Rep. Boyle: The one thing I would point out, though, is this bill is actually significantly worse [than the GOP's ACA repeal attempt in 2017], because this piece of legislation will throw 13.5 million, almost 14 million Americans off their healthcare.
First, you're cutting people off Medicaid. But second, this does include very deep cuts to Obamacare as well. And finally, I have breaking news for you tonight, that literally just came out in the last few minutes as I've been sitting here: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the official authority on these figures, has now confirmed that this bill, in addition to Medicaid cuts, in addition to Obamacare cuts, includes $500 BILLION WORTH OF CUTS TO MEDICARE that is now in this bill as well.
So, the Congressional Budget Office has published updated estimates of the budgetary impact of the House Republican budget plan (officially called the "One Big Beautiful BIll Act" (seriously); more appropriately called the #MedicaidMassacre bill by certain individuals (ahem) were to pass & be implemented.
In addition to all the dollar amounts tossed around, however, the spreadsheet also includes some important footnotes, including the following (h/t Larry Levitt of KFF for the heads up):
Under the Title IV - Energy & Commerce tab is this:
With the House Republican budget bill having made it past its second significant hurdle last night (the House Budget Committee vote), it's time tot ake a cold, hard look at just what the impact of the bill will be in pure partisan terms.
The logic Congressional Republicans (or at least Donald Trump, who pretty much has complete control over the Congressional Republican hivemind) seem to be going with is that targeting the Medicaid expansion population is good politics for them because:
UPDATED 5/22/25: Welp. House Republicans did indeed follow through with passing their horrific (and disgustingly-titled) "One Big Beautiful Bill" Act which will effectively repeal the bulk of the ACA without officially repealing it, and that's just for starters.
The final vote was 215 - 214, with every Republican except a handful voting for it (and the two who voted against it openly admitted to the NY Times that they would have voted for it if their votes had been needed), and every Democrat voting against it. There were 2 Republican "no" votes...but both of those were only because they wanted the final bill to be even more draconian.
Last week I wrote about the latest state of play regarding House Republicans so-called "big beautiful bill" to gut Medicaid in order to give fat tax cuts to billionaires. Yesterday the first official version of the legislative text was released, and it's pretty much as ugly as you might expect.
...The plan caters more to the moderate wing of the Republican party by omitting two of the biggest and most politically controversial proposals discussed: a per-capita cap on people who get coverage from Medicaid expansion, and a direct lowering of the federal matching rate.
There's two new stories out about where things stand with Congressional Republicans obsessive desire to gut Medicaid & kick millions of people off their healthcare coverage in order to give massive tax cuts to billionaires. The first, from Jessie Hellmann, Sandhya Raman and Olivia M. Bridges at Roll Call, has some pretty positive-sounding news:
...Johnson, R-La., said leadership had ruled out two Medicaid policies that could go a long way toward meeting the Energy and Commerce Committee’s $880 billion, 10-year savings target but faced strong pushback from blue-state GOP centrists.
First, Johnson said the emerging package wouldn’t touch the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, rate — the portion of state Medicaid costs borne by the federal government — for the Medicaid expansion population, which is currently 90 percent.
Johnson also poured cold water over a provision that would implement per capita caps on Medicaid benefits for enrollees in expansion states, though he wasn’t quite as definitive on that front.
Gov. Whitmer Releases Top Lines of Alarming Report on Federal Medicaid Cuts, Finding Cuts Would Terminate Health Care for 700,000 Michiganders
MDHHS report also shows federal cuts to Medicaid will increase costs for hospitals and small businesses, and significantly strain state budget
LANSING, Mich. -- Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer released toplines of an alarming report from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) on the impact of federal proposals to cut Medicaid. According to the new report, these proposed cuts would result in a loss of health care coverage for hundreds of thousands of Michiganders, reduce access to providers for all residents, increase financial burdens on hospitals and small businesses, and significantly strain the state’s budget.
In December 2024, 78.8 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.
71.5 million individuals were enrolled in Medicaid, and 7.3 million individuals were enrolled in CHIP.
41.4 million adults were enrolled in Medicaid, and there were 37.4 million Medicaid child and CHIP enrollees.
Medicaid and CHIP Applications Received
In December 2024, Medicaid, CHIP, Human Services agencies, and State-based Marketplaces received 3.0 million applications, or 11 percent more applications, as compared to November 2024.
The number of applications received has increased by 30 percent since December 2023 and increased by 84 percent since December 2022.
Total Medicaid/CHIP enrollment in December 2024 dropped slightly from November, by 171,000 people or 0.2%.
With all the understandable focus on Congressional Republicans efforts to effectively end Medicaid coverage for nearly 21 million Americans enrolled via ACA expansion, there's been much less attention paid to the other looming threat to healthcare coverage: The expiration of the upgraded financial subsidies for ~24.2 million ACA exchange enrollees, which are currently scheduled to end this New Year's Eve.
As I've explained numerous times before, the ACA's original premium subsidy formula was always far too stingy to make individual market policies affordable for many people...and worse yet, the subsidies cut off entirely for households making more than 4 times the Federal Poverty Level (FPL).
