
Medicaid cuts could define midterms
Congress passed the largest Medicaid cuts in the program's 60-year history through the GOP's megabill right before the July 4th holiday, a $1 trillion reduction that's projected to push more than 12 million low-income individuals off their health insurance over the next decade.
Republicans argue the moves are necessary to address waste and fraud in the program, ensuring that 'able-bodied' adults aren't taking advantage of the system.
But with 1 in 5 Americans enrolled in Medicaid, Democrats hope this massive slash spells political poison for Republicans in the midterms. GOP holdouts voiced concerns along these lines leading up to the vote. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who voted against the bill and won't be seeking reelection, reportedly told Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) that the Medicaid cuts could cost Republicans control of both the House and Senate.
Heading into the 2026 election cycle, Republicans will have to get ahead of Democratic messaging on health coverage.
'The key here for Republicans going into the midterms is to clearly go on offense and define the debate around Medicaid in particular today, not tomorrow, not next month, not in the fall, not next year. They need to do it in a unified and aggressive way today, because Americans' public opinion is on [the] Republican side,' Kristin Davison, partner at the GOP consulting firm Axiom Strategies, told The Hill.
She pointed to polling that showed most Americans — 62 percent, per polling from earlier this year — are in favor of measures like adding work requirements to Medicaid.
The legislation makes a wide range of changes to Medicaid, though the Senate's parliamentarian struck some more extensive ones for being noncompliant with Senate rules.
The law is set to require Medicare beneficiaries to prove for the first time they are working or in school at least 80 hours per month, equal to part-time employment, to keep their health insurance. That will take effect on Dec. 31, 2026, just after the midterms take place.
It will also require more frequent eligibility checks and Medicaid recipients living above the poverty line to pay out-of-pocket copays for most services, including doctor visits and lab tests.
Throughout the bill's legislative process, Democrats have been quick to go after Republicans over the changes in Medicaid, as they have long warned that Trump and the GOP would seek to make cuts if they took power in Washington.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) gave a preview of what Democratic messaging could look like in his record-breaking House floor speech Thursday.
'Almost $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid. This runs directly contrary to what President Trump indicated in January, which was that he was going to love and cherish Medicaid. Nothing about this bill loves and cherishes Medicaid,' said Jeffries. 'It guts Medicaid in a way that it's going to hurt children, hurt families, hurt seniors, hurt people with disabilities, hurt women, hurt everyday Americans.'
Senate Democrats' campaign arm rolled out an ad in May, pulling together various news clips discussing the effects of potential Medicaid cuts. House Majority Forward, a PAC that works to elect Democrats to the House, launched digital ads at the same time in 26 congressional districts led by potentially vulnerable Republicans who will be targeted next year.
The ads argued that the Republicans voted to increase grocery costs and cut health care.
The Democratic National Committee highlighted effects of Medicaid cuts across the country in a release in late June, accusing the party of playing 'political games with Americans' lives.'
The House Democrats' campaign arm said a vote for the bill would be the 'defining contrast' of the midterms and cost the GOP its majority. The organization also appears likely to hammer lawmakers for alleged hypocrisy, pointing in a memo to a letter that a dozen GOP lawmakers signed in April saying they wouldn't support big cuts to Medicaid before they eventually supported the bill on Thursday.
'Let's be clear — vulnerable Republicans have admitted time and time again that even they know their bill would obliterate access to health care, raise costs, cut jobs, threaten rural hospitals, and lead to families going hungry, but they voted to pass it anyway,' said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), in a statement.
'The DCCC will make sure every battleground voter knows how vulnerable House Republicans abandoned them by passing the most unpopular piece of legislation in modern American history, and we're going to take back the House majority because of it,' she said.
Democratic consultant Martha McKenna, who previously served as political director for Senate Democrats' campaign arm, said the party must communicate to voters that the legislation will affect everyone's health care costs regardless of whether they're on Medicare.
'People who are on Medicaid will still show up in hospitals and ERs, and they're still going to get sick. It's just going to drive the cost of health care up for everyone,' she said, arguing this will ensure that Republican arguments that the moves were necessary will fail.
The impacts on health coverage are likely to be immense. Roughly 40 percent of U.S. births are paid for by Medicaid, and among children under 6 years old, more than 40 percent are either covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.
According to estimates from the National Rural Health Association, rural hospitals will lose $70 billion over the next 10 years as a result of the 'big, beautiful bill,' losing 21 cents from every Medicaid dollar they receive.
A June KFF poll found that 74 percent of U.S. adults viewed the legislation unfavorably when informed that it would increase the number of uninsured people by 10 million, and 79 percent had the same view when informed it would decrease funding for local hospitals. Polling from The Washington Post found that roughly a third of Americans, including 42 percent of independents, had no opinion on the reconciliation package. Whichever party has the most convincing campaign message stands to claim this undecided cohort.
