One Big Back Breaker: Trump law to COST millions their healthcare and add $3T in debt while rich see tax cuts
The Congressional Budget Office released its official analysis this week, which showed that between 2025 and 2034, spending would be reduced by $1.1 trillion and cause the deficit to blow up by $3.4 trillion.
The legislation would cause 10 million people to lose their health insurance, though the review of Trump's 'One Big Beautiful' law did not differentiate between how many people would lose coverage because of cuts to Medicaid versus changes to the Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obama Care, the health care coverage-for-all law signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
'It simultaneously hurts the poorest Americans while nonetheless increasing the deficit,' Bobby Kogan, the senior director for federal budget policy at the liberal Center for America Progress, told The Independent.
'It's actually almost unheard of to see something that cuts spending while doing tax cuts at the same time, right? Because you didn't have that juxtaposition of taking from the poor while giving to the rich.'
That number is slightly lower than the almost 11 million people who would have lost health insurance under the version the House of Representatives passed in May.
Senate Republicans ultimately needed to change parts of the legislation to comply with the rules of budget reconciliation, which allowed them to pass the bill with a simple majority as long as it related to federal spending.
Kogan, who previously worked in the Biden administration and for the Senate Budget Committee, said that the legislation has not only the biggest cuts to Medicaid in history, but also the biggest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, in history.
At the same time, it also reduces federal revenue by $1.1 trillion by virtue of not only extending the 2017 tax cuts that Trump signed during his first term in the White House, but also includes additional tax breaks, including a temporary break for tips and overtime pay, as well as an additional $6,000 deduction for low-income seniors.
And that's by design. In the earlier iterations of the House of Representatives's budget resolution, Republicans needed to find steep spending cuts in order to extend the tax cuts.
The Senate passed the legislation with all but three Republican senators supporting it, but because of the strict rules of budget reconciliation, Republicans could not touch Social Security, and Trump had pledged not to touch Medicare, leaving Medicaid and SNAP as the biggest pots of money from which to slash.
The legislation mostly enacts health care changes through Medicaid, namely through requiring able-bodied adults without dependent children to work and by capping the level at which states tax health care providers like hospitals and nursing homes.
But the bill also makes slight changes to the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, Emma Wager, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan KFF, said that people with income below a certain level could previously enroll in the ACA's insurance marketplace in a special enrollment period.
'You now cannot receive any premium subsidies if you enroll during a special enrollment period that's income-based,' she told The Independent.
'Which, if you have a low enough income to enroll in that income based special enrollment period, you absolutely will need subsidies to help you pay for Your coverage. So that is a virtual ending of the income based special enrollment periods.'
But the legislation also makes additional changes to SNAP. Specifically, it says that parents of dependent children have to work and lowers the age of dependent children from 18 to 14. In addition, it would require that states shoulder a larger share of the cost depending on the error rate for payments.
Altogether, the CBO found that in the course of the next decade, SNAP would see a $187 billion cut.
And there are signs that Americans are dissatisfied with the results of the legislation. A CBS News poll showed that 47 percent of those polled believe that the bill will hurt them or their family while 28 percent say it will have no effect. Only 25 percent of adults believe that it will benefit them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Europeans, Not Trump, Ended Up Chickening Out
Donald Trump's world tour of arm-twisting on trade has landed its latest deal: A 15% baseline tariff on European Union goods, lowered from the recently threatened 30%, in return for an apparent smorgasbord of continental investments into the US and huge purchases of energy and military equipment. Japan sealed a similar deal last week while pushing back on some extravagant Trumpian claims. 'It was the best we could get,' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said. Many will agree with her. The US is the EU's biggest trade partner and a dominant defense and technology supplier – a spiral of tit-for-tat tariffs is something Europeans simply can't afford, as LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE boss Bernard Arnault said last week. Sealing the deal before the Aug. 1 deadline at a level big companies say they find 'manageable' is market positive, lifting the tariff fog and avoiding a worst-case scenario drag on euro zone gross domestic product of 1.2%, according to Barclays Plc. From German autos to French aerospace, transatlantic trade is looking a little less stuck.


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
FTSE 100 Live: Stocks Set to Bounce on EU-US Tariff Deal
The US and the EU agreed a deal that will see the bloc face tariffs of 15% on most exports, staving off the prospect of a damaging trade war. The pact was done less than a week before the deadline on Friday for the higher tariffs imposed by the US to take effect. Importantly, it includes cars. US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced the deal Sunday at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, although they didn't disclose the full details of the pact or release any written materials.


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild
Thanks to US President Donald Trump, historic revival architecture has returned to the news this year. In January, the president signed an executive order demanding that all new federal buildings respect 'traditional and classical architectural heritage' in their design — reflecting a wider right-wing trend associating revivalist architecture with conservative values. This push for new-old buildings is global: In Dresden, Germany, whole sections of the city's historic center have been rebuilt to resemble the city's pre-World War II self, a form of project being repeated across Germany, Russia and France. Often these initiatives are promoted both by mainstream right-wing parties such as Germany's CDU, and through culture war agitation from figures on the far right. Perhaps the most high-profile example of this phenomenon is underway in the Hungarian capital of Budapest, where the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban is rebuilding the Buda Castle district, a complex of ornate 19th century palaces and buildings on a fortified hill commanding the heights above Budapest. The project, initially estimated at $590 million but likely to cost far more, has been billed as restoring the area to its prewar glory. But critics have pointed out that the revamp — referred to as the National Hauszmann Program — is anything but historically accurate.