logo
House GOP's Medicaid revisions aim to please hard-liners

House GOP's Medicaid revisions aim to please hard-liners

Yahoo22-05-2025

House Republicans made substantial changes to the Medicaid portion of the GOP megabill in amendments unveiled Wednesday night, including accelerating work requirements and paying states not to expand the program under the Affordable Care Act.
The proposal will move up the start date of Medicaid work requirements from Jan. 1, 2029, to Dec. 31, 2026, in a concession to conservative hard-liners who have been pushing for deeper cuts to the program.
The work requirements included in the previous bill would yield nearly $280 billion in savings, according to congressional scorekeepers — the most of any policy under the House Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. The new accelerated timeline could lead to additional savings of tens of billions of dollars but also result in even more people losing coverage. GOP moderates have not raised significant concerns about implementing them more quickly.
The new bill does not include controversial changes hard-liners had pushed for that would alter the federal share of spending in the joint federal-state Medicaid program. Moderates had balked, arguing they would cut too deep into benefits, and House Speaker Mike Johnson had ruled out those changes.
But in other sops for conservatives, the revisions would expand the criteria for states that could lose a portion of their federal payments if they offer coverage to undocumented people. It also moves to bar coverage of gender-affirming care for adults under the program, not just minors as previously proposed.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a previous iteration of the bill could lead to 7.6 million people who had Medicaid going uninsured, and millions more from the the Affordable Care Act marketplace also losing coverage. Those coverage losses are expected to be higher with this new version. The Energy and Commerce portion of the bill has been estimated to save nearly a trillion dollars over a decade.
The new amendments would make another notable change to Medicaid -— one that hard-liners hope would incentivize states to not to expand their programs under the ACA after the legislation goes into effect. The wonky measures would give states a financial incentive not to expand coverage to people with higher incomes than traditional enrollees, though still near the poverty line. The policy would make higher payments to providers like hospitals for uncompensated care.
Hard-liners, particularly Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, pushed for the provision to be in the bill during a White House meeting with President Donald Trump Wednesday afternoon, according to three people with direct knowledge of the meeting. One senior GOP aide described the provision as 'a small Medicaid tweak' that would give the hard-liners a reason to support the bill, along with several other minor changes.
Notably, they did not secure any further changes to the Medicaid state provider tax, which moderates had held firm against.
Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina said in a brief interview Wednesday night he was happy with the meeting and that 'there were some good things from the White House.'
Another Republican lawmaker said hard-liners would chiefly tout the accelerated Medicaid work requirements, the expansion change and a newly accelerated phase-out of clean-energy tax credits.
In a major departure, the bill would fund cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers on Obamacare's insurance exchanges.
The policy would offer subsidies to insurers that would, in turn, help reduce premiums and co-pays for patients. Trump ended this practice in his first administration, saying it constituted a bailout to the insurance industry. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated at that time that ending the payments would cost hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade. Bringing the policy back could provide savings.
Rachael Bade contributed to this report.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results
Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Primary election 2025: Berks officials certify election results

Berks County election officials have finalized the tally of results from the primary election. During a special meeting Friday, the elections board voted unanimously to certify the vote totals and authorize the submission of the results to the secretary of the commonwealth. There is now a clear picture of which Democratic and Republican candidates will be on the November ballot for municipal, school, county and judicial races. In addition to those candidates who appeared on the primary ballot, nearly 100 candidates were added to the fall election through successful write-in campaigns. Independent and third-party candidates still have a chance to petition to be on the ballot before the lineup is finalized. Elections Director Anne Norton told the elections board that her term performed the required reviews and audits of the May 20 primary, finding no variations or discrepancies with the official tally. The official results of the election will be posted on the county elections website. Overall, just over 21% of registered Democrats and Republicans voted. Voter turnout was slightly lower than recent, similar elections. In the 2023 municipal primary, for example, turnout was about 24%. The elections board thanked the election services team as well as those who worked the polls and handled mail ballots for the hard work and long hours they put into making sure every vote was counted. 'A huge thank you to everyone involved,' Commissioner Michael Rivera said. Commissioner Dante Santoni Jr. also commended those who ran to represent their fellow residents in local positions. 'When you run for office it takes time away from other things,' he said. 'You stick your neck out for your community at all levels of government and I give kudos to everyone who participated in the democratic process.'

