May 31, 2025 • 13 mins
The battle over proposed Medicaid reforms has revealed America's most fundamental political divisions about healthcare, safety nets, and fiscal priorities. This deep dive examines the $625 billion in proposed Medicaid savings contained in a House Republican bill spearheaded by the Energy and Commerce Committee.
At the heart of this legislative conflict are work requirements for childless adults on Medicaid that would save $301 billion over ten years but potentially leave 7.6 million Americans completely uninsured according to nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates. The partisan rhetoric couldn't be more divided – Republicans frame these changes as necessary streamlining to focus resources on "the most vulnerable" while returning taxpayer dollars to the middle class. Democrats counter that these are devastating cuts designed to fund "giant tax breaks for billionaires" at the expense of healthcare access for millions.
The dramatic 26-hour committee markup session captured the intensity of this debate. With protesters in wheelchairs being arrested, marathon voting on amendments, and Representatives surviving on energy drinks and nicotine pouches, the political theater matched the high stakes. Perhaps most revealing were the internal Republican divisions between moderates worried about backlash from cutting popular programs and fiscal conservatives who believed the proposals didn't go far enough.
Whether you're directly affected by Medicaid or not, this legislative battle offers profound insights into how American democracy functions when addressing our most challenging questions: What obligations do we have to each other? How do we balance fiscal constraints with human needs? And what price are we willing to pay – politically, economically, and morally – for our competing visions of government's role in healthcare?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
OK, let's take a deep dive.
We've got this stack of sources, news articles, some analysis,
and our mission today really isto unpack what's happening with
a pretty significant legislativedebate.
This was in the US Houserecently.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
That's right.
We're looking specifically atproposed changes to the Medicaid
program and we're leaningheavily on the details, the
estimates reported by the CBO,that's, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
All right, they looked at this bill that came
out of the House Energy andCommerce Committee back in May
2025.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Exactly so.
The goal is to sort of cutthrough the noise, understand
the proposals, the potentialimpacts, you know.
According to the CBO.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Different sides argued it.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And just get a feel for the dynamics.
What was actually at stake?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Okay, so let's set the scene, these Medicaid
proposals.
They were part of a largerRepublican bill from the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah, our sources frame it that way, part of a
bigger push to enact PresidentTrump's agenda taxes, border
energy and health care obviouslyfitting in there.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And the committee itself.
They had a specific goal, asavings target in there and the
committee itself.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
they had a specific goal, a savings target.
They did.
The reports we looked at saidthe committee was tasked with
finding $880 billion in savingsover a decade.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, ok, $880 billion total, and how much of
that was supposed to come fromthese Medicaid changes?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Well, the CBO estimates cited in the sources
suggested the main Medicaidpolicies could account for like
$625 billion.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Of that, a huge chunk $625 billion just from the
Medicaid side, that's massive.
So how were they planning toget there?
What were the specific policiesmentioned?
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Okay, so several key things stood out in the sources.
The biggest piece savings-wiseseemed to be work requirements.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Work requirements For whom?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
The idea was states could impose them on childless
adults ages 19 to 64 who are onMedicaid.
There were some exemptionsmentioned, but that was the core
.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
And the CBO projection for just that part.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Almost $301 billion over 10 years.
That was the single largestsaving identified in the reports
we saw.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Incredible.
Ok, what else was in there?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Another major policy was about overturning specific
rules from the Bidenadministration related to
Medicaid.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Rolling back previous regulations.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Makes sense as a way to change direction.
Any estimate on that?
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yeah, the CBO figured , repealing those rules would
save close to one hundred andsixty three billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
OK, still very significant.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Definitely.
Then there was a proposedmoratorium on something called
provider taxes.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Provider taxes.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Right I think I saw that mentioned this where states
tax hospitals or otherproviders and then use that
money to kind of boost theirfederal Medicaid match.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Exactly, it's a financing mechanism.
Stopping that practice, the CBOestimated could save roughly
$87 billion.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Got it.
