Latest news with #HouseEnergyand
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Johnson says 4.8 million Americans won't lose Medicaid access ‘unless they choose to do so'
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) doubled down on his claim that there won't be Medicaid cuts in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' despite projections that millions of low-income individuals would lose health insurance as a result of the bill. Johnson, during an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' pushed back on independent projections that the bill would lead to 4.8 million who would lose coverage because of work requirements, saying they won't lose it 'unless they choose to do so.' 'Those 4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so,' he told host Kristen Welker. 'You're telling me that you're going to require the able-bodied — these young men, for example, okay — to only work or volunteer in their community for 20 hours a week, and that's too cumbersome for them? I'm not buying it. The American people are not buying it.' He added that the people who are complaining about losing their coverage are doing so 'because they can't fulfill the paperwork,' noting that the policy follows 'common sense.' 'When people work, when able-bodied young men work, it's good for them, for their dignity, their purpose, and it's good for the community,' he said. 'If you can't find a job, then volunteer in your community for 20 hours, and you will meet the requirement.' The proposed Medicaid and health care reforms would require states to impose work requirements on childless adults aged 19-64 to be eligible for Medicaid. It also aims to shorten the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act, among other changes. The reforms are key components of the bill, which the House Energy and Commerce Committee crafted after being tasked with finding more than $800 billion in savings over a decade. Those portions of the GOP proposal would save $625 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. Johnson said that the bill 'strengthens' Medicaid and said what they are doing is 'an important and frankly heroic thing.' 'It's intended for young, you know, single, pregnant women and the disabled and the elderly,' he said. 'But what's happening right now is you have a lot of people, for example, young men, able bodied workers, who are on Medicaid. They're not working when they can.' His comments are just the latest assertion from Johnson that the bill won't threaten Medicaid coverage for people who need it. However, the bill is hitting some roadblocks for Republican lawmakers, who are finding themselves enveloped in criticism at their town halls. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Johnson says 4.8 million Americans won't lose Medicaid access ‘unless they choose to do so'
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) doubled down on his claim that there won't be Medicaid cuts in President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' despite projections that millions of low-income individuals would lose health insurance as a result of the bill. Johnson, during an appearance on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' pushed back on independent projections that the bill would lead to 4.8 million who would lose coverage because of work requirements, saying they won't lose it 'unless they choose to do so.' 'Those 4.8 million people will not lose their Medicaid unless they choose to do so,' he told host Kristen Welker. 'You're telling me that you're going to require the able-bodied — these young men, for example, okay — to only work or volunteer in their community for 20 hours a week, and that's too cumbersome for them? I'm not buying it. The American people are not buying it.' He added that the people who are complaining about losing their coverage are doing so 'because they can't fulfill the paperwork,' noting that the policy follows 'common sense.' 'When people work, when able-bodied young men work, it's good for them, for their dignity, their purpose, and it's good for the community,' he said. 'If you can't find a job, then volunteer in your community for 20 hours, and you will meet the requirement.' The proposed Medicaid and health care reforms would require states to impose work requirements on childless adults aged 19-64 to be eligible for Medicaid. It also aims to shorten the open enrollment period for the Affordable Care Act, among other changes. The reforms are key components of the bill, which the House Energy and Commerce Committee crafted after being tasked with finding more than $800 billion in savings over a decade. Those portions of the GOP proposal would save $625 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. Johnson said that the bill 'strengthens' Medicaid and said what they are doing is 'an important and frankly heroic thing.' 'It's intended for young, you know, single, pregnant women and the disabled and the elderly,' he said. 'But what's happening right now is you have a lot of people, for example, young men, able bodied workers, who are on Medicaid. They're not working when they can.' His comments are just the latest assertion from Johnson that the bill won't threaten Medicaid coverage for people who need it. However, the bill is hitting some roadblocks for Republican lawmakers, who are finding themselves enveloped in criticism at their town halls.
