
Millions will lose health insurance under Trump tax bill
The legislation amounts to "the biggest rollback in health care coverage in the history of the United States," said Joan Alker, a research professor and executive director and co-founder of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families.
Vice President JD Vance, who cast the tiebreaking vote July 1 to pass the Senate bill 51-50, said in social media posts the Medicaid cuts are "immaterial" compared to savings the bill will fund through bolstered immigration enforcement. The House is scheduled to consider the legislation on July 2 in advance of Trump's self-imposed July 4th deadline for his signature domestic policy legislation.
How will the legislation cut Medicaid?
The legislation would require states to double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states, which administer Medicaid, would have to set up systems to verify a person's employment or exemption status.
The legislation requires "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to work 80 hours a month or qualify for an exemption, such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The original House version limited the work requirement to low-income adults without children, but the Senate version added the work requirement to parents of children older than 13.
The legislation defines "able-bodied" people as those not medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs.
Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks because of administrative miscues.
What do hospitals and doctors think of bill?
Medicaid insures 83 million low-income children and adults, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit. That represents more than 1 in 5 Americans.
Health policy experts have warned the cuts could harm rural hospitals and doctors who serve a higher percentage of people enrolled in Medicaid. The Senate bill added a $50 billion rural health care fund, double the amount that an earlier version of the legislation proposed.
Still, hospitals are "deeply disappointed" the bill cleared the Senate, said Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association, a trade group.
Pollack said the $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts would cause "irreparable harm to our health care system," and reduce access to care for all Americans.
Hospitals are required to diagnose and stabilize anyone who visits an emergency room. Eliminating coverage of nearly 12 million Americans will "drive up uncompensated care for hospitals and health systems," Pollack said.
Pollack said hospitals might be forced to cut services and staff, and patients could face longer wait times in emergency rooms. Some rural hospitals and facilities in underserved communities could close, Pollack said.
Dr. Richard Besser, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the cuts to Medicaid and a federal food assistance program "will make our country sicker, put children at risk of going hungry and make it harder for families to afford basic necessities" while delivering tax cuts.
When will the Medicaid cuts take effect?
Medicaid recipients won't immediately be impacted by the legislation. The bill sets a Jan. 1, 2027, deadline for states to begin twice-a-year eligibility checks and verify work or exemption status of non-disabled enrollees.
However, some states already have submitted waivers to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to begin Medicaid work requirements. CMS might choose to approve the waivers and allow some states to launch Medicaid work requirements before January 2027, Alker said.
A KFF survey found nearly 2 in 3 people on Medicaid are employed full or part time, and others would qualify for an exemption from the work requirement because they are caregivers or students. Just 8% were not working due to inability to find work, retirement or other reasons, KFF said.
While the bill doesn't mandate work requirements before January 2027, states will likely need to plan for big changes before then, said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the KFF program on Medicaid and the uninsured.
States will need to prepare for smaller Medicaid payments from the federal government while adding the extra administrative duties of verifying an enrollee's work or volunteer status.
"Some states are anticipating this reduced revenue," Tolbert said. "At the same time, they are also required to make pretty costly changes to their eligibility systems."
'Death by a trillion cuts': Health care workers lobby Republicans in Congress
Johannah Alabi's days usually consist of feeding, bathing, and caring for residents at two nursing homes in Bloomfield, Conn. She said most of her patients depend on government health insurance programs, so she is concerned about what will happen to them and her job if Trump signs the bill into law.
Medicaid is the primary payer for 63% of nursing home facility residents and an additional 13% rely on Medicare as their primary payer, according to KFF, a health policy nonprofit headquartered in San Francisco.
"If some of that money is going to be taken away, something has to give," Alabi said. "It's going to come down to the resident care. It's going to come down to the food. It's going to come down to the activities."
That's why she was inspired to join Service Employees International Union members to lobby lawmakers to vote against the bill last week.
They arrived at the Capitol with signs reading, "Death by a trillion cuts," and wearing shirts with the message, "Republican cuts kill."
Jennifer Woods, another SEIU member who works in the claims department at Kaiser Permanente, ran into Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during her trip to Washington. She said she tried to explain how cuts could "ruin people's lives" and potentially lead to some patients' deaths as she followed him through the Capitol building.
"He just shook his head and would keep going," Woods said. "He didn't really say anything. None of them did."
