‘Unfathomable': Seth Rogen Torches Lawmakers Threatening Cuts to Medicaid
Within two years, Adele, a first-grade teacher, would be diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's at age 55. By that time, Lauren was living in Los Angeles, and dating her then-boyfriend, the actor Seth Rogen. When the couple married a few years later, Adele's condition had progressed to the point that it wasn't clear at their wedding if she even realized who Lauren was. 'She knew I was the bride — she kept calling me the bride,' Lauren recalled in Taking Care, a documentary the couple made to raise awareness about the challenges that families face while caring for a person with advancing dementia.
The toll of caring for Adele was hardest on Lauren's father. 'There was a time early on, before we brought care in, where we were like, 'Oh, we're gonna lose him first.' This — caring for her — seemed like it's literally killing him,' she says. 'Without being able to afford outside help, I dread imagining what would have happened,' Lauren says. The couple went on to found a nonprofit, Hilarity for Charity, that disburses grants to offset the cost of caring for a person with dementia.
'Until we were part of the care system, we didn't realize how broken it was,' Seth says in a video they recorded on behalf of the organization Caring Across Generations, to raise alarms about the threat families face under a pair of proposals to slash health care programs for the poor and disabled that are being considered at the state and federal level, and encourage people to contact their legislators. He adds, 'Millions of low income families, families of people with disabilities, families that have older adults in them, are facing this struggle every day right now. And that is why it is so unfathomable that federal and state legislatures are making massive cuts to Medicaid as we speak.'
'We are cutting crucial services for people who are aging and disabled,' he explains. 'That means these people will be losing access or have less access to the health care they need, creating more out-of-pocket expenses and medical debt.'
In Washington, President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which was recently approved by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, would cut roughly $600 billion from Medicaid in order to help pay for a new round of tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Trump tax bill is projected to kick over 10 million people off Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans. The legislation would also limit so-called provider taxes, which states use to provide supplemental payments to hospitals, doctors, and other health care providers to help pay the costs of treating Medicaid patients. The bill would additionally impose a financial penalty on states, like California, that offer health coverage to undocumented immigrants.
In California, the situation could be compounded by further cuts proposed by Governor Gavin Newsom (D) that would slash Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.
Roughly one quarter of the five million Americans with dementia rely on Medicaid, the country's largest payer of long-term care. Medicaid is a pillar for caregivers — some 12 percent of recipients are people who can't work because of their responsibilities caring for a family member. Their ability to access the program could be jeopardized by the Big Beautiful Bill, which would impose work requirements on all able-bodied adults under 65 in order to qualify for Medicaid.
'Almost everyone in this country knows or loves someone that relies on Medicaid, even if they don't rely on Medicaid themselves. And we have the power together,' Lauren says in the video.
'We need to reject any cuts or changes that would take more care away from families that need and deserve it,' Seth adds. 'At the state level and the federal level.'
More from Rolling Stone
Trump Continues Inflaming L.A. Protests: 'BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!'
ABC News Suspends Journalist for Calling Stephen Miller and Trump 'World-Class Haters'
Republicans Say They're Cool With Trump Deploying Troops Against Protesters
Best of Rolling Stone
The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign
Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal
The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
MAGA, MAHA split on pesticides
MAHA, a movement aimed at tackling the nation's chronic disease epidemic through food, health and environmental reforms, has been deeply skeptical of Big Pharma, Big Agriculture, and Big Chemical. MAHA groups have been strongly aligned with the Trump administration's actions to date on vaccines and food. But cracks are beginning to form. MAHA-aligned groups and influencers are raising alarms about provisions in a House appropriations bill they say will shield pesticide and chemical manufacturers from accountability — and ultimately make Americans less healthy. Meanwhile, a draft of the administration's 'MAHA Report' on children's health reportedly omits any calls to prevent pesticide exposure, also disappointing advocates. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his disciples espouse stricter environmental protections, while also bucking mainstream science on vaccine safety. Conservatives have traditionally sided with big business, supporting fewer regulations on potentially toxic substances. So far, business interests appear to be winning. The industry-friendly draft of a report from a commission run by Kennedy shows just how much the White House has been able to rein him in. 'It's obvious that there are tensions within this newfound coalition between MAHA and MAGA, and there are some big issues there,' said Mary Holland, CEO of Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy. While the pesticide issues have generated some sparks between MAHA and MAGA, the administration has taken a number of other actions to also reduce restrictions on the chemical industry more broadly. Trump himself exempted from environmental standards more than 100 polluters, including chemical manufacturers, oil refineries, coal plants and medical device sterilizers. The EPA, meanwhile, has put chemical industry alumni in leading roles and has said it wants to loosen restrictions on emissions of various cancer-linked chemicals. 'Those factions, if you will — more protective of corporate and more challenging to corporate — are both striving to get the president's ear, and I don't think they've come to a complete, sort of settlement agreement,' Holland said.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Vaccine-Preventable Disease: Could the Sky Fall?