So work requirements, rollingback rules, stopping provider
taxes, yeah, anything else majoron the Medicaid front.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Well, the sources also mentioned penalizing states
that pay for Medicaid forpeople who enter the US without
authorization.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
OK.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And also codifying some Trump administration
proposals to shorten the openenrollment period for the
Affordable Care Act, the ACA.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
And it's worth remembering, like the sources
pointed out, this energy andcommerce bill wasn't only about
health care right.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Not at all.
It also included things likerepealing parts of the
Democrats' 2022 climate bill,like a $20 billion green bank
and a $3 billion pollutionreduction grant program.
So yeah, this Medicaid stuffwas happening within a much
broader legislative package.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Right Context is key, ok, so let's pivot to the
impacts.
This is where it gets reallyheated, I imagine.
What did the CBO estimates, asreported, say about how these
Medicaid changes would affectpeople's coverage?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
This was definitely a focus in the sources.
The headline CBO finding thatkept coming up was that an
estimated 10.3 million peoplewould lose their coverage under
Medicaid 10.3 million losingMedicaid and do the CBO estimate
what happens to them?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Do they get other insurance?
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well, that's the other critical number cited.
Of that 10.3 million, the CBOestimated that 7.6 million
people would become uninsuredaltogether.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Wow, so not just shifting coverage, but
potentially millions losing itentirely, according to those
projections.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
That's the takeaway from the CBO numbers highlighted
in the reporting.
Yeah, and you can see why thatbecame such a political
flashpoint.
It really framed the debatearound potential human costs
versus fiscal savings.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
And the sources did mention these were partial
estimates.
It's worth noting.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Good point.
Yes, they were described aspartial.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So, with numbers like that floating around, the
debate must have been fierce.
How did the different sidesframe their arguments based on
what we read described aspartial?
So, with numbers like thatfloating around, the debate must
have been fierce.
How did the different sidesframe their arguments?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
based on what we read .
Let's start with the Republicanperspective.
Ok, as presented in the sources, the Republican argument
centered on streamliningMedicaid, making it more
sustainable.
The committee chair, brettGuthrie, was quoted.
What?
Speaker 1 (04:42):
did he say?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
He said the goal was to better focus the program on
serving the most vulnerablebeneficiaries.
He specifically mentionedexpectant mothers, children,
people with disabilities and theelderly.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And he also made a point about taxpayer money.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yes, that quote appeared to about returning
taxpayer dollars to middle classfamilies.
Republicans also argued thatany drop in coverage would
mostly affect people who enteredthe US without permission.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And quote able-bodied adults who should be working.
That was the framing.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
That was definitely part of the argument presented
and some, like RepresentativeDan Crenshaw, got quite pointed,
accusing Democrats of basicallymisrepresenting the impact for
political points.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, I saw a quote attributed to him saying
something like Democrats wereusing you and they're lying to
you when talking to opponents.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Right, pretty strong language reported there.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
OK, so that's one side.
What about the Democrats?
How did they argue against thebill?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
according to the sources, their core argument, as
reported, was that thesechanges would be devastating for
health care access.
The ranking member, FrankPallone Jr, was quoted directly.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It was his main line.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
He said the bill would take away health care for
millions of AmericansStraightforward.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
And he connected it to something else too, didn't he
Something about taxes?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yes, that framing was really prominent in the
coverage.
Pallone linked the health carecuts directly to paying for
quote giant tax breaks forbillionaires and big
corporations.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
So a very different narrative there.
What about the workrequirements specifically, did
Democrats address those?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
They did.
They apparently pointed toprevious CBO analyses suggesting
work requirements often justcause people to lose coverage
rather than actually helpingthem find jobs.
Pallone was also quoted pushingback hard on any idea.
The bill was moderate.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
He said.
Nothing could be further fromthe truth.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I believe that's the quote that was reported.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Yeah, OK, so you really see the clash.
One side, streamline fiscalresponsibility, focus on certain
groups.
The other side, devastatingcuts, millions losing care,
funding, tax breaks for the rich.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
And just to be clear for everyone listening, we're
presenting these arguments asthey're reported in our sources.