Hashtags

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


NBC News
31 minutes ago
- NBC News
Jan. 6 defendant sentenced to life in prison for plotting to kill FBI special agents who investigated him
WASHINGTON — A Jan. 6 defendant who plotted to murder FBI special agents who investigated him over his actions at the Capitol was sentenced to life in prison on Wednesday. Edward Kelley was convicted in November of conspiracy to murder employees of the United States; solicitation to commit a crime of violence; and influencing or retaliating against federal officials by threat. President Donald Trump pardoned Kelley, alongside roughly 1,500 other Jan. 6 defendants, in January. Kelley's team argued that Trump's pardon should apply to his conduct in the murder plot. While the Justice Department had argued that the pardons should apply to separate gun cases against other Jan. 6 defendants, they said the pardon did not apply to Kelley's conduct. A federal judge ruled that Trump's pardon did not apply to the murder plot. Federal prosecutors sought life in prison for Kelley, calling him 'remorseless" and writing that he had "shown neither a capacity nor desire" to rehabilitate. "On the contrary, Kelley not only believes the actions for which he was convicted were justified but that his duty as a self-styled 'patriot' compelled him to target East Tennessee law enforcement for assassination,' federal prosecutors wrote in a sentencing memo. Kelley, prosecutors wrote, "committed crimes that are serious, violent, and all designed to achieve the same end: the murder of federal, state, and local law enforcement." Kelley "formed a self-styled militia to attack the FBI," and "conducted combat drills to realize his plan," they wrote. He "strategized ways to bomb the FBI Knoxville office" and "identified a 'hornet's nest' at which to store his various weapons at 'arms' reach.'" Kelley also "devised a kill list of individual agents to be targeted" and then "gave the go-ahead command — 'start it' — to his confederates, noting that 'every hit has to hurt.'" Kelley's lawyer wrote that "no individual was directly threatened with harm or violence by Kelley, and no one was injured" and that "Kelley does not deserve the same sentence as an actual 'terrorist' who injured or killed hundreds or thousands" of Americans. Austin Carter, who admitted that he conspired with Kelley in the murder plot and pleaded guilty, is scheduled to be sentenced next month.


Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Washington has crushed Trump's Maga revolution
New presidential administrations often spur talk of revolution in Washington, and that goes double for Donald Trump. Supporters promise an end to the old politics; opponents warn of the end of America as we've known it. But the minute anything needs to be done through Congress, the forces of politics as usual reassert themselves. So it is with the 'One Big Beautiful Bill'. The gigantic tax and budget bill isn't just the centrepiece of Trump's legislative agenda. Given the narrow Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, the power of the Senate filibuster to block party-line bills outside of the tax and budget context, and the disinterest of all sides in forging bipartisan compromise, the bill is likely to be Trump's entire legislative agenda for 2025-26. There was a lot of talk about how the bill would do big, dramatic things and break with Republican policies of the past in favour of a new, populist agenda. Perhaps, Trump suggested, Republicans would raise taxes on the wealthy. There was fierce lobbying to undo some provisions of the 2017 Trump tax bill. But the forces of political gravity are not so easily defied. From the beginning, Republicans understood that this was a must-pass bill. Without it, not only would many of the 2017 tax cuts expire, but the GOP would likely miss the opportunity to satisfy priorities such as funding more immigration enforcement. In the end, the bill passed the House by just one vote, 215-214 (with two Republicans voting no and three others absent or abstaining), and did the same in the Senate, with vice-president JD Vance casting the 51-50 tiebreaker (with three Republicans voting no). The bill's passage followed a 'vote-a-thon' of record length in the Senate, as Senators voted down one amendment after another. When a must-pass bill needs every single yes vote to pass, that's a lot of people who have to be appeased or outright paid off. If the House baulks at the Senate's changes, the same dynamic is apt to repeat itself. So, the broad outlines of the bill look a lot more like traditional conservative policymaking with some Trump flavouring. Tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy are preserved, and coupled with working-class tax relief such as eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and car loans. There's more money for warships and other weapons, and also for the tools of border enforcement (a wall, more agents, and more detention facilities). Poverty programmes such as Medicaid are subjected to work requirements, tightened eligibility rules, and restrictions on benefits for immigrants. The bill cuts back on subsidies for student-loan repayments and green energy. Republican moderates got their own concessions. The deduction for state and local taxes, which effectively subsidises high-tax blue states, was raised from $10,000 to $40,000 (at significant cost to the budget deficit) to secure a few votes from blue-state Republicans, mainly in the northeast. The child tax credit was expanded, which amounts to a payout to many lower-income taxpayers. Alaska was given more generous treatment in some benefits programmes once Senator Lisa Murkowski's vote became a must-have. Hospital and nursing-home lobbies made out like bandits. Fiscal hawks who wanted deeper spending cuts are instead presented with a bill that does nothing to alter the debt-ridden nation's grim fiscal trajectory. Other conservative ambitions were scaled back or ended on the cutting room floor. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood was defunded from the Medicaid programme – a long-time goal of pro-lifers – but the Senate cut the duration of that defunding to one year. The Senate version also cut out plans to ban Medicaid funding for gender transitions, sell public lands in the West, tax third-party funding of lawsuits, or prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence or giving state-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants. A Senate effort to reduce the federal subsidy for Obamacare health insurance plans was scrapped. The end result is a bill nobody likes – which is how lawmaking in Washington usually works. Among Republicans, only the handful of purist fiscal conservatives casting 'no' votes are truly at peace with their votes. Trump and Vance can doubtless sell the deal to Maga diehards as a necessity, and the donor class will be pleased. Democrats are back in their happy place, complaining that Republicans are cutting taxes on the rich and paying for it with welfare cuts for the poor – a hymn they've been singing since the 1930s. Voters instinctively dislike the bill because it's huge and messy, but that's precisely why they're unlikely to remember much about it a year and a half from now at midterm election time other than the Medicaid cuts, which Democrats aim to make the centrepiece of their campaigns. The more things change, the more they stay the same.


