Louisiana hospitals press Johnson over megabill Medicaid cut proposals
As the 'big, beautiful bill' teeters towards passage in the Senate, every major health system in Louisiana sent a letter Saturday to the state's entire congressional delegation, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R), warning that planned cuts to Medicaid would be 'historic in their devastation.'
The letter said that the Senate's version of the bill would cut more than $4 billion in Medicaid funding, with a loss of more than 16,000 jobs. Even the House's version of cuts, the letter stated, would be a more palatable solution.
However, the 'economic consequences pale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across the state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able to get the care that they need,' the letter reads.
'Steep cuts will force consolidation of services, staffing reductions and closures, reducing healthcare access to everyone in our communities. Our rural communities will especially feel the impact as many of these hospitals are already in difficult financial situations and are likely to experience a significant reduction of services.'
The letter was also sent to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who expressed concerns about the cuts to Medicaid in the Senate version of the bill Thursday and said that the House version would be preferable.
However, Cassidy has not since spoken out against the bill, a vote for which kicked off in the Senate Saturday night.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: New York's mayoral race could be a testing ground for a Democratic comeback
A seasoned veteran of Chicago politics once told me that it often takes Democrats a couple of four-year cycles out of office before they can pull their fractious factions together into a winning coalition. There's a lot of truth in that, and that's why I am not surprised to see the off-year energy and enthusiasm well up around the neophyte campaign of relatively unknown New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Politics will often amaze you. Who would have expected in a time of wars in the Middle East, and reverberations of those conflicts across the United States, that a young Muslim American would have a fighting chance of becoming mayor of the country's largest city? Yet in New York, along came Mamdani to pull ahead of the pack in the Big Apple's Democratic mayoral primary. As Mamdani moved up through the stages of the city's ranked-choice voting from 'Zohran who?' to new prominence as a rising star among next-generation Democratic leaders, I was reminded of young, relatively unknown Barack Obama campaigning through Illinois corn country on his way to winning a hotly contested Democratic U.S. Senate primary in 2004. Obama won the Senate race, and four years later he followed the same meteoric path to win the U.S. presidency. As Obama was, Mamdani is a conventional wisdom longshot who has risen up against a racial-ethnic glass ceiling. A gregarious and jovial 33-year-old state assembly member and self-declared democratic socialist, Mamdani also may be the first major candidate to include 'rapper' on his resume. Early handicapping favored Andrew Cuomo, 67, to prevail in the primary. Cuomo, you may recall, dominated New York's politics for a decade as governor before resigning four years ago amid corruption and sexual misconduct allegations. But despite Cuomo's boatload of campaign money and endorsements by a pantheon of establishment Dems, Mamdani emerged the clear winner, confounding many regular Democrats, including some Jewish party faithful who see in the young candidate an implacable foe of the state of Israel. Many centrist observers bemoan the fact no better consensus candidate than Cuomo entered the race. Even Cuomo's allies complained that he didn't seem to have his old energy or enthusiasm about the race, and the feeling seemed to be contagious. Whatever else you may say about the ex-governor, he hardly represented a departure from the hidebound, conventional election strategies that sank the party in 2024. You know, the performance that brought out the circular firing squads as Donald Trump began his Revenge Tour of 2025. Making a big difference in the New York Democratic primary were voters who are younger and more interested in bold change on pressing bread-and-butter issues, such as New York's notoriously high rent and other high costs of Big Apple living. Mamdani appears to have a lot of ground to make up to reach older traditional Democratic voters who can't hear the label 'socialist' without having heart palpitations. The congenial Mamdani hardly comes across as threatening, but he's going to have to deal with that credibility perception with assurances he still sees something good about free market capitalism, about which he has been uncomfortably snide on occasion. He will also be called upon to state explicitly what his views are on Israel's right to exist, and on how far he's planning to commit the city of New York to oppose what he has termed the genocide in Gaza and apartheid in the territories Israel controls. These are important positions to New York voters on both sides of the question. In my view, Mamdani also needs to distance himself from the 'defund the police' movement, a misguided reaction to the very real issue of police misconduct. While New York enjoys lower crime rates than other major U.S. cities, its citizens still place a high value on law and order. There's time for Mamdani to flesh out some genuine plans for improving enforcement and helping New Yorkers feel safe, too often an under-appreciated priority in liberal politics. Mamdani is well-placed to help New Yorkers of various backgrounds work together and save their communities, beat back the 'soft on crime' stereotypes and restore the sense of safety that many recall from the days before former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went full MAGA with President Trump. Moreover, after all the hand-wringing and soul-searching that followed the Democrats' 2024 disaster, Mamdani offers a ray of hope for a recovery before the next national election cycle takes shape. Among the many postmortem conclusions in Democratic ranks is the sense that it's time for the party's old guard to step aside for a new generation. Here again, the comparison of Mamdani to Obama is apt. He is an avid and appealing campaigner. He is a compelling speaker. He articulates a point of view on kitchen-table issues that Democrats have begun ceding to right-wing populists. Even where he is arguably the most controversial — on the Israeli-Hamas conflict — he seems to place high importance on genuine dialogue based on common notions of justice. As polarizing as Mamdani may appear to some — and make no mistake, the mighty right-wing noise machine is firing on all cylinders to demonize him — the points of contention that surround him are all too real and endemic in the Democratic 'coalition' writ large. Whether Mamdani wins or loses the mayoral race, the issues that challenge his election campaign also challenge the Democrats fortunes nationally in 2026 and 2028. The sooner Democrats mend their coalition, the better their chances will be to redeem American democracy. As Obama might say, keep hope alive!
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials threaten, arrest and charge them
WASHINGTON — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents, wrestled to the ground and held while attempting to ask a question at a news conference of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely criticized Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on-site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers — one of them fatal — and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.). 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.). As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. To amplify their concerns, Democrats have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and used digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.), who added that she believed the public inquiries have '100%' resonated with voters. Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A few Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to President Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until the Department of Homeland Security in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said that 'real oversight power and muscle' only comes 'when you have a gavel.' 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,' Veasey said. 'Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.' Brown writes for the Associated Press.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats howling over Iran forced to defend own party's history
Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history: Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades. From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to (most recently) Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed U.S. military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it. That history has muddled the Democrats' current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress. The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump's powers to launch them unilaterally. Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments. 'Since [World War II] we've had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters after the strikes. 'Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.' Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 'Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,' Johnson said. That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn't stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions. 'Just because it was wrong then doesn't mean it's not wrong now,' said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), a former Air Force attorney who's now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. 'The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it's been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress's appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 'That part is unfortunate. Maybe we've missed a few opportunities,' Aguilar said. 'But that doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye right now,' he quickly added. 'It doesn't mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.' The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is 'Commander and Chief' of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century: The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him). The law requires presidents to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,' but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch. As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit U.S. involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran. One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Jim Himes (Conn.) and Adam Smith (Wash.). Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there's no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump's strikes. 'Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or U.S. facilities. That's the standard,' said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 'As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to U.S. facilities to meet that threshold.' Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. 'If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,' she said. 'That didn't exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.' Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent. In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn't agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. In the same vein, Biden used U.S. forces to target terrorist cells in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama's use of force without Congress giving the OK. 'I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,' he said. 'My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.' Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events. 'We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We'll save that for other days,' Aguilar said. 'But what is in front of us today is: are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?' A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won't force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues. Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the U.S. will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons. Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn't hesitate. 'Without question,' he said. 'Absolutely.'