A GOP operative acknowledged the bill gives Democrats a 'silver bullet' in the upcoming elections but argued Republicans will be able to 'neutralize' Medicaid concerns with the numerous other provisions passed in the legislation.
'If you break it down into all these provisions that we're actually pushing for with the legislation, you know, I do think it's a win for us,' the operative told The Hill. 'We can at least level the playing field, right? If that makes sense, where you can kind of neutralize the issue by talking about all those key provisions that we have.'
These various provisions, most notably the work requirements, won't take effect immediately, which will present an uphill battle for Democrats.
Democrats acknowledged it may pose an extra challenge but expressed confidence they'll still be able to communicate the pending changes to voters.
One Democratic strategist who works on House races cited the 2010 and 2018 midterms, during which legislation either not yet in effect or that failed dominated the cycle. They noted that many provisions of the Affordable Care Act weren't yet in effect by November 2010, but Democrats still sustained major losses because of its unpopularity at the time.
And though congressional Republicans failed to repeal the law in 2018, they argued that year's cycle was still about GOP efforts to repeal it, for which the party suffered.
'There's an argument to be made here that if voters believe, and it is true that the unpopular bill is really bad for them, it doesn't matter if it's going to be bad for them tomorrow or next year,' the strategist said. 'If they believe it is bad for them, they will act on that opinion.'
Hashtags

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


Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Tips And Overtime Deductions In Big Beautiful Bill Create Odd Marriage Incentives
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump (C) shows his signature on the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the ... More White House in Washington, DC, on July 4, 2025. US President Donald Trump signed his flagship tax and spending bill on July 4 in a pomp-laden Independence Day ceremony featuring fireworks and a flypast by the type of stealth bomber that bombed Iran. Trump pushed Republican lawmakers to get his unpopular "One Big Beautiful Bill" through a reluctant Congress in time for him to sign it into law on the US national holiday — and they did so with a day to spare Thursday. (Photo by Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)When President Trump came out for "No tax on tips" during the election campaign, I analyzed two legislative proposals towards that end that were in Congress. So when it came time for me to read the tax provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that is where I focused a lot of attention. You can find it on page 247 at the head of Chapter 2 (Delivering On Presidential Priorities To Provide New Middle-Class Tax Relief) - Bill Section 70201 - No Tax On Tips, if you want to follow along. In general, I find the provision very well thought out, except for one very odd thing. There appears to be a marriage penalty for well tipped servers tying the knot with one another and a marriage bonus for well tipped servers marrying industrious blue collar workers. It Is A Deduction The provision adds Section 224 to the Internal Revenue Code which allows a deduction for "qualified tips". The deduction is limited to $25,000. The deduction is phased out starting at $150,000 of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), $300,000 in the case of joint returns. The phase-out rate is $100 per $1,000 of MAGI. The "modifications" that are added are for income excluded because it was earned by working abroad, in US possessions or Puerto Rico. The deduction is not an itemized deduction. You will be able to claim the standard deduction on top of it. If married you have to file a joint return to claim the deduction. Section 225 adds a deduction for qualified overtime compensation. That deduction is $12,500 or $25,000 in the case of a joint return. The phase-out is the same as for the tip deduction. As with the tip deduction married people have to file jointly in order to claim it. Why is the tip deduction limit $25,000 while the overtime deduction limit is either $12,500 or $25,000 depending on whether it is a joint return? I don't know and as a planner I follow Reilly's First Law of Tax Planning - It is what it is. Deal with it. A Get Together There are five high school friends who get together. They are not married but are thinking about it. They each make about $100,000 per year, Robin and Terry are servers in a pricey restaurant. Most of their income is from tips. Blynn and Ashley are electricians who work a lot of overtime, well above the average. Jesse is an enrolled agent. They get together to celebrate the Big Beautiful Bill. Robin and Terry want to know how much no tax on tips is going to save them and Blynn and Ashley are of course interested in the effect of no tax on overtime. It is up to Jesse to explain to them that that is not how it worked out in the Senate. It was converted to a deduction and there is a limitation. Remember they are all single. Jesse makes a big point of that, because Jesse is a bit on the pedantic side. Robin and Terry will each get a $25,000 deduction. Blynn and Ashley will each get a $12,500 deduction. Jesse, of course, gets nothing other than a lot of aggravation. Not that anybody would care about this, but the whole crew will be getting $75,000 in deductions. Since Jesse made such a big deal about them being single, the question of what happens if they get married comes up. And this is where it gets weird. If Robin and Terry get married their deduction drops to $25,000. If Blynn and Ashley marry they get $25,000 on their joint return. So the whole crew now gets $50,000 in deductions - a marriage penalty. But what if Robin marries Blynn and Terry marries Ashley. Now both couples get $50,000 in deductions or $100,000 for the whole crew - a marriage bonus. There Is More A lot of thought seems to have gone into the tips deduction and I think the details of that are worthy of a separate post. For now I will refer you to Reilly's Third Law of Tax Planning - Any clever idea that pops into your probably has (or will have) a corresponding rule that makes it not work. The statute seems to address many of the ways people might try to game the system. The difference in the limit on tips and overtime for single people, but not married people strikes me as possibly unintentional particularly since the phase-our language is identical. The original House bill did not include any limit at all, so that language was dropped in by the Senate. It reminds me a bit of the "grain glitch" in the Tax Cuts And Jobs Act of 2017. You probably need to be a real tax nerd or a grain farmer to remember that. That was fixed, but this, if it is not what was intended, may be harder to fix. By the way, there was a reason that I have waited to read the Big Beautiful Bill. Starting in 1984, I deeply studied the proposals which ultimately resulted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That one was really big, which is why we still call it the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. TRA 1986 made my career. There was, however, a downside to all that study. In the years after enactment, I would often have ideas pop into my head based on provisions that were not enacted. So now I don't read them till they are signed.