It's been a tempestuous 2025 for the nation's healthcare infrastructure. I think the worst is yet to come, given cutbacks to Medicaid eligibility and coverage and the devolving recommendations by government healthcare agencies. Concern is also arising that third-party payers (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance) and Vaccines for Children may not cover some scientifically proven vaccines or some parts of scientifically based schedules. Vaccination rates and public trust in vaccines had been dropping since the pandemic, and only 69% of families trusted CDC vaccine recommendations in January 2025, even before recent shakeups in CDC committees. Declining postpandemic national vaccine rates now hover just above thresholds for losing herd immunity (Figure 1) also in part because of increasing vaccine exemptions (Figure 2). However, some local rates have dipped below thresholds in what I call 'vaccine deserts,' those geographic pockets where vaccine deniers comprise larger parts of the population — the measles outbreak being the poster child for this. In addition, discussions are emerging about limiting or removing school vaccine requirements or expanding exemptions. Other factors that imperil herd immunity have always reduced vaccine uptake, even in families that want to vaccinate their children: time and resource limitations for working parents, language barriers, limited or no medical care coverage, limited transportation, rural or inner-city residence, and uncovered vaccines. Some may say, 'So what?' We still have more than 90% uptake for most vaccines. Evidence suggests that even with relatively high uptake, vaccine-preventable disease still occurs in subpopulations, including vulnerable children. For example, a Boston group recently reported that, even before the drop in vaccination rates over the past 5 years, vulnerable children were more likely have more invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). So, cracks in the proverbial dam existed in populations (those with comorbidities or lower socioeconomic status) even pre-pandemic and before current cutbacks. Massachusetts IPD data (ie, Optum Clinformatics DataMart and Merative MarketScan Medicaid Multi-State Database) from a time of Medicaid expansion (January 2015 through December 2019) were analyzed by insurance type and comorbidities. As expected, children younger than 2 years and particularly those younger than 1 year had the highest IPD rates regardless of insurance status, but children with Medicaid had higher IPD rates than commercially insured children. Of concern, these differences occurred despite statewide pneumococcal conjugate vaccine vaccination rates reported previously as being fairly high (92% with three or more doses by 2 years of age). Relative IPD rates for children with Medicaid vs those with commercial insurance were higher in infants (1.3, 95% CI, 0.9-1.9) and adolescents (3.4, 95% CI, 1.5-7.1). Among children with comorbidities, the IPD rate was about four times higher in infants and 10 times higher in 6- to 10-year-olds, regardless of insurance type. The authors cite three prior studies showing lower vaccine uptake in Medicaid recipients, suggesting that, among factors affecting Medicaid patients' IPD burden, lower vaccine uptake likely has a role. It seems logical that these prepandemic, pre-cutback data foreshadow darker times ahead due to a combination of increasing postpandemic public distrust, vaccine fatigue, and cutback-era policies. Not only is vaccine confidence still dropping and Medicaid becoming more restrictive at the federal level, but states may change Medicaid coverage when more costs are reassigned to them. The bottom line is that vaccine availability and access will likely decrease, even in non-economically vulnerable children. So, all children could be exposed to increased types of circulating infectious disease — resulting in increased IPD, particularly in vulnerable children. And here we are only considering one among many vaccine-preventable diseases. As pediatric providers, can we close the anticipated vaccine gaps as vulnerable families deal with healthcare cutbacks and likely become more economically vulnerable? One way is to rededicate ourselves to getting as many children as possible vaccinated (eg, reminder texts, emails, phone calls before vaccine due dates) according to schedules recommended by organizations that are politically independent and science-driven, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It's not a time for 'business as usual.' We need to proactively confirm our belief in scientifically based vaccine schedules to the families of our patients. While I strongly believe in patient medical homes, there may be room for flexibility if vaccines become available from alternative sources that are economically helpful to families. We can hope charitable organizations, foundations, and some altruistic individuals will ramp up funding to fill the evolving voids. The answers are not simple nor are potential fixes easy. Yet, pediatric providers have always answered the call when children are in jeopardy. Let's keep as many children safe as possible.
