Trump's Tax Bill Plans To Decimate Medicaid. For One Group, The Cuts Will Be Unspeakably Cruel.
Four in 10 kids across the United States are on Medicaid, including 368,000 foster kids like mine, who are entitled to Medicaid benefits through the foster system. All those kids will hurt as a result of these cuts, but for those in the foster system, it could make the difference between finding a forever home or growing up in institutional care.
My husband Nic and I have fostered around 30 children over the last 14 years. We know how essential Medicaid benefits are for children in the foster system, nearly half of whom have special health care needs. All children in the foster system are entitled to Medicaid benefits, and for many this benefit is extended after adoption or aging out of the system in order to ensure continued health and safety.
Medicaid has saved the life of every single foster child who has come through my doors, and it's what made it possible to foster in the first place — and to adopt some of those foster children, with continuing benefits ensuring that we'd be able to meet their ongoing medical needs. Cuts to Medicaid would be devastating for medically complex foster children like mine across the United States.
I know this very intimately because of Ansley, my wonderful little girl who loved the color yellow, balloons and listening to music. Ansley came to us as a foster infant with complex medical issues. We later adopted her and remained her loving family until her death in 2019 at age 5. Ansley brought so much love and joy to our family during her short time with us and activated my 'advocacy bone,' turning me into an advocate for medically complex children in the foster system and giving me the inspiration to keep fostering children like her.
Because of Ansley, I am a person who sees people as valuable no matter who they are. Because of Medicaid, I am able to open my home to children like Ansley, who would otherwise be too expensive for us, and most families, to care for.
Ansley wasn't a burden, because loving a child is never a burden, but she did have complex medical needs throughout her life. Medicaid's coverage of necessary treatments and therapies also freed up resources for us to provide her with enhanced opportunities, paying for additional services that she needed to thrive and live her best life with us.
Medicaid provides essential support that helps medically complex foster children like mine lead full lives at home in their communities, where they know love and companionship and enrich the lives of everyone they touch. Our daughter Luci, a micropreemie born at just 27 weeks, also came to us through the foster system and struggles with behavior and emotional regulation. She receives Medicaid coverage post-adoption to support her critical mental health needs, which will require lifelong assistance to manage.
Our youngest girl, Lilah, also a micropreemie who started out in the foster system, was born at 22 weeks and survived because of Medicaid. Medicaid made it possible to bring her home with us, to access oxygen at home and to receive the surgeries and other care she needed to thrive.
Members of micropreemie support groups often tell me that without Medicaid, they would have been bankrupt or financially ruined; no one expects a premature birth, and NICU stays cost millions of dollars, with medically complex preemies experiencing high health care needs for life.
Five-year-old Z, who was recently adopted after four years in our home, is hearing and vision impaired, has spastic quadriplegia, uses a feeding tube and lives with life altering effects from a traumatic brain injury. He has benefited tremendously from Medicaid coverage of his equipment, such as a Tobii Dynavox eye gaze machine, which allows him to communicate directly with us about when he's not feeling well, which toy he wants to play with and what music he wants to play.
He has been able to introduce himself to us and access the community in a way that's simply unreal. He can go to school with his peers and communicate with his teachers, understanding and responding to what they are teaching. This would have been unimaginable without the critical equipment that we could never have afforded on our own. Providing Z with the tools he needs to communicate has opened up his whole world, and ours.
Every child deserves this kind of access, and Medicaid makes that possible, allowing foster children with medical complexities and disabilities to find forever families instead of languishing in institutional care, be it the hospital, state facilities or nursing homes.
Without it, I would be unable to afford care for my foster children, and the children I've adopted through the foster system would also lose the coverage that keeps them at home, safe and loved, in their community. They could have been forced into institutions because of their medical needs, as is the case with several children we already know are waiting for adoptive homes in state facilities.
Medicaid is also crucial for family reunification, the most important goal within the foster system whenever possible. We've had medically complex foster placements who were able to be reunited with family members because of Medicaid; those family members were able to take those children because they knew their medical needs would be covered. They were able to get those children out of the foster system and raise them.
It would be heartbreaking for kinship placements to have to hesitate because of financial concerns.
As a foster mom, my calling is to care for medically complex children. I do not believe the cruel cuts to Medicaid in this bill are what Jesus meant when He said, 'Let the little children come to me,' and 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' We are taught to take care of the sick in this world, especially children.