A Virginia Democrat hunts for votes in rural pockets where MAGA has strengthened its grip
A Virginia Democrat hunts for votes in rural pockets where MAGA has strengthened its grip

Hamilton Spectator

time30 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

A Virginia Democrat hunts for votes in rural pockets where MAGA has strengthened its grip

CULPEPER, Va. (AP) — Democratic politics in rural Virginia are not of a bygone era, according to Abigail Spanberger. The former congressional representative, now the Democratic nominee in the race to be Virginia's next governor , posts videos online of herself sitting in a car on an interstate highway that goes up and down the Appalachian Mountains. She has toured a small, family-owned oyster shucking and packaging operation along a quiet boat haven on the northern neck of Virginia. And last month, the nominee held a news conference at a small pharmacy in an agrarian hamlet outside of Richmond. In 2020, Spanberger narrowly ran ahead of former President Joe Biden in her congressional district, and she posted her best results by comparison in rural counties that heavily favored President Donald Trump, including Nottoway, Powhatan, Amelia and Louisa, according to an Associated Press analysis. It's a challenge that might be growing more formidable with each passing election cycle. Trump made gains in those counties in 2024, data show, and Republicans think they have solidified a shift in their direction in rural areas. In Virginia, rural residents made up about 2 in 10 voters last November, according to AP VoteCast. About 6 in 10 small-town or rural voters voted for the Republican candidate in the last two presidential elections and the last two midterm congressional elections. Spanberger became the nominee when no other Democrats ran for governor. Her opponent in the general election, Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears , was the only Republican who gathered enough signatures to qualify for the top of the GOP ticket, leaving both parties with no contested race at the top of their June 17 primary ballots. A spokesperson for Earle-Sears said in an email that Spanberger's efforts to portray herself as an advocate for small-town Virginians would fall short. 'Rural voters see right through the rhetoric,' said press secretary Peyton Vogel. 'Democrats consistently push policies that hurt energy jobs, raise costs, and grow Washington DC's overreach. That's not a winning message in communities that value freedom, faith, and hard work.' Still, Spanberger seems determined to campaign beyond known Democratic strongholds, vying to winnow down conservative votes in ruby-red parts of Virginia. From the rolling hills of the Piedmont, where Trump won last year by some 20 points, to the Roanoke valley out west, Spanberger is seeking voters in the districts where Democrats once were competitive but Republicans now rule. 'We have to show how we govern,' Spanberger said in explaining her messaging. 'And the governing isn't just standing up to Donald Trump. It is clear and consequential, right?' Last month, Spanberger sat in a booth by the window of Frost Cafe in downtown Culpeper, Virginia, in the Piedmont region between Washington and Charlottesville. As she drank her coffee in the small town that was once part of her congressional district, constituents tapped on the window, pressing their noses to the glass and making hearts with their hands. A young boy hid behind a newspaper stand, peeking up at Spanberger as if she were a celebrity. When his family began to walk away, he knocked on the window and waved. Spanberger's presence in Trump territory comes as Democrats have nationally shown renewed interest in small-town America, launching listening tours in Kentucky, courting Minnesota farmers and looking for other ways to connect. In some ways, rural Virginia feels like Spanberger's home turf. Once a member of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, she has built a legacy tethered to touring farms and strolling through small towns where everybody knows everybody. She focused on low-profile , bucolic-minded bills such as expanding broadband , which was incorporated into the bipartisan infrastructure law passed by Congress in 2021. She helped pass another law making it easier for farmers and forestry professionals to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some analysts say Trump's pillaging of federal contracts and volatile tariffs have given Spanberger and the Democrats an opening. 'If you look at the trade, if you look at Trump's tariffs, those have a huge impact on the price of agricultural products,' said Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington. 'The potential reduction in Medicaid, that's another area where there's going to be a disproportionate impact on rural areas.' Cue Spanberger's eight-point plan to make healthcare coverage more affordable in Southwest Virginia, which was published just as Congress weighs a budget bill that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could reduce the number of people with health care by 8.6 million over a decade . Neal Osborne, a Bristol councilman representing the nearly 18,000-person city along the border with Tennessee, said Medicaid expansion and healthcare are top of mind for many people there. He pointed out that 150 people showed up when Spanberger visited Bristol back in January. 'We are a Republican stronghold,' said Osborne, who already has endorsed the Democrat. 'But if you do 2% better with southwest Virginia, that could be your margin of victory in a statewide. ... I am willing to go on a limb to say she will be back in southwest between now and before the election.' It's a strategy Spanberger has tapped before. After winning a tea party district in 2018, which had been represented by Republicans for decades, the moderate Democrat made a point of working on behalf of conservative strongholds in her district. Her ability to connect with farmers, fishermen and agricultural interests helped her keep her seat for three terms. Michael Carter Jr., of Carter Farms, said he was one of those rural constituents. A Black farmer in Orange County, he said that while Spanberger was in office, there was a continual back-and-forth between her staff and his family, which has owned their farm since 1910. He and his father would see her staff at community events. Spanberger's office asked for his feedback on legislation, he said. It was a meaningful relationship he had with a politician, and that meant something to him. 'It's not always the case that small farmers or even African Americans really feel like we get our voices heard,' Carter said. ___ Olivia Diaz is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. ___ The Associated Press' women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?
Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Perspective: From Trump v. Musk to Carlson v. Levin, are Republicans losing sight of the mission?