We're not endorsing either side, just laying out the debate as
it was described.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Exactly Understanding both perspectives is crucial.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
And the process of debating this bill.
The committee markup it soundslike it was quite something.
What did the sources say abouthow that actually went down?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Oh yeah, reports said the bill passed the committee
on a party line vote 30 to 24,but only after this just
marathon meeting.
How long are we talking?
Over 26 hours straight 26 hoursWow, that sounds intense and
probably pretty contentious.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Extremely.
Sources described a lot offriction members sniping at each
other.
That's where that Crenshawquote if I could roll two eyes,
I would reportedly came fromaimed at Democratic arguments.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
And weren't there actual protests inside the
hearing room?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Yes, apparently, protests broke out pretty early
on.
The reports mentioned 26demonstrators being arrested.
Many were in wheelchairsprotesting the potential impacts
.
A group called PopularDemocracy in Action took credit,
according to the articles.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
And the length itself , the 26 hours.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Did the sources suggest that was partly
strategic?
On the Democrats' side, itseemed that way.
Reports indicated they forcedvotes on numerous amendments,
essentially using the time as aform of protest drawing things
out.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
You can imagine the sheer exhaustion.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Were there any sort of human details mentioned A few
came through in the reporting,like Representative Debbie
Dingell apparently nodding offat one point Understandable, and
Representative Richard Hudsonwas quoted listing his survival
kit.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Oh yeah, what was it?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Energy drinks, fruit and nicotine pouches.
He specifically mentioneddrinking four Celsius and being
on his third can of Zin.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Huh, that really paints a picture of these
legislative Frenches.
And didn't the House MinorityLeader show up?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
He did.
Hakeem Jeffries made a lateappearance which signals, you
know, high-level Democraticopposition to the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
So intense partisan battle, but the sources also
mentioned divisions within theRepublican Party over this.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Absolutely Medicaid was described as the biggest
flashpoint internally forRepublicans on this bill.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
How?
So?
What were the divisions?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Well, you had moderate Republicans and maybe
those in puffer districtspolitically who are apparently
quite wary of the fallout frommajor Medicaid cuts.
They seem to have won someconcessions.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Concessions Like what .
Speaker 2 (09:07):
The big ones mentioned were that the final
committee bill did not lower thefederal matching rate for
Medicaid, the FMAP.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay, that's huge.
That's the core federal fundingpercentage.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Exactly, and they also avoided imposing a per
capita cap on spending, whichwould have been another
fundamental shift.
Limiting federal funds perperson instead of the open-ended
match, keeping those out wasseen as a win for the moderates.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
So they avoided some of the most drastic structural
changes.
But then you had the other sidewithin the party, the fiscal
hawks.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Right People like Freedom Caucus Chair, andy
Harris, representative Chip Roy.
They were quoted arguing thebill didn't actually cut enough,
didn't do enough to stop waste,fraud and abuse, as they termed
it.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Harris even posted on social media about it, didn't
he saying the proposals wouldn'tdo much?
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yeah, something like they will do little to achieve
that regarding stopping waste,fraud and abuse.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
And some conservatives were explicitly
saying they needed more changes.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
before a floor vote yes, representatives Eric
Burleson and Ralph Norman werementioned.
They were reportedly unhappy,especially that the work
requirements wouldn't startuntil 2029.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Pushed way out.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Right.
Burleson was quoted saying inmy opinion they don't go far
enough, and Norman talked aboutneeding to get the math in order
and make substantial changes.
It shows that tension.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
So Speaker Mike Johnson had a real needle to
thread there, trying to satisfythe hardliners without losing
the moderates, all with a veryslim majority, and wasn't there
even a warning from a senator.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Yeah, Senator Josh Hawley wrote an opinion piece
around that time, cited in thesources, warning that steep cuts
were, in his words, bothmorally wrong and politically
suicidal.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It just highlights the really difficult political
map the House leadership wasfacing, especially with a
reported Memorial Day deadlinelooming for a floor vote.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
A very tough spot.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
OK, so let's bring this back to you, the listener.
