Latest news with #HouseReconciliationBill
UPI
03-07-2025
- Health
- UPI
Medicaid cuts would leave the working class more vulnerable
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States 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. Photo by Jonathan Borb/ Pexels The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million Americans across the United States 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 United States for more than 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. Michigan removed work requirements from Medicaid 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 $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. Shortcomings of employer-sponsored 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. More than 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. Medicaid fills in gaps 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. Sumit Agarwal is an assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely the views of the author.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Health
- 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
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US economic growth forecast cut sharply due to higher tariffs
The outlook for economic growth in the U.S. was slashed due to higher tariffs in a new report released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on Tuesday. The OECD's forecast cut U.S. economic growth to 1.6% in 2025 and 1.5% in 2026, well below the 2.8% growth in gross domestic product (GDP) that was recorded last year. The group attributed the slower growth forecast to the "substantial increase in the effective tariff rate on imports and retaliation from some trading partners, high economic policy uncertainty, a significant slowdown in net immigration, and a sizeable reduction in the federal workforce." It also projected that annual headline inflation will rise to 3.9% by the end of 2025 because of higher import prices stemming from tariff increases, before easing next year amid moderate GDP growth and higher levels of unemployment. Trump Admin Seeks Countries' Best Offers Ahead Of Tariff Deadline "Risks to the growth projection are skewed to the downside, including a more substantial slowing of economic activity in the face of policy uncertainty, greater-than-expected upward pressure on prices from tariff increases, and large financial market corrections," the OECD wrote. Read On The Fox Business App "There has been a significant shift in U.S. trade policy since February through a wide range of announcements regarding new tariffs and other trade restrictions, some of which have been reversed, delayed or modified, together with retaliation by some trading partners," the report said. China Accuses Us Of Undermining Trade Agreement In the forecast, President Donald Trump's tariffs that were in effect in mid-May would remain in place through the rest of 2025 and into 2026. The OECD noted the effective tariff rate on Chinese imports is up about 30%, while the tariff rate on other trading partners is up about 10%, on average. "This represents an unprecedented increase in the average effective tariff rate, raising it from about 2.5% to above 15%, the highest since World War II," the OECD wrote. "While the new tariffs may increase incentives to produce in the United States, higher import prices will reduce real incomes for consumers and raise the price of imported intermediate goods. Tariffs and policy uncertainty disrupt value chains and negatively affect investment." House Reconciliation Bill Would Increase Budget Deficits By $2.3 Trillion Over A Decade: Cbo The forecast said that the Federal Reserve will be able to ease monetary policy and lower interest rates once inflation abates, as long as inflation expectations are well-anchored. It also noted that the federal government will need to rein in budget deficits, which are expected to grow larger in the years ahead, writing that a "significant fiscal adjustment will be required over several years." Deficits are expected to rise from about 7.5% of U.S. GDP in 2024 to over 8% in 2026, with the public debt-to-GDP ratio topping 100% by the end of 2026. "New tariff revenues and spending cuts resulting from the shrinking of the federal workforce will be deficit-reducing," though the OECD noted that "these effects will be more than offset by a slowing in revenue growth from weaker economic activity, as well as the expected enactment of a fiscal package for fiscal year 2026." That package would extend the expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, as well as cutting other personal and corporate taxes, boosting spending on defense and border security, while making spending cuts to Medicaid. The OECD said that the package "is responsible for most of the projected 0.6 percentage point of GDP rise in the deficit in 2026."Original article source: US economic growth forecast cut sharply due to higher tariffs Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Jamie Dimon warns US debt and deficits are a growing problem
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon warned in a new interview that the U.S. government's rising debt and budget deficits are a problem that will eventually cause bond market issues, and offered his thoughts on how reforms should move forward. Dimon, in an interview aired on Monday on FOX Business Network's "Mornings with Maria," was asked by host Maria Bartiromo how focused he is on the more than $36 trillion national debt and widening budget deficits. "It's a big deal, you know it is a real problem, but one day… the bond markets are gonna have a tough time," Dimon said. "I don't know if it's six months or six years." "The real focus should be growth, pro-business, proper deregulation, permitting reform, getting rid of blue tape, getting skills in schools, get that growth going – that's the best way," he said. House Reconciliation Bill Would Increase Budget Deficits By $2.3 Trillion Over A Decade: Cbo "Then reform some of these programs that everybody knows can be reformed properly," Dimon said, adding that those reforms can be structured in a way to lower the cost of those programs while mitigating the impact on the poor, elderly or those dealing with illnesses while ensuring those programs are sustainable. Read On The Fox Business App "I think some reform can take place. We're not taking benefits out of poor people or sick people or old people," he said. "You're just putting rules in place that make it more reasonable – you know, less fraud, less waste, less abuse." "I think all of those things need to be done, and then we can conquer that problem," Dimon said of the U.S. government's fiscal challenges. Cbo Says Us Budget Deficits To Widen, National Debt To Surge To 156% Of Gdp The federal government is projected to run roughly $2 trillion budget deficits annually in the next few years, which is historically large considering the deficit was $1 trillion in fiscal year 2019, the last pre-pandemic fiscal year. Deficits have widened in part due to rising spending on Social Security and Medicare amid the aging of America's population. Higher interest expenses on the national debt, which stem from the size and growth of the debt as well as higher interest rates, are the other primary drivers of the deficit. In the last fiscal year, interest expenses were a larger cost than the Department of Defense's discretionary budget as well as Medicare. Moody's Downgraded Us Credit Rating: What Does It Mean? The challenging budget situation the federal government is in led to a U.S. credit rating downgrade by Moody's Ratings last month, which lowered the rating one notch from the highest tier, Aaa, to Aa1. The firm said the downgrade "reflects the increase over more than a decade in government debt and interest payment ratios to levels that are significantly higher than similarly rated sovereigns." "Successive U.S. administrations and Congress have failed to agree on measures to reverse the trend of large annual fiscal deficits and growing interest costs," the firm said. "We do not believe that material multi-year reductions in mandatory spending and deficits will result from current fiscal proposals under consideration."Original article source: Jamie Dimon warns US debt and deficits are a growing problem