Glasgow Times
43 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Lords reform task force proposed amid moves to oust hereditary peers
The select committee would specifically consider the introduction of a participation requirement and a retirement age, said Baroness Smith of Basildon as these issues had been raised consistently by peers and had been in Labour's election manifesto. The Cabinet minister made the suggestion as she sought to reassure peers that promised future Lords reform 'will not flounder', after the planned removal of hereditary peers. Responding, to concerns it would be 'a very good and highly-qualified talking shop', Lady Smith stressed it was important for the House to take a view and so press ahead with changes on its own or be used to pave the way for legislation if required. Although subject to discussion, Lady Smith hoped the committee could be set up within three months of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill being passed and its findings be considered within a year. The Lords leader outlined the proposal as peers prepared to vote on plans to oust bloodline members, which has faced heavy Tory criticism. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which has already been through the Commons, will abolish the 92 seats reserved for members of the upper chamber who are there by right of birth. The Bill delivers on a promise in Labour's election manifesto and was promoted as the first step in a process of reform. Having held extensive meetings with peers, Lady Smith said: 'I think the House is seeking reassurance that the plans for the next stage of reforms will not flounder, and the Government is serious about its intention for further reforms. 'Can I say I've been greatly encouraged by support for two specific issues have been mentioned so many times … and that is on retirement and participation.' She added: 'We all value the role of this House as being self-governing, and I am keen that as a House, we take some ownership in moving forward on other issues. 'But reflecting on discussions and advice, I feel we need a formal and recognised process that is supported by the House. 'I've considered the mechanisms we could use, and I've concluded the best way forward would be to establish a dedicated select committee to look at the specific matters that members have indicated they're keen to make progress on. 'I am open to discussing other mechanisms, but that's the way forward I think may work the best. 'Obviously, I will discuss further with usual channels (party whips) before putting any such proposal to the house, but I would hope the House could probably set up such a committee within three months of the Bill gaining royal assent, and by this time next year, the House be able to consider the committee's findings.' Tory former Lords leader Lord Strathclyde said: 'What authority will this committee have? Would it be regarded by the Government as having authority? 'In other words, would its conclusions, or if it is passed by the House, would it be carried on by the Government, or would it be what I rather suspect, it will be a very good and highly-qualified talking shop, but it won't in the end, lead to anything because the Government will very easily be able to ignore it completely?' Responding, Lady Smith said: 'Well, I really hope that wouldn't be the case. 'There some things that may be able to be done by the House itself, but if the House comes to a conclusion on matters that need legislation, then I think there's an easier way to put through legislation if the House has taken a view. 'So, I'm very keen to have the House express a view.' 'But there may well be things that we can do without legislation. If that's the case, we can proceed. 'Where legislation is required … we have a manifesto commitment for legislation, and we determined to press ahead to these two issues.' Lady Smith acknowledged the manifesto proposal for members to retire at the end of the Parliament after they reached the age of 80 could create problems because it created a cliff-edge and see an exodus of peers. She said: 'If there are better suggestions, I would be happy to consider those.' She told peers: 'It would be purely on the issues of participation and retirement age. 'I'm quite keen to make progress on these issues, and I think by having what I call bite-sized chunks, I've always referred to these two issues as being stage two (of reform). 'There seems to be a consensus around the house that those are two issues the House wants to deal with, and that's why I've chosen those two specific issues because they were mentioned so often by members.'