Why should you care about thisspecific, maybe wonky sounding
legislative fight?
What's the relevance?
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Well, a few big reasons.
First, obviously, the potentialimpact on health care for
millions.
We saw the CBO numbers 10.3million potentially losing
Medicaid, 7.6 million becominguninsured.
That affects real people,vulnerable groups.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Absolutely, Even if you're not directly affected.
That's a major societal shift.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Then there's the money.
We're talking hundreds ofbillions of dollars in
government spending and proposedsavings.
This whole debate is reallyabout fundamental ideas.
What's the role of governmentsafety nets?
What's the balance betweenindividual responsibility and
social support, fiscalmanagement- Right.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
These debates reflect deep philosophical differences.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
And finally, just watching how this played out the
marathon session, the protests,the arguments, the internal
party fights the compromises itgives you a real insight into
how messy and complex makingmajor laws actually is in
Congress, especially when thingsare so divided.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
It's like a case study in the legislative process
itself.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Exactly how policy actually gets made or sometimes
doesn't get made under pressure.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
So, to quickly recap, we looked at sources describing
this House bill aiming for hugeMedicaid savings through things
like work requirements and rulechanges.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Which sparked this massive debate Republicans
framing it as streamlining andresponsibility, democrats
framing it as harmful.
Cuts funding tax breaks.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
The committee process itself was described as this
incredibly long, contentiousaffair, reflecting not just
partisan divides but also splitswithin the Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Yeah, and the core tension that comes through in
all the sources is this reallytough balancing act trying to
achieve significant budgetsavings versus the potential
impact on health care formillions, with wildly different
views on the purpose and theconsequences so here's something
to think about, based oneverything we've just unpacked
from these sources.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
when you see a debate like this, with such starkly
different views on needs versusbudgets, what does it tell you
about the fundamental challengeour society faces in trying to
square fiscal goals with thevery idea of a social safety net
, especially when we're sopolitically divided?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
It's definitely something to keep chewing on as
these issues continue to come up.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Absolutely Well.
Thanks for taking this deepdive with us.
See you next time.
OK, let's take a deep dive.
We've got this stack of sources, news articles, some analysis,
and our mission today really isto unpack what's happening with
a pretty significant legislativedebate.
This was in the US Houserecently.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
That's right.
We're looking specifically atproposed changes to the Medicaid
program and we're leaningheavily on the details, the
estimates reported by the CBO,that's, the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
All right, they looked at this bill that came
out of the House Energy andCommerce Committee back in May
2025.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Exactly so.
The goal is to sort of cutthrough the noise, understand
the proposals, the potentialimpacts, you know.
According to the CBO.
Speaker 1 (00:40):
Different sides argued it.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
And just get a feel for the dynamics.
What was actually at stake?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Okay, so let's set the scene, these Medicaid
proposals.
They were part of a largerRepublican bill from the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Yeah, our sources frame it that way, part of a
bigger push to enact PresidentTrump's agenda taxes, border
energy and health care obviouslyfitting in there.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And the committee itself.
They had a specific goal, asavings target in there and the
committee itself.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
they had a specific goal, a savings target.
They did.
The reports we looked at saidthe committee was tasked with
finding $880 billion in savingsover a decade.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, ok, $880 billion total, and how much of
that was supposed to come fromthese Medicaid changes?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Well, the CBO estimates cited in the sources
suggested the main Medicaidpolicies could account for like
$625 billion.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
Of that, a huge chunk $625 billion just from the
Medicaid side, that's massive.
So how were they planning toget there?
What were the specific policiesmentioned?
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Okay, so several key things stood out in the sources.
The biggest piece savings-wiseseemed to be work requirements.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Work requirements For whom?
Speaker 2 (01:43):
The idea was states could impose them on childless
adults ages 19 to 64 who are onMedicaid.
There were some exemptionsmentioned, but that was the core
.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
And the CBO projection for just that part.