What started as something like a barroom brawl devolved quickly into a cage fight, which was distressing for those of us who don't drink and don't enjoy mixed martial arts. The symbolism, however, was rich. Just two months ago, Elon Musk and Donald Trump were ringside in Miami watching the Ultimate Fighting Championship; this week, they were the ones pummeling each other while all of social media watched, wide-eyed and open-mouthed. But Trump and Musk are not the only ones sparring. Political brawling has broken out across the country in ways that feel unusual, as if we are just a couple of social-media fisticuffs away from bringing back the great American duel, the kind that killed Alexander Hamilton. Dueling, however, has been called 'the violence of gentlemen,' so maybe we are safe because gentlemen are scarce in the current political landscape. It's not just Trump and Musk. Tucker Carlson and Mark Levin are feuding, so are Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh, and we're not that far past Shapiro's epic battle with Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Greene's heated drama with Lauren Boebert. There are other battles not suitable for mention in a family publication. It's tempting to say that the recent infighting is all within the GOP, and all about divisions between MAGA versus Never Trump, but it's not. Witness the Democrats' piling on Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House press secretary under Joe Biden, who is about to scorch Democrats in her forthcoming book. For Republicans, who under Trump have grown accustomed to governing with the gloves off, the infighting may be accelerating because they've temporarily lost their chief rival, the Democratic Party. The fortunes of the Democratic Party have fallen so low that they're spending millions on initiatives designed to win back young men while one of their star contenders for 2028, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, is picking the brains of conservatives on his podcast. Absent a robust foe, Republicans are like a desolate Rocky Balboa with no one to fight, and so have turned on their own tribe. But what is happening is also a predictable result of when politics turns transactional instead of relational. Once the transactions are over, or once the transactions curdle and sour, there's nothing foundational to sustain the human relationship. We've seen this before with Trump, in his transactional relationship with Mike Pence. Many of us had hoped that there was something deeper there with Musk, with whom Trump seemed to have an almost fatherly relationship. It was not coincidence that much of the social media discourse about their 'breakup' was couched in terms of family — either divorce or estrangement. And while it was, on one level, train-wreck, cringe entertainment, like watching 'Housewives' or 'Tiger King,' it was also painful since so many of us know what it's like to have a close relationship implode. Utah Sen. Mike Lee spoke for many when he posted a photo of both men, with the caption 'But ... I really like both of them.' On his radio show Friday, Glenn Beck urged Trump and Musk to reconcile and to keep sight of their shared mission. It is that mission that is too often a casualty when two formerly aligned parties or individuals fall out, whether in politics or in a marriage. A mission can be hard to define; it can be too vague or have too many components. 'Essentialism' guru Greg McKeown says that a 'priority' is one thing, not many, and we risk failure when we set 'priorities.' Maybe that's part of what happened here. Trump and Musk had priorities, and some were in conflict with each other. It's much too early to say that the breakup is permanent; the men have mutual alliances and shared friends who presumably will work hard to bring about a reconciliation. But if the fissure lasts, the relationship that unfolded over the past year — with iconic moments like Musk jumping on the stage at a campaign event and Musk's son trotting after Trump on the White House lawn — was not really a relationship, but a transaction between two powerful men. And Democrats stand ready to reap the rewards.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store