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Health
- Newsweek
More Than a Million Americans Removed From Health Care Plan in One Month
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than one million Americans lost health coverage in a single month at the end of last year as states continued to unwind pandemic-era coverage protections. According to data published by KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization, national enrollment in Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) dropped from 79,569,888 in November 2024 to 78,532,341 in December 2024, a net loss of 1,037,547 enrollees. Newsweek has contacted the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) outside of regular hours via email for comment. Why It Matters The unwinding process has significantly reshaped Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. Under federal rules in place during the pandemic, states were required to keep most Medicaid recipients continuously enrolled, even if their eligibility status changed. That requirement expired in March 2023, allowing states to resume removing individuals from the program. Since the unwinding began, enrollment has steadily declined, driven by both eligibility losses and procedural disenrollments—when individuals lose coverage due to missing paperwork or administrative errors rather than no longer qualifying. File photo: Medicaid activists wait to enter the House Energy and Commerce. File photo: Medicaid activists wait to enter the House Energy and Commerce. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via AP What To Know The drop represents one of the many steep single-month declines recorded since states began redetermining eligibility in early 2023, following the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration. The December enrollment figure of 78.5 million is the lowest recorded figure since late 2020. For comparison, total Medicaid enrollment peaked at 94.6 million in April 2023, during the pandemic-era continuous coverage period. State-by-state trends also show uneven disenrollment rates, with Utah reporting disenrollment rates as high as 31 percent between March 2023 and December 2024, followed by Texas with 30 percent, while South Dakota saw a 2 percent decrease in enrollment in the same time frame. California, Maine, Alaska, Connecticut, and Oregon were other states that only saw a single-figure disenrollment rate during that time. KFF reported that child enrollment in the two programs is now below pre-pandemic enrollment in 13 states, while adult enrollment is below pre-pandemic levels in 7 states. Although, while in some states' disenrollment happened rapidly, returning to enrollment rates matching the early 2020 numbers, national Medicaid and CHIP enrollment is not yet back to pre-pandemic levels. What People Are Saying Eileen Sullivan-Marx, dean and professor of New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, told Newsweek: "It would be hard to know what caused this one month decline, however, it does reinforce that there is a projected trend downward continuing. It could be that some of the state differentials that month are skewing the whole data downward between November and December. I also notice that this is mostly a steeper downward trend for adults. The tendencies presently occurring have to do with disenrollments and the difficulty to re-enroll once disenrolled. If states do not make sure that there is a smooth way to re-enroll or enroll on a regular basis then there could be sharper decline in those enrolled in Medicaid." She added: "Disenrollments that are occurring simply because it is hard to re-enroll have consequences for those who need coverage in terms of accessing health care, getting medications, having to pay privately for a nursing home stay." Ben Anderson, the deputy senior director of health policy at Families USA, a health care-focused consumer advocacy group, told KFF in September: "We have seen some amazing coverage expansion in places like Oregon and California. But if you live in Texas, Florida, and Georgia, since the pandemic your health coverage has been disrupted in ways that were preventable by state leaders." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House sends resolution giving polluters more leeway to Trump's desk
The House early Thursday morning voted to eliminate a Biden-era rule that sought to crack down on toxic air pollution, sending the resolution to President Trump's desk. The vote was 216-212, and Trump is expected to sign the measure. The vote took place overnight, as the House debated the GOP's megabill of Trump's priorities. The Biden-era policy required polluters that had once been considered 'major' emitters of seven types of pollution to continue to follow strict pollution control and reporting requirements. It was a partial reversal of a 2020 policy that allowed polluters that had reduced their emissions below certain thresholds to follow less stringent mandates, even if they still had the ability to emit more. The polluters in question emit one of seven types of pollution including mercury, lead, PCBs and dioxins, which have health impacts including brain damage, cancer and reproductive and immune system issues. Democrats and environmental activists say the standard will help to reduce Americans' exposure to these dangerous substances. 'The rule Republicans are trying to repeal today is first and foremost a public health protection measure. It requires facilities that emit the worst of the worst hazardous air pollutants to monitor, report, and cut those emissions to the maximum degree of reduction achievable—even eliminating them entirely if possible,' said Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) in floor remarks on Wednesday. 'Republicans are going to allow large facilities to increase their toxic emissions up to just below the legal limit, endangering the health of American communities,' added Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, Republicans and industry have argued that the Biden-era policy gives companies less incentive to reduce their toxic emissions. 'The Biden administration's reinstatement of the 'Once In, Always In' rule is a bureaucratic mandate that punishes energy producers, manufacturers, and businesses for reducing emissions. It permanently classifies facilities as 'major sources' of hazardous air pollutants—even when they've made significant investments to cut emissions below federal thresholds. That makes no sense,' Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) said in a statement after the Senate passed the same resolution earlier this month. 'Businesses that invest in cleaner technologies should be rewarded, not locked into outdated, costly regulations that remove any real incentive to improve,' Fedorchak added. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Clean Energy Faces Hard Market Truths