Speaker 2 (01:53):
Almost $301 billion over 10 years.
That was the single largestsaving identified in the reports
we saw.
Speaker 1 (01:58):
Incredible.
Ok, what else was in there?
Speaker 2 (02:00):
Another major policy was about overturning specific
rules from the Bidenadministration related to
Medicaid.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Rolling back previous regulations.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
Makes sense as a way to change direction.
Any estimate on that?
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Yeah, the CBO figured , repealing those rules would
save close to one hundred andsixty three billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
OK, still very significant.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Definitely.
Then there was a proposedmoratorium on something called
provider taxes.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
Provider taxes.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
Right I think I saw that mentioned this where states
tax hospitals or otherproviders and then use that
money to kind of boost theirfederal Medicaid match.
Speaker 2 (02:34):
Exactly, it's a financing mechanism.
Stopping that practice, the CBOestimated could save roughly
$87 billion.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Got it.
So work requirements, rollingback rules, stopping provider
taxes, yeah, anything else majoron the Medicaid front.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
Well, the sources also mentioned penalizing states
that pay for Medicaid forpeople who enter the US without
authorization.
Speaker 1 (02:54):
OK.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
And also codifying some Trump administration
proposals to shorten the openenrollment period for the
Affordable Care Act, the ACA.
Speaker 1 (03:02):
And it's worth remembering, like the sources
pointed out, this energy andcommerce bill wasn't only about
health care right.
Speaker 2 (03:07):
Not at all.
It also included things likerepealing parts of the
Democrats' 2022 climate bill,like a $20 billion green bank
and a $3 billion pollutionreduction grant program.
So yeah, this Medicaid stuffwas happening within a much
broader legislative package.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Right Context is key, ok, so let's pivot to the
impacts.
This is where it gets reallyheated, I imagine.
What did the CBO estimates, asreported, say about how these
Medicaid changes would affectpeople's coverage?
Speaker 2 (03:35):
This was definitely a focus in the sources.
The headline CBO finding thatkept coming up was that an
estimated 10.3 million peoplewould lose their coverage under
Medicaid 10.3 million losingMedicaid and do the CBO estimate
what happens to them?
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Do they get other insurance?
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Well, that's the other critical number cited.
Of that 10.3 million, the CBOestimated that 7.6 million
people would become uninsuredaltogether.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Wow, so not just shifting coverage, but
potentially millions losing itentirely, according to those
projections.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
That's the takeaway from the CBO numbers highlighted
in the reporting.
Yeah, and you can see why thatbecame such a political
flashpoint.
It really framed the debatearound potential human costs
versus fiscal savings.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
And the sources did mention these were partial
estimates.
It's worth noting.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Good point.
Yes, they were described aspartial.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
So, with numbers like that floating around, the
debate must have been fierce.
How did the different sidesframe their arguments based on
what we read described aspartial?
So, with numbers like thatfloating around, the debate must
have been fierce.
How did the different sidesframe their arguments?
Speaker 2 (04:32):
based on what we read .
Let's start with the Republicanperspective.
Ok, as presented in the sources, the Republican argument
centered on streamliningMedicaid, making it more
sustainable.
The committee chair, brettGuthrie, was quoted.
What?
Speaker 1 (04:42):
did he say?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
He said the goal was to better focus the program on
serving the most vulnerablebeneficiaries.
He specifically mentionedexpectant mothers, children,
people with disabilities and theelderly.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And he also made a point about taxpayer money.
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Yes, that quote appeared to about returning
taxpayer dollars to middle classfamilies.
Republicans also argued thatany drop in coverage would
mostly affect people who enteredthe US without permission.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
And quote able-bodied adults who should be working.
That was the framing.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
That was definitely part of the argument presented
and some, like RepresentativeDan Crenshaw, got quite pointed,
accusing Democrats of basicallymisrepresenting the impact for
political points.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, I saw a quote attributed to him saying
something like Democrats wereusing you and they're lying to
you when talking to opponents.
Speaker 2 (05:31):
Right, pretty strong language reported there.
