logo
Medicaid Turns 60 Today. America Needs It Now More Than Ever

Medicaid Turns 60 Today. America Needs It Now More Than Ever

Newsweek5 days ago
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Today, on the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, America faces a health care crisis of its own making.
Medicaid isn't just a lifeline for the poor. It's the backbone of our entire health care system and economic stability. Just in time for the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, however, Republicans made extraordinary cuts to the program in the "big beautiful bill," despite scientific and expert warnings. These cuts to Medicaid could translate to more than 42,000 preventable deaths each year. That's almost half a million lives lost over a decade simply because of bad policy choices. Slashing Medicaid isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a ticking time bomb for families, hospitals, and the economy.
President Lyndon B. Johnson established Medicaid, alongside Medicare, on July 30, 1965. In the past 60 years, Medicaid has significantly expanded access to health care, including basic doctor's appointments and check ups, prescription drugs, and long-term care.
The proposed cuts threaten to rip coverage away from millions. Studies show that when Medicaid shrinks, more people delay care, more hospitals go bankrupt, and preventable deaths rise.
The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, built on the existing Medicaid system. That expansion has saved nearly 30,000 lives. In states that expanded Medicaid, premature deaths fell. In states that didn't, they rose. Instead of building on that success, Republicans have taken a chainsaw to the program, and millions will lose their coverage.
Today, one in five Americans rely on Medicaid. Republicans paint a false picture of young men sitting on their couches, too lazy to get jobs, playing video games all day as the ones eating up Medicaid tax dollars. In reality, more than half of Medicaid spending goes toward the elderly and people with disabilities. The majority of adults on Medicaid are employed either full- or part-time. Nearly half of all U.S. births are covered by Medicaid. About two-thirds of nursing home residents depend on it.
Medicaid serves people in every corner of this country, from inner cities to small rural towns, Democrats to Republicans. In fact, about 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries lean Republican.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 17 million more Americans will become uninsured by 2034 due to the bill's changes. Republicans insist they didn't change Medicaid eligibility rules. While that's true, it ignores the fact that the bureaucratic barriers of extra forms, tighter deadlines, and poor communication will ultimately cause mass disenrollment.
Here's what that means in practice: People won't know they've lost coverage until they show up in the ER. Parents will skip pediatric checkups. Cancer patients will delay follow-up care. Preventable conditions will become fatal.
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.Furthermore, economic health relies heavily on a community's physical health. Republicans are supposedly the party of small businesses, but the proposed cuts will end up hurting small businesses in the long run. Once the cuts go through, more small businesses will have to pay and offer health care plans to their employees.
Ironically, Medicaid cuts will end up hurting Republicans' own constituents the most. In rural areas, where politics often skew to the right, hospitals will have to enforce layoffs and potentially shut down due to patients being unable to pay for their care.
This isn't about partisan politics, though. Ultimately, people will die and American lives will be lost. Republican or Democrat, we will all feel the crippling effects of slashing Medicaid.
Conservatives value strong families and thriving small towns—Medicaid cuts will devastate both. Liberals champion social safety nets—this would shred one of the biggest. Both sides claim to protect working Americans. Medicaid covers millions of Americans who are employed but earn too little to afford private insurance. When one in five Americans loses their safety net from Medicaid, we all feel the consequences.
So what can people do if they're at risk of losing Medicaid?
First, make sure your contact information is current with your local Medicaid office. If you've moved recently, the system likely doesn't know. The government won't track you down to keep you covered. Second, if you lose coverage, act quickly: you'll have a limited window to enroll through the ACA marketplace, your employer, or another public option. Visit healthcare.gov or contact a Medicaid navigator for help. Many hospitals and local officials also have staff who can walk you through next steps.
Cutting Medicaid will not make America healthier. It will do the opposite: create health care deserts, saddle hospitals with unpaid bills, and force taxpayers to absorb higher costs elsewhere.
Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was born. Today, we see the entire system at risk. If we truly want to make America a healthier, more resilient nation, we must protect Medicaid—not as charity, but as infrastructure.
Dr. Anahita Dua is a vascular surgeon, Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School, and the Founder and Chair of Healthcare for Action.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market
How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market

