Tag: house republicans
These House Republicans Opposed Trump's Medicaid Cuts -- Until They Voted 'Yes'

These House Republicans Opposed Trump's Medicaid Cuts -- Until They Voted 'Yes'

Some of the most vulnerable House Republicans up for reelection next year took issue with provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) before ultimately supporting the law.

That’s especially tricky for Reps. Juan Ciscomani (AZ-07), Jen Kiggans (VA-02), Tom Kean Jr. (NJ-07), Mike Lawler (NY-17), and Young Kim (CA-40), all of whom have made bipartisanship central to their political brands.

A KFF tracking poll finds that 64 percent of voters have a negative view of OBBB, particularly its cuts to Medicaid. An estimated 15 million Americans are expected to lose health insurance by 2035 because of it.

Ciscomani specifically took issue with the law’s health care cuts, writing in an April press release that he “cannot and will not vote for legislation that reduces Medicaid coverage for those who need it” and that he has an “unwavering commitment to preserving Medicaid benefits.” A month later, he voted for the bill anyway.

The Senate then made changes to the bill before sending it back to the House, at which point Ciscomani again took issue with the bill’s cuts to Medicaid.

“As Members of Congress who helped secure a Republican majority, we believe it is essential that the final reconciliation bill reflects the priorities of our constituents,” said a letter Ciscomani co-signed in June. “Most importantly, the critical need to protect Medicaid and the hospitals that serve our communities.”

Despite these objections, Ciscomani voted for the bill again a few weeks later.

The June 2025 letter was also signed by Kiggans, Lawler, and Kim, all of whom supported the bill with Medicaid cuts intact. Those same lawmakers, plus Kean, also expressed concern about OBBB’s rollback of clean energy tax credits implemented during the Biden administration.

Kiggans warned Republicans on the House’s tax writing committee that a wind farm being built off the coast of her Virginia Beach district would be imperiled if the rollbacks stayed in the law. Kean expressed concern that New Jerseyans could see higher utility bills because of the cuts.

Kean’s concern was echoed in another letter from June 2025 that Kean, Kiggans, Lawler, Kim, and Ciscomani all signed.

Reprinted with permission from American Journal News

Clay Higgins

GOP Member TO SNAP Families: 'Stop Smoking Crack' And Stockpile Groceries

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) ignited a firestorm of outrage after a tweet in which he blamed the 42 million Americans set to lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits this weekend for their own plight.

On Thursday, Higgins posted to his official X account: "There are 22 million American households receiving SNAP benefits for groceries, at $4200 per year on average. Try to get your head wrapped around how many pantries you can stock with $4200 dollars in properly shopped groceries. Any American who has been receiving $4200 dollars per year of free groceries and does NOT have at least 1 month of groceries stocked should never again receive SNAP, because wow, stop smoking crack."

Higgins' post was met almost immediately with anger and ridicule. Children's author Kristine Rudolph wrote on Bluesky: "Tell us you don’t do the grocery shopping in your house without telling us you don’t do the grocery shopping in your house." Pennsylvania Capital-Star editor-in-chief Tam Lambert posted that $4,200 per year in SNAP benefits amount to "about $80 a week."

Retired air traffic controller Vivian M. Lumbard argued that Higgins' post reveals how "none of these Republicans seem to understand how much groceries actually cost, especially if you have kids."

"$4200 equates to $350/month," she wrote. "I doubt I could cover all my groceries just for myself for that amount of money, even if I gave up meat."

Political consultant Jamison Foster quoted Lucille Bluth from the sitcom "Arrested Development" (who famously said: "It's one banana Michael. What could it cost? $10?) by writing: "It's one month of groceries, Michael. How much room can it take up? Ten closets?"

Political scientist Miranda Yaver broke down Higgins' post by pointing out that Republicans simultaneously expect Americans to "Stop eating processed foods. Make healthy choices: eat more fresh food" while claiming SNAP recipients are "irresponsible" if they "don't have a month's food supply on hand to live on when we can't keep the government open."

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

GOP 'Glory Days'? The Insurance Market Before Obamacare Was A Nightmare

GOP 'Glory Days'? The Insurance Market Before Obamacare Was A Nightmare

The Republicans seem to hope that most people have no knowledge or memory of the insurance market before Obama pushed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress. Most people would probably not like to go back there.

The big problem with the pre-ACA insurance market is that insurers don’t like to insure people with health issues. This might be too complicated for a Republican politician, but it is pretty straightforward to ordinary people.

Most people are reasonably healthy. For that reason, insurers are happy to cover them. From the standpoint of an insurer, covering a healthy person just means that someone is sending you a check every month. It’s a good deal, if you can get it.