Speaker 1 (05:34):
OK, so that's one side.
What about the Democrats?
How did they argue against thebill?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
according to the sources, their core argument, as
reported, was that thesechanges would be devastating for
health care access.
The ranking member, FrankPallone Jr, was quoted directly.
Speaker 1 (05:49):
It was his main line.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
He said the bill would take away health care for
millions of AmericansStraightforward.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
And he connected it to something else too, didn't he
Something about taxes?
Speaker 2 (05:58):
Yes, that framing was really prominent in the
coverage.
Pallone linked the health carecuts directly to paying for
quote giant tax breaks forbillionaires and big
corporations.
Speaker 1 (06:09):
So a very different narrative there.
What about the workrequirements specifically, did
Democrats address those?
Speaker 2 (06:15):
They did.
They apparently pointed toprevious CBO analyses suggesting
work requirements often justcause people to lose coverage
rather than actually helpingthem find jobs.
Pallone was also quoted pushingback hard on any idea.
The bill was moderate.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
He said.
Nothing could be further fromthe truth.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
I believe that's the quote that was reported.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Yeah, OK, so you really see the clash.
One side, streamline fiscalresponsibility, focus on certain
groups.
The other side, devastatingcuts, millions losing care,
funding, tax breaks for the rich.
Speaker 2 (06:48):
And just to be clear for everyone listening, we're
presenting these arguments asthey're reported in our sources.
We're not endorsing either side, just laying out the debate as
it was described.
Speaker 1 (06:56):
Exactly Understanding both perspectives is crucial.
Speaker 2 (06:59):
And the process of debating this bill.
The committee markup it soundslike it was quite something.
What did the sources say abouthow that actually went down?
Speaker 1 (07:08):
Oh yeah, reports said the bill passed the committee
on a party line vote 30 to 24,but only after this just
marathon meeting.
How long are we talking?
Over 26 hours straight 26 hoursWow, that sounds intense and
probably pretty contentious.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Extremely.
Sources described a lot offriction members sniping at each
other.
That's where that Crenshawquote if I could roll two eyes,
I would reportedly came fromaimed at Democratic arguments.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
And weren't there actual protests inside the
hearing room?
Speaker 2 (07:39):
Yes, apparently, protests broke out pretty early
on.
The reports mentioned 26demonstrators being arrested.
Many were in wheelchairsprotesting the potential impacts
.
A group called PopularDemocracy in Action took credit,
according to the articles.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
And the length itself , the 26 hours.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Did the sources suggest that was partly
strategic?
On the Democrats' side, itseemed that way.
Reports indicated they forcedvotes on numerous amendments,
essentially using the time as aform of protest drawing things
out.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
You can imagine the sheer exhaustion.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Were there any sort of human details mentioned A few
came through in the reporting,like Representative Debbie
Dingell apparently nodding offat one point Understandable, and
Representative Richard Hudsonwas quoted listing his survival
kit.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Oh yeah, what was it?
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Energy drinks, fruit and nicotine pouches.
He specifically mentioneddrinking four Celsius and being
on his third can of Zin.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Huh, that really paints a picture of these
legislative Frenches.
And didn't the House MinorityLeader show up?
Speaker 2 (08:35):
He did.
Hakeem Jeffries made a lateappearance which signals, you
know, high-level Democraticopposition to the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
So intense partisan battle, but the sources also
mentioned divisions within theRepublican Party over this.
Speaker 2 (08:48):
Absolutely Medicaid was described as the biggest
flashpoint internally forRepublicans on this bill.
Speaker 1 (08:54):
How?
So?
What were the divisions?
Speaker 2 (08:56):
Well, you had moderate Republicans and maybe
those in puffer districtspolitically who are apparently
quite wary of the fallout frommajor Medicaid cuts.
They seem to have won someconcessions.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Concessions Like what .
Speaker 2 (09:07):
The big ones mentioned were that the final
committee bill did not lower thefederal matching rate for
Medicaid, the FMAP.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay, that's huge.
That's the core federal fundingpercentage.