Newsweek

time4 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

How Eliminating Capital Gains on Home Sales Could Impact Housing Market

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump said he's "thinking about" eliminating the federal capital gains tax on home sales, in a move that experts are welcoming while warning that it would favor wealthier homeowners more than anyone else. "We are thinking tax on capital gains on houses," Trump told the press on July 22, showing support for a proposal that was first floated by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. While it is not yet clear whether any real change would come out of either Greene's bill—the "No Tax on Home Sales Act"—or Trump's suggestion, experts already estimate that the change would benefit wealthy American homeowners over low-to-mid-earning buyers, exacerbating existing inequality in the U.S. housing market. Even so, most agree that a revision of the current capital gains tax system is urgently needed to address the current housing affordability issues. What Is the Capital Gains Tax on Home Sales? Homeowners who sell a home on which they have realized a significant capital gain, meaning that they are now selling it for more than they originally purchased it for themselves, are likely to pay a federal capital gains tax on part of that gain. This is true for long-term homeowners, while those offloading a property within a year of buying it won't have to pay capital gains on the sale. Homeowners who have lived in a home as their primary residence for at least 24 months in the five years before the sale receive an exemption on the first $250,000 of gains for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House on July 30, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images "Put simply, the number of homeowners who pay capital gains taxes on a sale is limited due to these exclusions, but there's a big catch," Chief Economist Danielle Hale said in a statement shared with Newsweek. "This exclusion was put into place in 1997 and was not indexed for inflation. If it had merely been indexed for inflation when originally enacted, those exclusions would be more than twice as large as they are today ($506k and $1.13M)," she said. "And home price increases have outpaced inflation in many of those years, further eroding the value of the exclusions." As it is, Hale said, "the cap is most likely to be a problem for homeowners in high-cost states where home prices have appreciated sharply, like California and Massachusetts. "It may also be an issue for those with above-median priced homes in lower cost states, especially in areas where home prices have increased rapidly and if the homeowners have lived in their homes for an extended period of time, which is more common for older homeowners," she added. But as property values have skyrocketed since the pandemic homebuying frenzy, more and more homeowners across the country are finding themselves realizing high capital gains, whether they are in expensive areas of the U.S. or not. How Would Its Elimination Impact the U.S. Housing Market? Shannon McGahn, executive vice president and chief advocacy officer at the National Association of Realtors (NAR), told Newsweek that her group welcomes any proposal addressing "the outdated capital gains thresholds hurting American homeowners." According to McGahn, "this is no longer just a concern for high-end properties," but one that is likely to affect more and more American homeowners in the near future. NAR's research has found that nearly 29 million homeowners, roughly one-third of the market, already face potential capital gains taxes if they sell, "and that number is expected to climb sharply over the next decade," McGahn said. By 2035, nearly 70 percent of homeowners could exceed the $250,000 cap, according to NAR, "including many middle-class families who've simply owned their homes for a long time in fast-growing markets," McGahn said. "These tax burdens create a 'lock-in effect,' especially for seniors, discouraging people from selling and keeping much-needed homes off the market," she said. Increasing the exclusion or eliminating the capital gains tax for home sellers "could enable those who would otherwise face a steep tax bill to sell and downsize or relocate, potentially opening up housing inventory in some of the highest-cost housing markets," Hale said. "Otherwise, the current tax structure actually incentivizes homeowners who may be facing a large capital gains tax bill to stay in their homes until they die—even if the home is no longer a good fit for their needs," she added. "This is because when a homeowner passes away, the home receives what's called a stepped-up basis—the amount used to calculate capital gains is reset to the current market value, essentially eliminating any outstanding capital gains liability for individuals with a similar but more nuanced result for surviving spouses." According to McGahn, eliminating capital gains on home sales is about fairness. "A homeowner shouldn't be taxed like an investor," she said. "This is about protecting equity and helping the entire market function more efficiently. President Trump's comments reflect growing momentum for reform, and we're encouraged to see this issue gaining attention at the highest levels." But other experts are skeptical of the impact that eliminating capital gains on home sales could have on American homeowners right now. "Long-term homeowners in markets that rapidly appreciated over the last 5+ years may feel an additional burden, which could discourage them from selling. However, these taxes generally apply to a relatively small subset of sellers, and are not likely influencing the broader market too severely," Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at previously told Newsweek. "For sellers in low-to-mid priced markets, the current exclusion is sufficient. The national median listing price was $441,000 in June, which is less than the $500,000 joint exclusion, meaning the typical U.S. home seller is not subject to capital gains tax if filing jointly," she said. There are also some potential downsides to consider that may follow a potential abolition of the federal capital gains tax on home sales. "Ongoing affordability issues could be exacerbated by abolishing this tax as it could fuel demand and lead to a more competitive housing market, especially where supply is constrained," Jones said. "Removing this tax would favor wealthy owners which could worsen equity inequality and make the market even more challenging for low-to-mid earning buyers."

Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it
Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it

USA Today

time5 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump keeps making disastrous trade deals because of it

