Trump voters in for a shock as $800 billion Medicaid cuts hit home in MAGA stronghold
Teresa and her daughter had to sell lemonade to raise money for his burial and gravestone. One small relief was that Medicaid paid Jackie's hospital bills. Teresa's story shows how important Medicaid is for poor families in rural areas like Knox County. But now that support is under threat due to Trump's plan to cut up to $800 billion from Medicaid, as stated by Telegraph report.
Big Medicaid cuts may hurt Trump's own voters
Trump wants the cuts to help fund $3.7 trillion in tax cuts, and is pushing lawmakers to pass it by July 4. These cuts would make 16 million people lose health insurance by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Even though Republicans say the bill will help household income, there's fear it will mostly hurt the poor people who actually voted for Trump.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
15 Most Beautiful Female Athletes in the World
WomenSportOnline.com
Click Here
Out of the 200 countries that depend most on Medicaid, 84% voted for Trump in 2024. Knox County, where 72% voted for Trump, is one of the poorest places in the U.S. and 68% of people use public health insurance. These numbers show how risky this move could be for Trump politically, as mentioned in the report by Telegraph.
Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon warned the bill might fail because 'MAGA is on Medicaid.' Pollster Frank Luntz says hardcore Trump fans will still support him even if they lose benefits. But Luntz also said working-class voters may turn against Trump if the cuts hurt them directly. Medicaid started in 1965 to help low-income people with healthcare.
Live Events
Medicare is for people over 65 and fully funded by the federal government. Medicaid is for low-income people and funded by both states and the federal government. Before Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, adults without kids were mostly not eligible for Medicaid, as per the report by Telegraph.
The ACA let more low-income adults qualify, dropping the number of uninsured Americans from 44 million to 25 million. Trump's bill could undo those gains by cutting $793 billion from Medicaid over 10 years. Kentucky could lose $21 billion in federal funding and 277,000 people may lose coverage, says research group KFF.
ALSO READ:
Musk escalates feud with Trump, throws support behind nemesis Thomas Massie for his re-election
New work rules and paperwork may make people lose coverage
A big change in the bill is a new requirement to work 80 hours a month to keep Medicaid under ACA rules, saving $344 billion. The bill also saves $64 billion by making people re-check their eligibility every 6 months instead of once a year. Darren Bullock, a Trump voter who left the Democrats, might lose his Medicaid because of the new work rules, as mentioned by the report by Telegraph.
Darren says jobs are hard to get in rural areas like Knox County, especially since he has no car, phone, or public transport access. Jennifer Tolbert from KFF warns that people aged 55–64, who often retired early from tough jobs, are most at risk.
She says even people who do work might lose Medicaid just because they can't keep up with the extra paperwork. Teresa McNab, who now works as a full-time cook, says she can meet the work hours but has no time to do the paperwork due to caring for her daughter and elderly mom. Medicaid is also key to drug rehab programs in Kentucky, especially with the region's opioid crisis.
Chris Ross, a former drug addict, says Medicaid paid for his treatment and helped him turn his life around. He now has a job, is married, and got custody of his kids, all thanks to Medicaid support. Daniel Phipps, who runs a rehab group, says most of his patients are on Medicaid, and cuts could harm these services badly, as stated by Telegraph.
While the Republican bill exempts people in rehab from work rules, they might still lose coverage if they can't meet reporting demands. Tolbert adds that local hospitals in poor areas will lose money and may cut back staff or services as more people go uninsured.
Politically, this could hit Trump hard in countries like Knox, where people strongly vote Republican but rely heavily on Medicaid. Chris Ross said people can't just ignore such big threats to their survival — even if they're loyal Trump voters, according to the report by Telegraph.
FAQs
Q1. What is Trump's plan for Medicaid?
Trump wants to cut up to $800 billion from Medicaid to help pay for tax cuts. This may cause millions of people to lose their health insurance.
Q2. Who will be most affected by these Medicaid cuts?
