perry, a 37-year-old Democrat from New Bedford, denounced Kennedy's antivaccine agenda.
'Viruses are going to love this,' said Perry, who runs a physical therapy clinic. 'They're going to be able to spread and spread, and they win in this situation because we're pulling back vaccine access. So the only one who should be excited about this is a virus.'
But Darryll White, an unenrolled Trump voter from Skowhegan, Maine, supports Kennedy's efforts to change government guidance on vaccines.
Kennedy's work is 'a long-haul scenario — to make America healthy again,' said White, 66, who added that efforts by the news media to 'demonize' the secretary have made his job harder.
'People have to understand that Robert Kennedy is under intense pressure,' added White, the director of a nonprofit community park.
White said he supports Kennedy's proposal to upend the government's vaccine guidance. 'That's exactly what needs to happen,' said White, who believed the government was not transparent during the pandemic about possible adverse effects of the COVID vaccine.
The respondents were sharply divided yet again about the administration's drastic cuts in medical research grants, and those views aligned with whether they had voted for the president. The cuts have had an outsize effect on universities and other research institutions in the Boston area, particularly at Harvard University, where the government has canceled about $2.6 billion in awarded grants.
'He's cutting off his nose to spite his face,' Rosemary Shea, 62, an unenrolled voter from Hampton, N.H., said of Trump, who she voted against. 'I mean, Harvard is not just doing this research for themselves. They're doing it for the world.'
Advertisement
'These universities are doing great research for diseases that are still out there that we have not cracked yet — Parkinson's, cancer, all different types of cancers," Shea added. 'He's just decided 'nope.' And I haven't even heard a logical explanation for it.'
Sole-Robertson, the Medway Republican, offered a sharply different take on the government's role in funding medical research.
'A lot of this needs to be shifted back to private industry and raising funds in the private sector,' he said. 'I think a lot of it is just pure nonsense.'
Brian MacQuarrie can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

French minister calls for extension of EU-US trade talks
French minister calls for extension of EU-US trade talks

Yahoo

time10 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

French minister calls for extension of EU-US trade talks

PARIS (Reuters) -France's finance minister has called for extending EU-U.S. trade talks beyond the July 9 deadline in order to secure a better agreement. U.S. President Donald Trump has set the deadline for the trade talks, warning that failure to reach agreement could trigger higher U.S. tariffs on goods from cars to pharmaceuticals. Progress in the negotiations between the huge trading partners remains unclear. European officials are increasingly resigned to a 10% "reciprocal" tariff imposed by Washington in April being the baseline in any deal, sources familiar with the talks have told Reuters. "I think that we are going to strike a deal with the Americans," French Finance Minister Eric Lombard told newspaper La Tribune Dimanche in an interview published on Sunday. "Regarding the deadline, my wish is for another postponement. I would rather have a good deal than a bad deal on July 9," he said. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said earlier this month that deadlines on some countries negotiating in good faith could be extended. French President Emmanuel Macron said following an EU summit on Thursday that France wants a quick and pragmatic trade deal with the United States but would not accept unbalanced terms. EU leaders discussed a new U.S. proposal at the summit but the European Commission did not reveal the content of the offer. Lombard said that energy could form part of a trade deal, with the EU potentially increasing its imports of U.S. gas to replace flows from Russia.

Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.
Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.

Yahoo

time12 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? Tell us.

Billionaires are having a day. The White House is a good example of this happy time for the wealthiest among us, since it is the residence (once more) of our first billionaire president, Donald Trump. It was there that he was joined briefly by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who slashed his way through much of the federal government, then exited to go tend to rockets, electric cars and other ventures. But not to worry. Left behind are five billionaires brought into office by Trump, the most of any administration. Those magnates spent hundreds of millions of dollars to reelect Trump and to throw him an inaugural party. Opinion: What's an oligarchy? With Trump's 'Big, Beautiful' bill, we're living in one. As a national phenomenon, the number of billionaires has grown from one in the 1920s (industrialist Henry Ford) to more than 900. Since the start of the 21st century, that group's wealth has expanded nine times, aided by Trump's 2017 tax cuts. For the country's lower half of earners, the expansion was double, mostly due to stimulus checks. I say all this to set up the question for you: What do we think of this conspicuous power of America's billionaires? Is it something to fear, as President Joe Biden warned on his way out the door, saying there is a growing oligarchy that "threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead"? Or are these exceptional people whom we should celebrate? They are, after all, the group that brought us Starlink, a satellite system that kept Ukraine afloat in its war against Russia. And Amazon. (Boy, I like not going to the store to buy that thingy to fix my dryer. And I get it the next day!) Opinion: You're not really mad at the Bezos, Sánchez luxury Venice wedding. You're just poor. We want to know what you think. Take our poll below, or send us an email with the subject line "Forum billionaires" to forum@ We'll publish a collection of responses from all sides of the conversation in our next installment of the Opinion Forum. Do you want to take part in our next Forum? Join the conversation by emailing forum@ can also follow us on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and sign up for our Opinion newsletter to stay updated on future Forum posts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should billionaires be running the country? Tell us | Opinion

Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.

I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. 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. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at 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: Supreme Court just saved kids from reading about Trump | Opinion

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store