I pray that when my time on this Earth is done, I will be reunited with my daughter Ansley. In the meantime, I will ensure that her legacy lives on in the form of providing comfort, love and shelter to children just like her. I cannot imagine having to close our home because of our inability to afford the health costs of a terminally ill or disabled child in need of a family.
Disabled and medically complex children already suffer enough. Even one child being denied access to support for home and community living is one child too many.
Do you have a compelling personal story you'd like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we're looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California just showed that a better Democratic Party is possible
California just demolished a major obstacle to housing construction within its borders — and provided Democrats with a blueprint for better governance nationwide. On Monday, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of housing bills into law. One exempts almost all urban, multifamily housing developments from California's environmental review procedures. The second makes it easier for cities to change their zoning laws to allow for more homebuilding. Both these measures entail restricting the reach of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law that requires state and local governments to research and publicize the ecological impacts of any approved construction project. Individuals and groups can then sue to block these developments on the grounds that the government underestimated the project's true environmental harms. At first glance, these events might seem irrelevant to anyone who is neither a Californian nor a massive nerd. But behind the Golden State's esoteric arguments over regulatory exemptions lie much larger questions — ones that concern the fundamental aims and methods of Democratic policymaking. Namely: Is increasing the production of housing and other infrastructure an imperative of progressive politics that must take precedence over other concerns? Should Democrats judge legislation by how little it offends the party's allied interest groups or by how much it advances the general public's needs (as determined by technocratic analysis)? In making it easier to build urban housing — despite the furious objections of some environmental groups and labor unions — California Democrats put material plenty above status quo bias, and the public's interests above their party's internal harmony. Too often in recent decades, Democrats have embraced the opposite priorities. And this has led blue cities and states to suffer from exceptionally large housing shortages while struggling to build public infrastructure on time and on budget. As a result, Democratic states have been bleeding population — and thus, electoral clout — to Republican ones while the public sector has fallen into disrepute. California just demonstrated that Democrats don't need to accept these failures. Acquiescing to scarcity — for the sake of avoiding change or intraparty tension — is a choice. Democrats can make a different one. Critics of California's CEQA reforms didn't deny their state needs more housing. It might therefore seem fair to cast the debate over those reforms as a referendum on the importance of building more homes. But the regulatory regime that the opponents of CEQA reform sought to preserve is the byproduct of an explicitly anti-development strain of progressivism, one that reoriented Democratic politics in the 1970s. The postwar decades' rapid economic progress yielded widespread affluence, ecological degradation, and disruptive population growth. Taken together, these forces spurred a backlash to building: Affluence led liberal reformers to see economic development as less of a priority, environmental decay prompted fears that humanity was swiftly exhausting nature's bounty, and the swift growth of booming localities led some longtime residents to fear cultural alienation or displacement. California was ground zero for this anti-growth backlash, as historian Yoni Appelbaum notes in his recent book Stuck. The state's population quintupled between 1920 and 1970. And construction had largely kept pace, with California adding nearly 2 million units in the 1950s alone. As a result, in 1970, the median house in California cost only $197,000 in today's dollars. But millions of new people and buildings proved socially disruptive and ecologically costly. Many Californians wished to exclude newcomers from their towns or neighborhoods, so as to preserve their access to parking, the aesthetic character of their area, or the socioeconomic composition of their schools, among other concerns. And anti-growth progressivism provided both a high-minded rationalization for such exclusion and legal tools with which to advance it. In 1973, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and his team of researchers prepared a report on land-use policy in California. Its overriding recommendation was that the state needed to make it easier for ordinary Californians to block housing construction. As one of the report's authors explained at a California Assembly hearing, lawmakers needed to guard against both 'the overdevelopment of the central cities' and 'the sprawl around the cities,' while preserving open land. As Appelbaum notes, this reasoning effectively forbids building any housing, anywhere. The California Environmental Quality Act emerged out of this intellectual environment. And green groups animated by anti-developed fervor quickly leveraged CEQA to obstruct all manner of housing construction, thereby setting judicial precedents that expanded the law's reach. The effect has been to greatly increase the amount of time and money necessary for producing a housing unit in California. Local agencies take an average of 2.5 years to approve housing projects that require an Environmental Impact Report. Lawsuits can then tie up those projects in court for years longer. Over the past decade, CEQA litigation has