Philippine VP Duterte's Supporters Ask Court to Void Impeachment
Why Barcelona Bought the Building That Symbolizes Its Housing Crisis
Progressive Portland Plots a Comeback
Por qué Barcelona compró el edificio que simboliza su crisis inmobiliaria
A Filmmaker's Surreal Journey Into His Own Private Winnipeg
How to Build a Neurodiverse City
'We feel that the impeachment complaint is constitutionally deficient,' Israelito Torreon, one of the lawyers, told reporters, adding it didn't consider three previously filed petitions.
By not following the mandated verification process, the complaint 'should be dismissed and not entertained,' he said, as the group filed a petition for a temporary restraining order to prohibit the Senate from proceeding with the impeachment complaint.
'This is part of a plan, probably, to eliminate her as a probable contender in the 2028 national elections,' Torreon said, referring to the presidential race.
The move marks the first legal action by Duterte's supporters after the House of Representatives impeached the vice president earlier this month on charges she plotted to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and misused public funds. Duterte, daughter of ex-president Rodrigo Duterte, has denied the allegations.
A House lawmaker, who will serve as a prosecutor in Duterte's impeachment trial, earlier said the actions taken by the chamber were 'constitutional.'
Torreon is a counsel for detained preacher Apollo Quiboloy, an ally of the former president. Lawyer Martin Delgra, who was a transport official during the Duterte administration, is also among the petitioners.
Another petition was filed last week, asking the court to order the Senate to convene as an impeachment court and hold Duterte's trial during the break before the May midterm election.
--With assistance from Andreo Calonzo.
The Undocumented Workers Who Helped Build Elon Musk's Texas Gigafactory
The Unicorn Boom Is Over, and Startups Are Getting Desperate
Japan Perfected 7-Eleven. Why Can't the US Get It Right?
The NBA Has Fallen Into an Efficiency Trap
How Silicon Valley Swung From Obama to Trump
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Employers are failing to insure the working class – Medicaid cuts would leave them even more vulnerable
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the U.S. would lose their coverage through Medicaid – the public program that provides health insurance to low-income families and individuals – under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through Congress. That includes 248,000 to 414,000 of my fellow residents of Michigan based on the House Reconciliation Bill in early June 2025. There are similarly deep projected cuts within the Senate version of the legislation. Many of these people are working Americans who would lose Medicaid because of the onerous paperwork involved with the proposed work requirements. They wouldn't be able to get coverage in the Affordable Care Act Marketplaces after losing Medicaid. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are likely to be too high for those making less than 100% to 138% of the federal poverty level who do not qualify for health insurance marketplace subsidies. Funding for this program is also under threat. And despite being employed, they also wouldn't be able to get health insurance through their employers because it is either too expensive or not offered to them. Researchers estimate that coverage losses would lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths across the country because people would be unable to access health care without insurance. I am a physician, health economist and policy researcher who has cared for patients on Medicaid and written about health care in the U.S. for over eight years. I think it's important to understand the role of Medicaid within the broader insurance landscape. Medicaid has become a crucial source of health coverage for low-wage workers. A few years ago, Michigan was slated to institute Medicaid work requirements, but the courts blocked the implementation of that policy in 2020. It would have cost upward of US$70 million due to software upgrades, staff training, and outreach to Michigan residents enrolled in the Medicaid program, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Had it gone into effect, 100,000 state residents were expected to lose coverage within the first year. The state took the formal step of eliminating work requirements from its statutes earlier this year in recognition of implementation costs being too high and mounting evidence against the policy's effectiveness. When Arkansas instituted Medicaid work requirements in 2018, there was no increase in employment, but within months, thousands of people enrolled in the program lost their coverage. The reason? Many people were subjected to paperwork and red tape, but there weren't actually that many people who would fail to meet the criteria of the work requirements. It is a recipe for widespread coverage losses without meeting any of the policy's purported goals. Work requirements, far from incentivizing work, paradoxically remove working people from Medicaid with nowhere else to go for insurance. Nearly half of Americans get their health insurance through their employers. In contrast to a universal system that covers everyone from cradle to grave, an employer-first system leaves huge swaths of the population uninsured. This includes tens of millions of working Americans who are unable to get health insurance through their employers, especially low-income workers who are less likely to even get the choice of coverage from their employers. Over 80% of managers and professionals have employer-sponsored health coverage, but only 50% to 70% of blue-collar workers in service jobs, farming, construction, manufacturing