Low-income families, especially in rural places like Knox County, Kentucky, where many people voted for Trump, could lose coverage or face harder rules.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
US-Iran deal on cards? Donald Trump meets Saudi defence minister; Tehran sets terms for dialogue
Saudi defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman (left) (Image: X) and US President Donald Trump (right) (Image: AP) US President Donald Trump met Saudi defence minister Prince Khalid bin Salman at the White House on Thursday to discuss de-escalation efforts with Iran, according to Fox News. Prince Khalid, who is the younger brother of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman , also held talks with White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth . The meeting took place ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 's Monday meeting with Trump at the White House. Focus on de-escalation and peace: The meeting is crucial for Saudi Arabia as it wants to ease tensions in the region after the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran. Talks also reportedly covered broader issues of ending the war in Gaza, negotiating the release of remaining hostages and working toward Middle East peace. The Trump administration wants to push for a historic peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel in the coming months. Fox news quoting their sources suggested that the meeting was not only about normalizing ties of Saudi Arabia with Israel but also about necessary steps required to reach it. The meeting comes just days after Trump said other countries have expressed interest in joining the Abraham Accords. The recent Middle East conflict dubbed the '12-Day War' saw Israel and the US target Iran's nuclear sites. Strengthening the Abraham Accords: The Abraham Accords, signed at the White House in September 2020 during Trump's first term are a set of agreements that aimed to normalize relations between United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff said on June 25 that expanding the accords is one of the president's 'key objectives' and predicted 'big announcements' about new countries joining soon. Last week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt named Syria as one of the nations Trump is eager to bring into the accords, noting their historic meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this year during the US President's visit to the Middle East. Saudi-Iran dialogue: The Saudi defence minister spoke on the phone with Iran's Chief of the General Staff, Major General Abdolrahim Mousavi on June 29. 'We discussed developments in the region and the efforts being made to maintain security and stability,' Bin Salman wrote on X. . Witkoff is also planning to meet Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi in Oslo next week to restart nuclear talks, according to Axios. The Iranian foreign ministry said Araghchi spoke on the phone Thursday with Norwegian foreign minister Espen Eide to discuss efforts to ease regional tensions. Trump on Iran talks: Speaking to local media on Thursday, Trump said Iran wants to initiate talks with the US and 'it is time that they do.' He added that the US does not want to hurt Iran. 'I know they want to meet and if it is necessary I will do it,' Trump said. Iran's conditions for talks: In an email interview with ANI, Iran's Ambassador to India, Iraj Elahi, said any negotiations with the US are meaningless unless Washington offers a 'credible guarantee' to prevent future acts of aggression by Israel and the US. 'As for negotiations with the United States, considering their betrayal of diplomacy and complicity with the Zionist regime in launching illegal attacks on Iran, while a diplomatic process was still ongoing, there will be no meaning or value in any talks unless a credible guarantee is provided to prevent the recurrence of such acts of aggression,' he said. Elahi was referring to two major military operations last month. On June 13, Israel launched 'Operation Rising Lion,' carrying out widespread airstrikes on Iranian soil that targeted nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command bases. Several senior IRGC commanders and nuclear scientists were reportedly killed. This was followed by US strikes on June 21–22 under 'Operation Midnight Hammer,' which also targeted Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Iran has strongly condemned both operations as blatant violations of international law and the UN Charter.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump, disappointed by call with Putin, to speak with Zelenskyy on Friday
US President Donald Trump said early on Friday he came away disappointed from a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin because it does not appear the latter is looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. US attempts to end Russia's war in Ukraine through diplomacy have largely stalled, and Trump has faced growing calls - including from some Republicans - to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate in earnest. After speaking to Putin on Thursday, Trump plans to speak to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, he said in remarks to reporters on his return to Washington from a trip to Iowa. "I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad." The two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in some US weapons shipments to Kyiv during the nearly hour-long conversation, a summary provided by Putin aide Yuri Ushakov showed. Within hours of their concluding the call, an apparent Russian drone attack sparked a fire in an apartment building in a northern suburb of Kyiv, Ukrainian officials said, indicating little change in the trajectory of the conflict. In Kyiv itself, Reuters witnesses reported explosions and sustained heavy machine-gun fire as air defense units battled drones over the capital, while Russian shelling killed five people in the east. "I didn't make any progress with him at all," Trump told reporters on Thursday. Zelenskyy told reporters in Denmark earlier in the day that he hopes to speak to Trump as soon as Friday about the pause in some weapons shipments first disclosed this week. Speaking to reporters as he left Washington for Iowa, Trump said "we haven't" completely paused the flow of weapons but blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for sending so many weapons that it risked weakening US defenses. "We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons. But we are giving weapons," he said. "And we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't (completely stopped). You know, Biden emptied out our whole country giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves." The diplomatic back-and-forth comes as low stockpiles have prompted the US to paused shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine, sources told Reuters earlier, just as it faces a Russian summer offensive and growing attacks on civilian targets. Putin, for his part, has continued to assert he will stop his invasion only if the conflict's "root causes" have been tackled, making use of Russian shorthand for the issue of NATO enlargement and Western support for Ukraine, including the rejection of any notion of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance. Russian leaders are also angling to establish greater control over political decisions made in Kyiv and other Eastern European capitals, NATO leaders have said. The pause in US weapons shipments caught Ukraine off-guard and has generated widespread confusion about Trump's current views on the conflict, after saying just last week he would try to free up a Patriot missile defense system for use by Kyiv. Ukrainian leaders called in the acting US envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington, and caution that the pause in its weapons shipments would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia. The Pentagon's move has meant a cut in deliveries of the Patriot defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Ushakov, the Kremlin aide, said that while Russia was open to continuing to speak with the US, any peace negotiations needed to happen between Moscow and Kyiv. That comment comes amid some signs that Moscow is trying to avoid a three-way format for possible peace talks. The Russians asked American diplomats to leave the room during such a meeting in Istanbul in early June, Ukrainian officials have said.