delayed or blocked myriad condo towers in urban centers, the construction of new dormitories at the University of California Berkeley (on the grounds that the state's environmental impact statement failed to account for noise pollution), and even a bike lane in San Francisco. CEQA is by no means the primary — let alone, the only — reason why the median price of a California home exceeded $900,000 in 2023. But it is unquestionably a contributor to such scarcity-induced unaffordability. Refusing to amend the law in the face of a devastating housing shortage is a choice, one that reflects tepid concern for facilitating material abundance. Anti-growth politics left an especially large mark on California. But its influence is felt nationwide. CEQA is modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act, which enables the litigious to obstruct housing projects across the United States. And many blue states — including Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York — have their own state-level environmental review laws, which have also deterred housing development. In sum, California Democrats' decision to pare back the state's environmental review procedures, so as to facilitate more urban housing, represents a shift in the party's governing philosophy — away from a preoccupation with the harms of development and toward a greater sensitivity to the perils of stasis. Indeed, Newsom made this explicit in his remarks on the legislation, saying, 'It really is about abundance.' Democrats elsewhere should make a similar ideological adjustment. If anti-growth progressivism helped birth CEQA's excesses, Democrats' limited appetite for intraparty conflict sustained the law's defects. In recent years, the Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) movement has built an activist infrastructure for pro-development reform. And their cause has been buttressed by the energetic advocacy of myriad policy wonks and commentators. One of this year's best-selling books, Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, is dedicated in no small part to making the case against California's housing policies. Nevertheless, environmental organizations and labor unions have long boasted far greater scale and influence than 'pro-abundance' groups. And past efforts to curtail CEQA's reach have attracted vigorous opposition from some greens and unions. Democrats typically responded by scaling back their reform ambitions to better appease those constituencies. The hostility of green groups and the building trades to CEQA reform is as much instrumental as ideological. Some environmentalists retain the de-growth impulses that characterized the 1970s left. But environmental review lawsuits are also the stock and trade of many green organizations. CEQA litigation provides these groups with a key source of leverage over ecologically irresponsible developers and — for environmental law firms — a vital source of billings. The building trades unions, meanwhile, see CEQA as a tool for extracting contracts from housing developers. Such groups have made a practice of pursuing CEQA lawsuits against projects until the builders behind them commit to using union labor. For these reasons, many environmentalists and labor leaders fiercely condemned this week's CEQA reforms. At a hearing in late June, a representative of Sacramento-Sierra's Building and Construction Trades Council told lawmakers that their bill 'will compel our workers to be shackled and start singing chain gang songs.' Roughly 60 green groups published a letter condemning the legislation as a 'backroom Budget Trailer Bill deal that would kill community and environmental protections, even as the people of California are faced with unprecedented federal attacks to their lives and livelihoods.' The opposition of these organizations was understandable. But it was also misguided, even from the standpoint of protecting California's environment and aiding its construction workers. The recently passed CEQA bills did not weaken environmental review for the development of open land, only for multifamily housing in dense urban areas. And facilitating higher rates of housing development in cities is vital for both combating climate change and conserving untouched ecosystems. All else equal, people who live in apartment buildings by mass transit have far smaller carbon footprints than those who live in suburban single-family homes. And increasing the availability of housing in urban centers reduces demand for new exurban housing development that eats into open land. Meanwhile, eroding regulatory obstacles to housing construction is in the interest of skilled tradespeople as a whole. A world where more housing projects are economically viable is one where there is higher demand for construction labor. This makes CEQA reform unambiguously good for the 87 percent of California construction workers who do not belong to a union (and thus, derive little direct benefit from the building trades CEQA lawsuits). But policies that grow California's construction labor force also provide its building trades unions with more opportunities to recruit new members. Recognition of that reality led California's carpenters' union to back the reforms. Therefore, if Democrats judged those reforms on the basis of their actual consequences — whether for labor, the environment, or the housing supply — they would conclude that the policies advanced progressive goals. On the other hand, if they judged the legislation by whether it attracted opposition from left-coded interest groups, then they might deem it a regressive challenge to liberal ideals. Too often, Democrats in California and elsewhere have taken the latter approach, effectively outsourcing their policy judgment to their favorite lobbies. But this time, the party opted to prioritize the public interest over coalitional deference. Importantly, in doing so, California Democrats appeared to demonstrate that their party has more capacity to guide its stakeholders than many realized. In recent years, Democratic