logo
Trump Megabill Threatens Low-Income Health Insurance And Nursing Homes

Trump Megabill Threatens Low-Income Health Insurance And Nursing Homes

Forbes16 hours ago
Port Washington, N.Y.: The residents of the Harborside, a retirement community that has filed for ... More bankruptcy three times in nine years, hold a rally to call on politicians and others to save their homes and life savings on Oct. 24, 2024 in Port Washington, New York. (Photo by Howard Schnapp/Newsday RM via Getty Images)
In the scramble for Donald Trump's megabill, the Senate had to make changes to the House version to pass the body's rules for reconciliation. The result included large cuts in programs that serve the financially needy, including Medicaid.
There are two major implications of the Medicaid cuts. One has been discussed widely: the loss of health insurance coverage for millions and the impact on the nation's healthcare system. The second has garnered less attention. There are enormous implications for the availability of nursing homes at a time when changes in demographics have made all forms of senior housing much more important in the U.S.
The Medicaid Numbers
Medicaid is an expansive program dually funded by the federal and state governments. KFF, formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation, has compiled extensive data on the program by analyzing federal government statistics.
In 2023, Medicaid covered 19% of all hospital care spending. That was $283 billion out of $872 billion in total Medicaid expenditures, or 32%. Physician and clinical services were 14%, and retail prescription drugs, another 6%.
There has been no Congressional Budget Office scoring on the Senate version because of timing. According to KFF's estimate, the Senate bill, which became the law, will reduce federal Medicaid spending by $1.04 trillion over the next ten years, or a $104 billion per year reduction on average. That will result in 11.8 million more people nationwide without insurance. Another measure is the amount of Medicare funding states would lose. Thirty-seven states would lose a minimum of 13% annually, and another five would lose between 7% and 10%.
The lack of insurance has broader implications as well because the medical care those 11.8 million people need affects many more. KFF projects the cuts to ultimately affect an estimated 83 million people. In addition to those covered by Medicaid, there are state workers (Medicaid, again, isn't purely federal), and healthcare providers who are independent, working in clinics, and associated with hospitals.
As U.S. health expenditures as of 2023 were 17,6% of gross domestic product according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, there is a potential significant impact on the entire economy.
Senior Housing
The senior housing real estate market incorporates several types of living arrangements, including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing (also known as nursing homes), memory care, and in-home care. Around for many years, these options are becoming more important because of the country's aging demographics. From 1920 to 2020, the U.S. population age 65 and older grew about five times faster than the total population, as the Census Bureau has written. By 2020, that group numbered 55.8 million, or 16.8% of the U.S. population. By 2024, the 65-and-older group numbered 61.2 million. The under-18 population decreased by 0.2% to 73.1 million. The number of metro areas with more older adults than those under 18 grew from 58 to 112.
By 2030, 20% of the population is expected to be 65 years or older, or 71.6 million, as S&P Global notes.
The older people grow, the greater the need for specialized housing. However, Medicaid is the primary payer of nursing facility residency, covering 63% of the residents, KKF says. The program paid for 44% of the $147 billion the U.S. spent on long-term care in 2023. 'Most Medicaid enrollees using institutional [long-term care] are dually enrolled in Medicare, compared to just over half of those using home care,' the organization said.
According to Senior Housing News, senior living broadly is somewhat insulated from the Medicaid spending cuts, but not immune. 'The bill likely means more financial challenges ahead for nursing homes, hospitals and community health centers and could push them to scale down services or even close their doors,' they wrote.
It will take time for the effect of the cuts on senior housing, hospitals, and insurance for lower-income to become obvious. However, it could be disastrous.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Asian Economies in Rush to Cut Tariff Deals as US Deadline Moves
Asian Economies in Rush to Cut Tariff Deals as US Deadline Moves

Bloomberg

time10 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Asian Economies in Rush to Cut Tariff Deals as US Deadline Moves

Asian countries including Japan and South Korea said they'll keep pushing for a better deal for their exports to the US after President Donald Trump shifted his tariff deadline to Aug. 1 and tweaked the rates he's set for many economies. In his first wave of letters to key trading partners, Trump announced levies of 25% on goods from Japan and South Korea, with rates for Indonesia and Thailand set at over 30%. The US president also signed an executive order holding off the new duties until Aug. 1.

How the Supreme Court's injunction ruling advances Trump's birthright citizenship fight
How the Supreme Court's injunction ruling advances Trump's birthright citizenship fight

Fox News

time11 minutes ago

  • Fox News

How the Supreme Court's injunction ruling advances Trump's birthright citizenship fight