Trump's tariffs have already collectively cost American car manufacturers billions of dollars. That isn't sustainable – and it gives foreign automakers a leg up. The Trump administration has struck a tariff deal with Japan, marking a significant accomplishment ahead of the Trump-imposed Aug. 1 deadline for deals to be reached. But the deal has some obvious problems, namely with how it fits into the automotive industry landscape. As it stands, the tariff burden on Japanese manufacturers importing their vehicles to the United States is lower than that on domestic producers importing their materials. American automakers are not happy with the deal. President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Japan serves to demonstrate how little administration officials actually understands what they are doing in the trade policy arena. Tariffs are bad policy – and Trump's tariffs are being implemented in the most chaotic manner possible. Trump's trade policy doesn't even give US car companies a leg up Proponents of tariffs love to claim that their policies will incentivize domestic production, but the reality is that they add additional burdens to domestic producers. The Japanese trade agreement spans many sectors, but this idea can be seen clearly in the automotive industry. American car manufacturers are charged tariffs of 25% on imported parts and 50% on imported aluminum and steel. The costs of tariffs on importing components and raw materials essential to vehicles only serve to drive up production costs for those companies doing what Trump wants, building in America. Opinion: Republicans accused Biden of trying to bribe voters. Now they're doing the same. These tariffs have already collectively cost domestic producers billions of dollars. Ford alone lost $800 million to tariffs in the second quarter and expects to lose $2 billion this year. Ford has rather admirably taken on a great portion of the costs of these tariffs themselves rather than raising prices, but because of that, tariff policies have resulted in Ford's first quarterly loss in two years. That isn't sustainable. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Not only are these tariffs costing domestic producers money, but they are also disadvantaging them against foreign competition. Japanese car companies face a tariff of just 15%, thereby further incentivizing the import of Japanese cars over domestic production. This rate is also notably lower than the 25% rate on vehicles coming from Mexico and Canada, both of which produce vehicles for American car companies. There's an even greater irony in that fact because Japanese manufacturers, such as Toyota, have announced expansions to their already existing U.S.-based manufacturing plants. It turns out that continuing production in Japan will be better. Tariffs are bad – but Trump's aren't even doing what he claims The backward effects that tariffs are having on domestic car production are a perfect example of how dysfunctional this administration's policy is on the issue. Even the tariffs that are put into effect don't achieve what they purport to. Opinion: I'll never have a car payment. Here's my secret. In the case of cars, they are doing the opposite, giving manufacturers from a foreign nation an artificial leg up over American ones. In this case, the disparity is a result of negotiated deals taking place at different times. Trump is rewarding Japan by coming around to make a deal before both Mexico and Canada. Another area of concern is the sudden and unexpected shock of tariffs, often with little advance notice to the impacted industries. Tariffs don't make sense, but they make even less sense when there is no phase in the window in which companies can change their manufacturing practices to avoid them. Nor can any company be faulted for not rapidly changing any of their practices, given the fact that Trump's tariff policies have changed by the week, or sometimes even by the day. The volatile nature of these policies has made it impossible for any affected parties to make reasonable decisions going forward. This administration's dysfunctional approach to tariffs has resulted in a headache for everyone involved. While everyone suffers, domestic producers end up getting the short end of the stick. None of this is good. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Congress is on summer break. Funding 'chaos' awaits.
Congress is on summer break. Funding 'chaos' awaits.

Politico

time6 minutes ago

  • Politico

Congress is on summer break. Funding 'chaos' awaits.

House conservatives would likely harangue Johnson if he agrees to go along with any package that doesn't cut or at least freeze funding. They are also demanding that funding clawbacks are not counted toward topline spending reductions. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said on social media last month that the 'deal' to get House fiscal conservatives to support final passage of the GOP domestic policy megabill in July was that funding for the new fiscal year would be 'at or below' current levels. 'That is already negotiated,' insisted Roy, a member of the House Freedom Caucus. The House and Senate are already endorsing drastically different funding levels in the appropriations bills they have been able to advance so far. The funding measures House Republicans rolled out earlier this summer would meet spending-cut demands by cleaving non-defense agencies by almost 6 percent overall and keeping the Pentagon's budget flat. Senate lawmakers, on the other hand, have proposed $20 billion more for the military and at least modest funding increases for most non-defense agencies. If House conservatives get their way in September, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will be under intense pressure from his base to threaten a government shutdown unless the GOP agrees to some concessions. Republicans need Democratic votes in the Senate for any legislation to clear the 60-vote procedural hurdle to move forward, and the New York Democrat already endured a political drubbing in March after helping advance a Republican funding bill days before the start of a shutdown he worried would end up empowering Trump. 'If we have to swallow a House-only radical Republican bill, that's going to be a problem,' said Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Schumer has to balance the desires of his progressive base with the demands of his more centrist flank. In a floor speech Saturday morning, he praised the Senate-passed funding package as 'an example of how the funding process could work if the other side is willing to work in good faith, instead of listening all the time to Donald Trump and Russell Vought and the extreme right.' But he also warned, 'the onus is on the Republican Majority ... to ensure this process stays bipartisan in the fall.' And least one member of his caucus said he's not interested in Democrats playing hardball: Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has vowed, 'I'm voting to keep the government open.' In the meantime, Thune is already mulling how to pass a second tranche of funding bills. That next bundle could include some of the largest, and most contentious, appropriations measures containing money for the Pentagon, as well as dollars for key Democratic priorities like labor, education and health agencies. He is also predicting that the Senate bill will, on the whole, freeze or cut funding compared to current levels — a possibly winning pitch to his own fiscal hawks and those in the House. Yet even with signs pointing to future conservative strong-arming, Senate Democrats are warily leaning into bipartisan funding negotiations after Republicans burned them last month by passing Trump's request to claw back $9 billion from public broadcasting and foreign aid.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store