legislators have sometimes credited their questionable strategic and substantive decisions to 'the groups' — as though the party were helplessly in thrall to its advocacy organizations. But these groups typically lack significant political leverage. Swing voters do not take their marching orders from environmental organizations. And in an era of low union density and education polarization, the leaders of individual unions often can't deliver very many votes. This does not mean that Democrats should turn their backs on environmentalism or organized labor. To the contrary, the party should seek to expand collective bargaining rights, reduce pollution, and promote abundant low-carbon energy. But it should do those things because they are in the interests of ordinary Americans writ large, not because the electoral influence of green groups or building trades unions politically compel them to do so. Of course, all else equal, the party should seek to deliver victories to organizations that support it. But providing such favors should not take precedence over advancing the general public's welfare. And pushing back on a group's demands will rarely cause it to abandon your party entirely. After seeing that Democrats would not abandon CEQA reform, California's Building Trades Council switched its position on the legislation to 'neutral,' in exchange for trivial concessions. It is important not to overstate what California Democrats have accomplished. Housing construction in the Golden State is still constrained by restrictive zoning laws, various other land-use regulations, elevated interest rates, scarce construction labor, and a president who is hellbent on increasing the cost of lumber and steel. Combine these constraints on housing supply with the grotesque income inequalities of cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, and you get a recipe for a sustained housing crunch. CEQA reform should reduce the cost and timelines of urban homebuilding. But it will not, by itself, render California affordable. Democrats cannot choose to eliminate all of blue America's scarcities overnight. What they can do is prize the pursuit of material abundance over the avoidance of disruptive development and intraparty strife. And California just provided the party with a model for doing precisely that.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Photos of protests and celebrations mark a different Fourth of July for many Americans
The Fourth of July is a celebration of all things American with parades, backyard barbecues and the night sky lit up with fireworks. This Independence Day may feel different for many Americans. Around the country, there are protests planned against Trump's polices, and in places like Southern California, where immigration raids have rattled communities , some July Fourth celebrations were canceled. But beyond the festivities and protests lies a moment in history: On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence, declaring the colonies' break from British rule. ___ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump orders entry fee, DEI changes at national parks
Visiting America's national parks is about to get more expensive for international tourists, but that's not the only change ordered by President Donald Trump that will impact park visitors. A new executive order calls for charging non-U.S. residents higher fees for park entry and recreation passes, like the yearlong America the Beautiful pass, which grants access to public lands across federal agencies. "From the awe-inspiring Grand Canyon to the tranquility of the Great Smoky Mountains, America's national parks have provided generations of American families with unforgettable memories," Trump said in the order issued July 3. "It is the policy of my Administration to preserve these opportunities for American families in future generations by increasing entry fees for foreign tourists, improving affordability for United States residents, and expanding opportunities to enjoy America's splendid national treasures," he said. The order also calls for giving Americans "preferential treatment with respect to any remaining recreational access rules, including permitting or lottery rules." Any revenue generated by higher fees from foreign tourists will be funneled back into infrastructure improvements and other enhancements across federal recreation sites. Reservations required: Which national parks require them in 2025 Unrelated, the executive order also revokes a presidential memorandum signed by then-President Barack Obama in 2017 that promoted a range of diversity and inclusion efforts in the management of national parks and other public lands. It called for improving access for all Americans and "considering recommendations and proposals from diverse populations to protect at-risk historic, cultural, and natural sites." Diversity and inclusion were also priorities for parks during the Biden administration. Before leaving office in January, then National Park Service Director Chuck Sams told USA TODAY: "When I took my oath of office on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Secretary (Deb) Haaland said, on behalf of the president of the United States, myself and the American people, I'm charging you with these monuments, memorials and parks, but more importantly, we're charging you to find those stories that are less told or haven't been told yet, and to tell them fiercely. "So over the last three-plus years, working all across the park system, we've been able to tell stories to ensure that every American sees a reflection of themselves in the parks," he said. But the latest move comes after Trump on his first day back in office in January ordered an end to government diversity, equity, and inclusion programs established under Biden. USA TODAY has reached out the Interior Department and National Park Service for comment on the new executive order. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump orders national parks to charge some tourists higher fees