and transportation can say the same. There are some legal requirements mandating employers to provide health insurance to their employees, but the reality of low-wage work means many do not fall under these legal protections. For example, employers are allowed to incorporate a waiting period of up to 90 days before health coverage begins. The legal requirement also applies only to full-time workers. Health coverage can thus remain out of reach for seasonal and temporary workers, part-time employees and gig workers. Even if an employer offers health insurance to their low-wage employees, those workers may forego it because the premiums and deductibles are too high to make it worth earning less take-home pay. To make matters worse, layoffs are more common for low-wage workers, leaving them with limited options for health insurance during job transitions. And many employers have increasingly shed low-wage staff, such as drivers and cleaning staff, from their employment rolls and contracted that work out. Known as the fissuring of the workplace, it allows employers of predominately high-income employees to continue offering generous benefits while leaving no such commitment to low-wage workers employed as contractors. Low-income workers without access to employer-sponsored insurance had virtually no options for health insurance in the years before key parts of the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014. Research my co-authors and I conducted showed that blue-collar workers have since gained health insurance coverage, cutting the uninsured rate by a third thanks to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and subsidies in the health insurance marketplaces. This means low-income workers can more consistently see doctors, get preventive care and fill prescriptions. Further evidence from Michigan's experience has shown that Medicaid can help the people it covers do a better job at work by addressing health impairments. It can also improve their financial well-being, including fewer problems with debt, fewer bankruptcies, higher credit scores and fewer evictions. Premiums and cost sharing in Medicaid are minimal compared with employer-sponsored insurance, making it a more realistic and accessible option for low-income workers. And because Medicaid is not tied directly to employment, it can promote job mobility, allowing workers to maintain coverage within or between jobs without having to go through the bureaucratic complexity of certifying work. Of course, Medicaid has its own shortcomings. Payment rates to providers are low relative to other insurers, access to doctors can be limited, and the program varies significantly by state. But these weaknesses stem largely from underfunding and political hostility – not from any intrinsic flaw in the model. If anything, Medicaid's success in covering low-income workers and containing per-enrollee costs points to its potential as a broader foundation for health coverage. The current employer-based system, which is propped up by an enormous and regressive tax break for employer-sponsored insurance premiums, favors high-income earners and contributes to wage stagnation. In my view, which is shared by other health economists, a more public, universal model could better cover Americans regardless of how someone earns a living. Over the past six decades, Medicaid has quietly stepped into the breach left by employer-sponsored insurance. Medicaid started as a welfare program for the needy in the 1960s, but it has evolved and adapted to fill the needs of a country whose health care system leaves far too many uninsured. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Sumit Agarwal, University of Michigan Read more: When you lose your health insurance, you may also lose your primary doctor – and that hurts your health House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage Why do cuts to Medicaid matter for Americans over 65? 2 experts on aging explain why lives are at stake Sumit Agarwal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
House Democrat Scolded By GOP Lawmaker For ‘Vulgar' Speech On Trump Bill
Rep. Josh Riley (D-N.Y.) was reprimanded Wednesday for 'vulgar speak' during a House debate on the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as he accused his Republican colleagues of 'shitting on the middle class' with the legislation. President Donald Trump's enormous tax and spending bill, which is projected to add more than $3 trillion to the U.S. debt and cut $930 billion from Medicaid, was passed by the Senate on Tuesday and sent back to the House for debate on Wednesday over its final passage. 'You bail out the banks while neglecting rural America,' Riley said Wednesday. 'You rigged the economy so the corporate PACs that are funding your campaigns make huge profits, jacking up costs on folks who can't afford it. And now this.' He added, 'This bill will kill good, blue-collar manufacturing jobs that we need to rebuild the economy in this country. It closes rural hospitals. It defunds healthcare. All to give trillions of dollars in tax cuts to your cronies.' The bill aims to extend expiring tax cuts that Trump signed into law in 2017, while kicking millions of people off Medicaid and curbing eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps approximately 42 million people buy food each month. Riley began his speech by arguing that hardworking Americans are only asking for 'a fair shot' to make a living. He finished by slamming supporters of the bill: 'Don't tell me you give a shit about the middle class when all you are doing is shitting on the middle class.' The conclusion garnered some cheers for Riley, as well as a stern scolding. Riley: Don't tell me you give a shit about the middle class when all you are doing is shitting on the middle class — Acyn (@Acyn) July 2, 2025 'Chair would remind both sides of two things,' said debate chair Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) from the podium. 