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Vietnam trade pact has multiple takeaways, a clear China red-flag, and some pointers for the impending India-US deal
As the India-United States trade deal looks set to be announced over the next few days, a new deal inked by the Donald Trump administration with Vietnam offers fresh pointers for how Washington DC is approaching these trade agreements. One, the Vietnam deal shows that Trump is serious about tariffs, and that any belief that his administration plans to put off the tariff threats might be misplaced. The US Vietnam deal is clearly lopsided against the smaller, developing country, given that the US will impose a 20% tariff on Vietnamese goods entering the country while Vietnam has been arm twisted to drop all tariffs on American goods. For other countries too, including smaller nations, there is a strong likelihood of the deals being completely lopsided in favour of the US. Also, while the 20% rate is lower than the original proposal of 46% tariff on Vietnam, this rate is certainly higher than the 10% that was levied when the reciprocal tariffs were withdrawn. But there is a really big catch in the deal fineprint. Two, the catch in this deal is that any goods that are transshipped through Vietnam to the US will face a double tariff of 40%. That is a move clearly aimed at one country only — China. A lot of Chinese components make their way to Vietnam and are integrated into goods that the South-East Asian country eventually ships to the US, and the rest of the world. For instance, Chinese fabrics are used in Vietnamese clothing, given that the latter does not really have a cotton or man-made fibre production base. Chinese components go into electronics that are assembled in Vietnam and sent abroad. A higher tariff rate on goods that are made and assembled in Vietnam, but include foreign components, is clearly a move aimed at targeting Chinese producers and potentially make them less competitive while using production bases such as Vietnam. Now, that is a template, which could be followed for other ASEAN countries that are increasingly being regarded by Washington DC as transshipment hubs for China. The broader message from this is perhaps that the Trump administration could continue to act tough on China. In both respects, this could be good news for countries such as India if they are able to wrangle better terms in their deals with the US. Vietnam is a competitor for India, and benefits greatly from the China alliance. Third, the Vietnam deal shows that the pact seems to be centered on headline tariffs, even as they do not seem to really address the sectoral tariffs, which has been a key sticking point for countries such as Japan and South Korea, who were earlier seen as frontrunners to clinch early deals. Sectoral tariffs are an issue for India too. What the Vietnam deal likely shows is that there is still going to be a lot of fog even after a deal is clinched, especially with Asian countries that generally have multiple tariff lines and an array of tariffs. Fourth, the big takeaway from this deal is that the tariff onslaught initiated by the US is likely to continue focusing on China. With the July 9 deadline looming, which is just three-working days away, there are indications the about 20-odd countries that are in active talks with the Trump administration are eventually going to land up in three main buckets — the ones like possibly India, Taiwan and the European Union, which are likely to get a deal, just like the UK and Vietnam. Others might get more time to negotiate, maybe another three months or so. Then there's going to be the third grouping of countries that are just going to get handed their tariff rate without any negotiation whatsoever. Canada and Mexico are outside of these three categories, since the reciprocal tariffs were not slapped on them in the first place. Meanwhile, the last word on the validity of the reciprocal tariffs is likely to come from the judiciary, since the matter is being heard in American courts. There are some implicit assumptions that New Delhi seems to be working with in its approach to a deal with Washington DC. Despite President Trump's vacillations on trade policy, there is confidence here that the administration in Washington DC will maintain a steady differential in tariffs between China and countries such as India. Precisely for that gap to be maintained, a deal, officials said, needs to be clinched by India. The Vietnam deal is being seen as a vindication of this view. Also, while agriculture is a concern, as is the perceived arm twisting by the Trump administration on issues that are sensitive from an Indian point of view, there is a growing sense within an influential section of policymakers here that a deal for New Delhi is vital to keep the differential with China in place, especially since Beijing is also trying to strike a deal of its own. The question really is whether the Indian negotiators would have to settle for a limited early-harvest type of mini deal, or would they have to turn away from the negotiating table for now, let the July 9 deadline pass, and then rebuild efforts to bridge the gaps. A full-scale deal looks out of the question for now. Second, there is now a realisation that cutting tariffs across segments, especially intermediate goods, might be a net positive for India. Also, while the redlines for India would include sensitive sectors such as dairy products and cereals, where agri livelihoods are at stake, there is now greater receptiveness within India's policy circles to cut tariffs on some industrial goods, including automobiles, and some agri products of interest to the Amercians. Also, India has headroom to import more from the US, especially in three sectors — crude, defence equipment and nuclear, to manage Trump's constant references to the trade gap. Third, there is a growing view that the baseline tariffs are here to stay. So, effectively, what India would be negotiating for is a rate between 10% and 26 %. Prior to Trump's taking over in January, the effective duty on India was just 4%, and there were virtually no non-tariff barriers. That number is now a thing of the past. What is more consequential is the effective duty on Chinese products on a landed basis across US ports in commodity categories where Indian producers are reasonably competitive. The net tariff differential with India, and how that curve continues to move, is of particular interest here, given the firm belief in policy circles here that Washington DC would ensure a reasonable tariff differential between China and India. This is, in turn, expected to tide over some of India's structural downsides — infrastructural bottlenecks, logistics woes, high interest cost, the cost of doing business, corruption, etc. Anil Sasi is National Business Editor with the Indian Express and writes on business and finance issues. He has worked with The Hindu Business Line and Business Standard and is an alumnus of Delhi University. ... Read More