President Donald Trump is aiming to terminate birthright citizenship in the United States – and the Supreme Court's recent decision to curb universal injunctions has brought him one step closer to accomplishing that mission. While changing the way the government gives citizenship to babies born in the United States is still an uphill climb, the high court's ruling raised the possibility that Trump's new policy to end automatic citizenship could, at least temporarily, take effect in some parts of the country. Lawyer Carrie Severino, president of the conservative legal advocacy group JCN, said it was unclear at this stage of litigation how Trump's policy would work logistically or to whom it would apply. The Supreme Court's decision, issued June 27, barred Trump's executive order from becoming active for 30 days. "Normally, if you give birth at the hospital, they just automatically issue everyone a Social Security number," Severino told Fox News Digital. "Now the question isn't open and shut like that." The Supreme Court's decision arose from various Democratic-led states and immigration rights groups bringing several lawsuits across the country challenging Trump's executive order, which the president signed shortly after he took office. The order dramatically changed the scope of birthright citizenship, which is outlined under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and allows babies born to noncitizens in the United States to automatically receive U.S. citizenship in most cases. Courts uniformly rejected Trump's policy and blocked it by issuing universal injunctions that applied to the whole country and not just certain pregnant noncitizens being represented in court. Seattle-based federal Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, chastised government attorneys during a February hearing over the matter. "It has become ever more apparent that to our president, the rule of law is but an impediment to his policy goals," the judge said. "The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain." Coughenour later said that if Trump wanted to change the "exceptional American grant of birthright citizenship," then the president would need to work with Congress to amend the Constitution, rather than attempt to redefine the amendment through an executive order. In the wake of the Supreme Court's order, courts and plaintiffs are moving quickly to adapt and, in some cases, find workarounds before the 30-day deadline arrives. Within hours of the high court's decision, plaintiffs who brought a birthright citizenship lawsuit in Maryland asked a judge to change the lawsuit to a class action proceeding that covers all babies who will be born after Trump's executive order takes effect. The request was one of what is quickly becoming a manifold of court requests that are testing the Supreme Court's injunction decision and potentially undercutting it. The Supreme Court's decision left intact the ability for judges, if they see fit, to use class action lawsuits or statewide lawsuits to hand down sweeping orders blocking Trump's policies from applying to wide swaths of people. "The bottom line is that the Trump administration has the right to carry this order out nationwide, except where a court has stayed it as to parties actually involved in a lawsuit challenging it," Severino said. American Immigration Council's Michelle Lapointe wrote online there was a "real possibility" that if the judges overseeing the current lawsuits do not find a way in the next few weeks to issue broad injunctions blocking birthright citizenship, then some states might see the policy take effect. "That raises the risk of babies born in certain parts of the United States… being fully stripped of their rights as U.S. citizens, perhaps even rendering them stateless," Lapointe wrote. "The human cost of such an action is unconscionable." Regardless of what happens in the coming weeks and months, the underlying merits of Trump's birthright citizenship policy are on track to end up at the Supreme Court. The justices were able to avoid touching the substance of Trump's argument by merely considering the constitutionality of universal injunctions during this last go-round, but the next time a birthright citizenship lawsuit comes before them, they are likely to have to weigh in on whether Trump's policy is constitutional. Severino said she believed the six Republican-appointed justices would rely heavily on "history and tradition" and "what the words were understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was passed." "It's a challenging issue, in part because our immigration system looks so dramatically different now than it did at the time of the 14th Amendment, because the sort of immigration we're looking at was not really on their radar, nor was the type of entitlement state that we are living in," Severino said. Michael Moreland, Villanova University law school professor, told Fox News Digital there has long been an academic debate about the language in the amendment. It states that babies born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are citizens. The dispute, Moreland said, has centered on "how broadly or narrowly" to interpret that clause. The Trump administration has said that as part of its immigration crackdown, it wants to curtail abuse of the 14th Amendment, which can include foreigners traveling to the United States strictly to give birth with no intention of legally settling in the country. The amendment also incentivizes migrants to enter the country illegally to give birth and rewards pregnant women already living illegally in the country by imparting citizenship to their children, the administration has said. Judges, thus far, have found that Trump's policy is at odds with more than 150 years of precedent. The government has long given citizenship to any child born in the United States with few exceptions, such as babies born to foreign diplomats or foreign military members. "The balance of opinion for a long time has been on the side of saying that the 14th Amendment does have a right of birthright citizenship," Moreland said.

Percentage of Canadians who see the U.S. as a top threat triples: poll
Percentage of Canadians who see the U.S. as a top threat triples: poll

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Percentage of Canadians who see the U.S. as a top threat triples: poll

WASHINGTON — As U.S. President Donald Trump pursues his global trade war and talk of annexation, a new poll suggests the percentage of Canadians who view the United States as a top threat has tripled since 2019. While this year's survey by the Pew Research Center suggests that 55 per cent of Canadians still say the U.S. remains this country's most important ally, it also says that 59 per cent now see the U.S. as a threat — up from 20 per cent in the 2019 poll. "Canada sort of stands out as one place where views of the U.S. have changed significantly and substantially," said Janell Fetterolf, a senior researcher at the centre. Pew polled people in 25 countries and the United States was cited as the most important ally in 12. It was the most commonly named threat in eight countries — including America's closest neighbours, Canada and Mexico. Canada was an early target of Trump's tariffs and taunts. He repeatedly called former prime minister Justin Trudeau "governor" and said he wanted to make Canada a U.S. state. Trump hit Canada and Mexico with duties he claimed were in relation to fentanyl in March, only to walk back the tariffs for goods that comply with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade a few days later. Both countries are also being targeted by Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles. The Pew Research Center said many people polled in Europe named Russia as a top threat, and those in the Asia-Pacific region commonly named China. Poll respondents were more likely to name the United States as an economic threat, while Russia was more likely to be considered a threat to national security and China was commonly cited as a mix of both. Pew, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank, surveyed 28,333 adults across 24 countries — not including the United States — from Jan. 8 to April 26 by phone, online and in person. The centre also surveyed 3,605 Americans from March 24 to March 30 by phone, online and in person. Israelis were especially likely to name the U.S. as their country's most important ally. Israelis also stood out for their particularly positive ratings of the U.S. and its president. Most Israelis polled named Iran as the top threat. Japanese and South Koreans polled also overwhelmingly stated that the U.S. was their most important ally. Despite Canadians' increasingly negative views of the U.S., Americans remain positive about Canada. Fetterolf said Canada is one of the allies most commonly named by Americans, just behind the United Kingdom. She added that previous polling has shown 74 per cent of Americans have a favourable opinion of Canada. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 8, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press

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