Wall Street Journal
25 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Ultralong JGBs Slip Amid Fiscal Worries
0019 GMT — Ultralong JGBs slip in price terms in the morning Tokyo session amid fiscal worries. Campaigning for Japan's upper-house election on July 20 started late last week, with the political parties proposing various stimulus measures that could require increased debt issuance. 'Fiscal concerns continue to put upward pressure on longer-dated rates in many rates markets and will continue to do so,' ING's rates strategists say in a note. Regarding President Trump's tariffs announcement overnight, 'it seems like the market is choosing not to pre-suppose bad-case outcomes. Instead preferring to wait and see what actually happens,' the strategists add. The 30-year JGB yield rises 3.5bps to 3.000%. (


San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Colombia's president backtracks on accusations against US officials in letter to Trump
BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) — Colombian President Gustavo Petro attempted to ease tensions with the United States in June by sending a letter to President Donald Trump saying he did not intend to accuse U.S. officials of trying to overthrow his government. The confidential letter, dated June 23, was leaked to Colombian media outlets on Monday. Relations between the two countries are at their worst since the 1990s, when the U.S. stripped a Colombian president of his visa following allegations that his campaign was financed by drug traffickers. In the June 23 letter, Petro appears to backtrack from comments made during a speech on June 11, where he accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio of leading a plot to overthrow his government. Petro had said in the speech that 'a neighboring President' had told him that Rubio was leading a plot against him. 'I would like to clarify that any expression of mine, which may have been interpreted as a direct accusation about participation in a coup attempt in Colombia had no in intention of signaling anyone personally or questioning the role of the United States, without any proof,' Petro writes in the letter. He also suggests that both Presidents should lead a U.S. - Latin America summit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday she was not sure if Trump had seen the letter. Petro did not immediately comment on the letter after it was leaked to the press Monday. Colombia's Foreign Minister Laura Sarabia confirmed the letter was sent last month as part of an effort to 'strengthen" the relation between both countries. On Thursday, the U.S. recalled its top diplomat from Colombia with the State Department citing 'baseless and reprehensible statements from the highest levels' of Colombia's government. Colombia replied by recalling its ambassador from Washington in what Petro described as an effort to review the bilateral relationship, and analyze what kind of progress has been made on issues such as fighting climate change and 'attacking' the international finances of drug traffickers. Colombia and the U.S. have long been partners in the fight against the cocaine trade, with the South American country receiving more than $13 billion in U.S. aid over the past two decades. But the relationship has changed since Petro came into office in 2022, with the Colombian president prioritizing issues like climate change and the transition to clean forms of energy. Petro and Trump clashed in January after Colombia's president refused to accept two deportation flights operated by the U.S. military, arguing that Colombian citizens on the planes were being subjected to inhumane conditions. Trump threatened Colombia with 25% tariffs after the planes were prevented from landing, but the dispute was resolved within hours through a deal in which Colombia agreed to send its own planes to the U.S. to pick up Colombian migrants that have been handed deportation orders. In June, Petro accused U.S. Congressmen Carlos Gimenez and Mario Diaz Balart of trying to overthrow him. The congressmen were mentioned in recordings in which Colombia's former foreign minister, Alvaro Leyva, discusses plans to remove Petro from office, with an unnamed source. Both have denied any involvement in plans to remove Petro. Last week, Colombian prosecutors opened an investigation into the recordings, which were leaked to the Spanish newspaper El País. Tensions between Colombia and the United States come as cocaine production in Colombia reaches records levels, with Colombia's coca crop reaching 253,000 hectares (976 square miles) in 2023, according to the United Nations, a 40% increase from 2020.