As soon as the November 2024 election results were in, proponents of the energy transition started warning the end of their industries was nigh. They weren't wrong. Trump has wasted no time clipping the wings of wind, solar, EVs, and related industries that have enjoyed years of generous financial support—from taxpayers' money. This is now over, and these industries will need to learn to survive on their own. Republican legislators are busy drafting ways to slash billions in subsidies that have contributed significantly to the thriving of solar and wind businesses, encouraged billions in pledged investments from battery makers, for example, and cushioned the blow of EV sales losses for the Big Three as they struggle to make the shift to EVs that Americans don't really want to buy. The targeted industries are, naturally, not happy about it. 'While American businesses are demanding more energy to compete against our adversaries, and consumers are turning to clean energy to hedge against rising electricity prices, these proposals will undermine our nation's efforts to achieve President Trump's American energy dominance agenda,' the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a statement in response to the House Energy and Commerce Committee's reconciliation bill proposal, released earlier this month. This is perhaps one way of putting things, even though high electricity prices appear to be inextricably linked to wind and solar proliferation—and the link appears to be direct and causal. Among the transition industries, other weapons for fighting back Trump's energy policies are the threats of lost investments and, of course, jobs. Furthermore, some are arguing that these energy policies of the current federal government are about to disrupt a 'booming business'.'Developers have built $145 billion in solar, wind and battery-storage projects since expanded federal tax credits were approved in 2022, while manufacturers have invested $73 billion in 94 factories that are now operating,' Jennifer Hiller from the Wall Street Journal wrote this week, noting that what the House lawmakers are doing with the budget reconciliation bill could put an end to all this, threatening the survival of these industries. Not only this, but state governments are appearing to turn on wind, solar, EV batteries, and anything else transition-related, tightening rules for capacity buildouts and getting more selective with the permitting. It sounds really bad for the industries concerned. However, the alarm among them begs one question: if they are, indeed, thriving, can they not keep thriving in a less-subsidized environment? Hiller's statement about the expansion of wind, solar, and battery storage is telling. That $145 billion worth of capacity was built in the two years since the Biden administration supercharged subsidy support with some $400 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act. And even with that level of support, as much as 40% of projects announced following the IRA got delayed, some of them indefinitely, as the Financial Times reported last year. These facts do not paint the picture of a 'booming business'. Rather, they paint the picture of a business environment carefully crafted and nourished selectively to survive against competition that obeys market conditions. Wind, solar, EVs, and batteries were picked as the winners in a race where all other participants followed one set of rules while the chosen ones followed their own special set of rules, involving pretty much unconditional support, while others became subjects of increasingly tighter regulation. What is happening now is the pendulum swinging back, plain and simple. Local communities across the United States are fighting back against wind turbines and solar panels on their lands, and state and local governments are running out of money to subsidize EV sales or solar installations. Meanwhile, the drawbacks of alternative energy sources have become more obvious now that there is so much capacity around. Last year's crash in wind and solar stocks was evidence enough that even with subsidies, these technologies can and do have trouble, such as the impossibility of delivering electricity on demand, the need for costly battery backup to have a chance at delivering electricity on demand, and the increasingly high costs of construction and operation—because inflation does not spare wind and solar. There is also the issue of negative prices due to overproduction of wind and solar electricity during periods of low demand and, on top of all this, too many wind turbines in one place lead to lower wind speeds and lower electricity output in a very special case of self-cannibalization. Wind and solar industries really did boom during the Biden administration. The reason for this boom was the constant and growing financial assistance they were getting from the federal government, and a lot of state and local governments determined to build a next-era energy system—based on the arguments of people with a solid vested interest in such a system even if it would ultimately prove unworkable. Now, wind and solar are being exposed to free market rules—the same that govern most other industries. That's a great opportunity to prove they can survive on their own without hundreds of billions in subsidies. By Irina Slav for More Top Reads From this article on