'Please direct your remarks to the chair, that is a house rule, and to avoid vulgar speak. We do have families. The gentleman will not be recognized.' Trump claimed Tuesday on social media that the 'big, beautiful bill' would usher in 'an economic renaissance' if passed. A recent analysis showed the so-called Big Beautiful Bill disproportionately favors wealthier taxpayers. The measure barely eked out a victory in the Senate after Vice President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote in favor of it. Only three Republicans voted it down: Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Maine's Susan Collins. Trump said Monday the bill is 'on schedule' to land on his desk by the July Fourth holiday. Big, Blundering Typo Kicked Off Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Meeting With GOP Rep Trump Scores Win With Senate Passage Of His 'Big, Beautiful Bill': Live Updates Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Is An Assault On American Life
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer challenges Lindsey Graham in SC Senate race
Former South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is now in the race to oust U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham. Bauer said in a news release Wednesday morning that he is running for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, launching a primary challenge of the state's senior senator who reported he had more than $15 million in the bank at the end of last quarter. 'Lindsey Graham has lost his way, and South Carolinians deserve a true conservative fighter to represent them in the United States Senate – 100% guaranteed,' Bauer said in a statement. Bauer's formal entry into the primary race was first reported by The Associated Press. Bauer already has a WinRed fundraising page that includes a photo of him with President Donald Trump. Bauer's campaign news release touts that he was an early supporter of the president in 2016, and 'has stood firmly with Trump on every issue, including the border, the economy and draining the swamp.' The campaign also points to how Graham has had public disagreements with Trump, despite the senator and the president being frequent golfing partners and allies. 'The people of South Carolina are fed up with Lindsey Graham and are ready for a much-needed change,' Bauer said. Graham, who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2002, has a 34% approval rating among all South Carolinians. Among Republicans he is at 55%, according to a poll released in May by Winthrop University. The Palmetto State's senior senator has faced primary challenges before, and multiple challengers helped split the anti-Graham vote. Since being elected to the Senate, Graham has clinched the nomination in each of his reelection campaigns without the need to go to a runoff. Graham's reelection also has been endorsed by Trump, who is popular among the Republican voting base in South Carolina. Graham also is being supported by Gov. Henry McMaster and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott. In May, Graham rolled out a finance committee with a list of more than 90 prominent donors in South Carolina. Republican strategist Chris LaCivita, who served as Trump's 2024 co-campaign manager, also is working on Graham's campaign as a senior adviser. In recent weeks, Graham was a key senator in its passage of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' that includes key Trump priorities such as making tax cuts from the president's first term permanent and increasing spending on border security, defense and energy production, according to CBS News. 'Andre Bauer has spent his career chasing titles to feed his ego, running for five different offices and even trying to leverage Senator Graham and the White House for an ambassadorship,' Graham spokeswoman Abby Zilch said in a statement. 'When that failed, he launched his sixth campaign — proving once again, this is all about Making Andre Great Again.' Bauer, who was lieutenant governor from 2003 to 2011, told the Washington Examiner last month that Trump has privately urged him to get back into politics. 'He's expressed confidence in me four or five times in a row that I've seen him,' Bauer told the Examiner, adding he has yet to speak to Trump about the Senate race. Alex Latchman, the executive director of the Senate Leadership Fund, which works to elect Republicans to the U.S. Senate, worked on Trump's 2024 campaign in the early primary states. Latchman on X disputed Bauer's claim. 'This is bull----. I oversaw President Trump's South Carolina campaign and Andre was a massive pain in the a--,' Latchman posted. 'The (former) Lt. Governor thought President Trump's campaign was the Andre Bauer show.' Bauer was a member of the Trump's leadership team in the Palmetto State standing alongside Graham, McMaster, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, and U.S. Reps. Russell Fry, William Timmons and Joe Wilson. However, Bauer wasn't on the stage with Trump on the night of the South Carolina presidential primary. Bauer ran for governor in 2010, and finished fourth in the Republican primary election. He also ran for U.S. House in 2012, but lost in a Republican runoff against eventual U.S. Rep. Tom Rice in the 7th Congressional District. Graham already had two primary challengers. Businessman Mark Lynch, of Greenville, has been in the race since February and put in $5 million of his own money boost his bid. Ethan Holliman, of Conway, also has filed paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission to run as a Republican for the seat and has loaned his campaign $20,000.