But covering people with serious health issues is a totally different ball game. These people actually cost insurers money. They have to pay for doctors’ and hospital bills, drugs, therapy, and all sorts of other expenses.

Since insurers are much smarter than Republican politicians pretend to be, they could avoid paying the bills for people with serious health conditions by just refusing to insure them in the first place. If someone had a history of cancer or heart disease, insurers could just refuse to offer them coverage. People with health problems are money losers for insurers, they want to cover the people who just send them checks.

Some states put restrictions on insurers’ ability to reject people for pre-existing conditions. The response in that case was to simply charge people with health issues a much higher premium. That meant that a cancer survivor or person with heart disease might pay a premium three or four times as high as a person in generally good health. This would make the policy unaffordable for most people with health issues.

Even if they do end up paying the bill, the insurer will have limited their losses by collecting high premiums. And, who knows, not all cancer survivors have recurrences, maybe the insurer can just put those higher premiums in the bank.

Then there was also the trick of rescission. This meant that an insurer would go over the health forms that people were required to submit before getting insurance, to see if there was some basis for cancelling the policy. This could mean, for example, that an insurer could cancel the policy of a cancer patient because they had failed to list a visit to the hospital on an insurance form. As a result, instead of getting stuck with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills, the insurer could stick the patient with it by claiming they lied when they took out the policy.

This is what the Republicans are telling us was the golden age of the health insurance industry, that was ruined by Obamacare. Obamacare required that insurers issue policies to people without regard to their health and also required that everyone within an age group pay the same premium.

Remarkably, after the passage of Obamacare, healthcare cost growth slowed sharply. This is the exact opposite of what the Republicans are running around saying.

In the decade before Obamacare passed, from 2000-2010, healthcare costs increased 4.0 percentage points as a share of GDP — the equivalent of more than $1.2 trillion in today’s economy. By contrast, in the 15 years since its passage, health care costs have increased by just 1.4 percentage points. If healthcare costs had continued to increase at the pre-ACA rate, we would be spending another $1.4 trillion year, $11,000 per household, on healthcare.

This doesn’t mean our current healthcare system is great. It is very far from it. Insurers still have an enormous incentive to deny claims and refuse needed treatment. Their abuses can be restrained with serious regulation, but we know the Trump administration doesn’t like any regulations that limit corporate profits, so look for much worse insurer abuses in the years ahead. In a sane world, we would have something like the Canadian universal Medicare system and save hundreds of billions a year on insurance costs.

We also pay way too much for drugs and medical equipment. Drugs are almost invariably cheap to manufacture and distribute. It is government-granted patent monopolies that make them expensive. That is absurdity of the tragic choices many people are forced to make when they have to struggle to find tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for a life-saving drug. The drug is actually cheap; we just make it expensive with patents. If drug research and development were financed through direct public funding, as we already do to a substantial extent with the National Institutes of Health, no one would have to struggle to pay for the drugs they need.

I won’t give the full sales pitch for Medicare for all here, I just want to make the point that saving Obamacare should not be the final goal. But the key point is that Republicans are pushing total nonsense in arguing that the pre-ACA insurance market was something anyone in their right mind would want to see again. For my part, when it comes to glory days, I’ll stick with the Boss.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

'On Vacation': Jeffries Scorches GOP Leaders For Fleeing Town During Shutdown

'On Vacation': Jeffries Scorches GOP Leaders For Fleeing Town During Shutdown

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke with reporters Thursday and was asked whether Democrats would be amenable to voting on separate legislation to support U.S. military families—who are already hurt by the Trump administration—while shutdown negotiations continue.

“Yes,” Jeffries answered. “I mean, this is an extraordinary thing. It's unbelievable. Members of the House Republican Conference are upset and perplexed that their leadership has them on vacation. The last day the House was in session was September 19. Republicans got out of town before sundown, and we haven't seen them back in Washington since. This is extraordinary.”....

- YouTube youtu.be

He went on to highlight all of the ways that the GOP’s government shutdown has negatively impacted Americans.

“This is a crisis—both in terms of the government shutdown, the impact on the American people, the impact on aviation safety, the impact on public safety, the impact on the health and wellbeing of the American people,” Jeffries said. “And House Republicans remain on vacation. Their own voters are telling them—including the Republican Speaker—’get back into town, sit down with Democrats, engage in a bipartisan negotiation, reopen the government, and address the health care crisis that they've created.’"

The GOP’s shutdown is predictably damaging vital operations that Americans rely on. Yet Republicans’ response has been to threaten federal workers while claiming that they plan to come up with a solution to skyrocketing health care costs—eventually.

As Jeffries rightly points out, Americans just want Republicans to do their damn jobs.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World