Atlantic
3 hours ago
- Atlantic
Bring on the ‘MAHA Boxes'
Millions of Americans might soon have mail from Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The health secretary—who fiercely opposes industrial, ultraprocessed foods—now wants to send people care packages full of farm-fresh alternatives. They will be called 'MAHA boxes.' For the most part, MAHA boxes remain a mystery. They are mentioned in a leaked draft of a much-touted report the Trump administration is set to release about improving children's health. Reportedly, the 18-page document—which promises studies on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation and changes in how the government regulates sunscreen, among many other things—includes this: 'MAHA Boxes: USDA will develop options to get whole, healthy food to SNAP participants.' In plain English, kids on food stamps might be sent veggies. The idea might seem like a throwaway line in a wish list of policies. (Kush Desai, a deputy White House press secretary, told me that the leaked report should be disregarded as 'speculative literature.') But MAHA boxes are also referenced in the budget request that President Donald Trump sent Congress in May. In that document, MAHA boxes full of 'commodities sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households' are proposed as an option for elderly Americans who already get free packages of shelf-stable goods from the government. When I asked the Department of Health and Human Services for more information about MAHA boxes, a spokesperson referred me back to the White House; the Department of Agriculture, which runs the food-stamp program, did not respond. MAHA boxes are likely to come in some form or another. Some of the packages might end up in the trash. Lots of people, and especially kids, do not enjoy eating carrots and kale. Just 10 percent of U.S. adults are estimated to hit their daily recommended portion of vegetables. But if done correctly, MAHA boxes could do some real good. For years, nutrition experts have been piloting similar programs. A recent study that provided diabetic people with healthy meal kits for a year found that their blood sugar improved, as did their overall diet quality. Another, which provided people with a delivery of fruits and vegetables for 16 weeks, showed that consumption of these products increased by nearly half a serving per day. It makes sense: If healthy food shows up at your door, you're probably going to eat it. 'Pretty much any American is going to benefit from a real healthy food box,' Dariush Mozaffarian, the director of the Tufts Food Is Medicine Institute, told me. Sending people healthy food could be a simple way to deal with one of the biggest reasons why poor Americans don't eat more fruits and veggies. The food-stamp program, otherwise known as SNAP, provides enrollees with a debit card they can use for food of their choosing—and a significant portion of SNAP dollars go to unhealthy foods. Research finds that has less to do with people having a sweet tooth than it does the price of a pound of brussel sprouts. Several studies have found that, for food-stamp recipients, price is one of the biggest barriers to eating healthy. Many states already have incentives built into SNAP to encourage consumption of fruits and vegetables. MAHA boxes would be an even more direct nudge. Most nutrition experts I spoke with for this story were much more supportive of MAHA boxes being sent to Americans in addition to food stamps than as a replacement for them. Exactly how the care packages would fit into other food-assistance programs isn't yet clear. Despite its shortcomings, SNAP is very effective at limiting hunger in America. Shipping heavy boxes of produce to the nation's poor is a much bigger undertaking than putting cash on a debit card. There's also the question of what exactly these MAHA boxes will include. If the 'whole, healthy food' in each care package includes raw milk and beef tallow —which Kennedy has promoted—that would only worsen American health. (His own eating habits are even more questionable: Kennedy once said that he ate so many tuna sandwiches that he developed mercury poisoning.) In May, after the Trump administration mentioned MAHA boxes in its budget request, a White House spokesperson told CBS News that the packages would be similar to food boxes that the first Trump administration sent during the pandemic in an effort to connect hungry families with food that would otherwise go to waste. According to a letter signed by Trump that was sent to recipients, each box was supposed to come with 'nutritious food from our farmers.' News reports at the time suggested that wasn't always the case. One recipient reportedly was shipped staples such as onions, milk, some fruit, and eggs, along with seven packages of hot dogs and two blocks of processed cheese. Another described their box as 'a box full of old food and dairy and hot dogs.' The COVID-era program did eventually deliver some 173 million food boxes. But it was still a failure, Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research & Action Center, an organization that advocates for people on food-assistance programs, told me. The logistics were such a mess that they prompted a congressional investigation. Nonprofits, which helped distribute the packages, received 'rotten food and wet or collapsing boxes,' investigators were told. And the setup of the program was apparently so rushed that the government did not bother to check food distributors' professional references; investigators concluded that a 'company focused on wedding and event planning without significant food distribution experience' was awarded a $39 million contract to transport perishables to food banks. This time around, the White House doesn't have to navigate the urgency of a sudden pandemic in its planning. But questions remain about who exactly will be responsible for getting these boxes to millions of Americans around the country. The White House will likely have to partner with companies that have experience shipping perishable items to remote areas of the country. And although the White House budget says that MAHA boxes will replace a program that primarily provides canned foods to seniors through local food banks, it remains to be seen whether these organizations would have the resources to administer a program of this size. Perhaps the Trump administration has already thought through all these potential logistical hurdles. But trouble with executing grand plans to improve American health has been a consistent theme throughout Trump's tenures in office. In 2020, for example, he pledged to send seniors a $200 discount card to help offset rising drug costs. The cards never came amid questions about the legality of the initiative. Americans do need to change their eating habits if we hope to improve our collective problems of diet-related disease. Getting people excited about the joys of eating fruits and vegetables is laudable. So, too, are some of Kennedy's other ideas on food, such as getting ultraprocessed foods out of school cafeterias. But Kennedy still hasn't spelled out how he will deliver on these grand visions. The government hasn't even defined what an ultraprocessed food is, despite wanting to ban them. The ideas are good, but a good idea is only the first step.