Speaker 2 (09:17):
Exactly, and they also avoided imposing a per
capita cap on spending, whichwould have been another
fundamental shift.
Limiting federal funds perperson instead of the open-ended
match, keeping those out wasseen as a win for the moderates.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
So they avoided some of the most drastic structural
changes.
But then you had the other sidewithin the party, the fiscal
hawks.
Speaker 2 (09:39):
Right People like Freedom Caucus Chair, andy
Harris, representative Chip Roy.
They were quoted arguing thebill didn't actually cut enough,
didn't do enough to stop waste,fraud and abuse, as they termed
it.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Harris even posted on social media about it, didn't
he saying the proposals wouldn'tdo much?
Speaker 2 (09:56):
Yeah, something like they will do little to achieve
that regarding stopping waste,fraud and abuse.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
And some conservatives were explicitly
saying they needed more changes.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
before a floor vote yes, representatives Eric
Burleson and Ralph Norman werementioned.
They were reportedly unhappy,especially that the work
requirements wouldn't startuntil 2029.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Pushed way out.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Right.
Burleson was quoted saying inmy opinion they don't go far
enough, and Norman talked aboutneeding to get the math in order
and make substantial changes.
It shows that tension.
Speaker 1 (10:25):
So Speaker Mike Johnson had a real needle to
thread there, trying to satisfythe hardliners without losing
the moderates, all with a veryslim majority, and wasn't there
even a warning from a senator.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Yeah, Senator Josh Hawley wrote an opinion piece
around that time, cited in thesources, warning that steep cuts
were, in his words, bothmorally wrong and politically
suicidal.
Speaker 1 (10:46):
It just highlights the really difficult political
map the House leadership wasfacing, especially with a
reported Memorial Day deadlinelooming for a floor vote.
Speaker 2 (10:55):
A very tough spot.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
OK, so let's bring this back to you, the listener.
Why should you care about thisspecific, maybe wonky sounding
legislative fight?
What's the relevance?
Speaker 2 (11:04):
Well, a few big reasons.
First, obviously, the potentialimpact on health care for
millions.
We saw the CBO numbers 10.3million potentially losing
Medicaid, 7.6 million becominguninsured.
That affects real people,vulnerable groups.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
Absolutely, Even if you're not directly affected.
That's a major societal shift.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Then there's the money.
We're talking hundreds ofbillions of dollars in
government spending and proposedsavings.
This whole debate is reallyabout fundamental ideas.
What's the role of governmentsafety nets?
What's the balance betweenindividual responsibility and
social support, fiscalmanagement- Right.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
These debates reflect deep philosophical differences.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
And finally, just watching how this played out the
marathon session, the protests,the arguments, the internal
party fights the compromises itgives you a real insight into
how messy and complex makingmajor laws actually is in
Congress, especially when thingsare so divided.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
It's like a case study in the legislative process
itself.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
Exactly how policy actually gets made or sometimes
doesn't get made under pressure.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
So, to quickly recap, we looked at sources describing
this House bill aiming for hugeMedicaid savings through things
like work requirements and rulechanges.
Speaker 2 (12:14):
Which sparked this massive debate Republicans
framing it as streamlining andresponsibility, democrats
framing it as harmful.
Cuts funding tax breaks.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
The committee process itself was described as this
incredibly long, contentiousaffair, reflecting not just
partisan divides but also splitswithin the Republican Party.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Yeah, and the core tension that comes through in
all the sources is this reallytough balancing act trying to
achieve significant budgetsavings versus the potential
impact on health care formillions, with wildly different
views on the purpose and theconsequences so here's something
to think about, based oneverything we've just unpacked
from these sources.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
when you see a debate like this, with such starkly
different views on needs versusbudgets, what does it tell you
about the fundamental challengeour society faces in trying to
square fiscal goals with thevery idea of a social safety net
, especially when we're sopolitically divided?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
It's definitely something to keep chewing on as
these issues continue to come up.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
Absolutely Well.
Thanks for taking this deepdive with us.
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.