More stories

  • in

    Trump advisers contemplating cuts to Medicaid and other welfare programs

    Donald Trump’s economic advisers and congressional Republicans are discussing possible cuts to Medicaid, food stamps and other government welfare programmes to cover the costs of extending the president-elect’s multitrillion-dollar 2017 tax cut.The cuts could mean new work requirements and spending caps, according to the Washington Post, citing sources involved in the talks, including aides in Trump’s transition team.Extending the tax cuts – most of which are due to expire next year – could add $4tn to the national debt, which already stands at $36tn.But Republicans fear triggering a political backlash by slashing programmes that serve an estimated 70 million Americans to pay for a tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthy.The 2017 tax cuts were criticised for being skewed in favour of the rich, with households in the top 1% income bracket receiving a reduction of $60,000 in 2025, compared with less than $500 for those in the bottom 60%, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Trump campaigned on extending the 2017 reduction while also vowing to abolish taxes on tips for restaurant workers.Republicans support the extension but worry that the loss of revenue could add to government borrowing – prompting them to search for savings in others areas.In addition to safety net programme cuts, some Republicans are considering re-purposing clean energy funds passed by Democrats.The GOP has warned that the costs of Medicaid – whose claimants can include low-income people, newborns, people who are blind or disabled, and those suffering from certain illnesses – has ballooned with the expansion of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.Jodey Arrington, the chair of the House of Representatives’ budget committee, told reporters that a “responsible and reasonable work requirement” could save $100bn in Medicaid costs, while another $160bn could be cut by checking eligibility more than once a year.The Paragon Health Institute, a rightwing thinktank, published a study in the summer proposing other reductions that it said could save $500bn over a decade. It said rule changes to Medicaid recently enacted over the past year by the Biden administration could cost up to $135bn nationally and between $46.3bn and $82.3bn at state level over the next five years.Alterations to food stamps – officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – could take the form of limiting which items recipients can purchase with benefits or broadening work requirements. The latter proposal was floated in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint for radically overhauling US government.Qualifying criteria are tailored to assist the poorest households, with eligibility determined by income and household size. A single person with no dependents needs to be earning less than $1,354 a month to qualify. A household with two or more people but earning $1,800 per month would also be eligible.The projected cuts to welfare entitlement programmes come as the Republicans prepare to control the White House and both chambers of Congress following this month’s election.It also coincides with Trump’s choice of Elon Musk, the Tesla and Space X entrepreneur, to head a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency along with Vivek Ramaswamy, his former Republican primary opponent, with the brief of slashing waste from federal spending. Musk has spoken of making around $2tn in spending cuts.The US is currently running a budget deficit at around 6% of its gross domestic product. The national debt held by the public is currently worth around 97% of the national economy.The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has argued that, without major spending reductions, the deficit would widen significantly in the next 10 years, while the US national debt could soar to 143% of the economy. More

  • in

    Some States Say They Can’t Afford Ozempic and Other Weight Loss Drugs

    Public employees in West Virginia who took the drugs lost weight and were healthier, and some are despondent that the state is canceling a program to help pay for them.Joanna Bailey, a family physician and obesity specialist, doesn’t want to tell her patients that they can’t take Wegovy, but she has gotten used to it.Around a quarter of the people she sees in her small clinic in Wyoming County would benefit from the weight-loss medications known as GLP-1s, which also include Ozempic, Zepbound and Mounjaro, she says. The drugs have helped some of them lose 15 to 20 percent of their weight. But most people in the area she serves don’t have insurance that covers the cost, and virtually no one can afford sticker prices of $1,000 to $1,400 a month.“Even my richest patients can’t afford it,” Dr. Bailey said. She then mentioned something that many doctors in West Virginia — among the poorest states in the country, with the highest prevalence of obesity, at 41 percent — say: “We’ve separated between the haves and the have-nots.”Such disparities sharpened in March when West Virginia’s Public Employees Insurance Agency, which pays most of the cost of prescription drugs for more than 75,000 teachers, municipal workers and other public employees and their families, canceled a pilot program to cover weight-loss drugs.Some private insurers help pay for medications to treat obesity, but most Medicaid programs do so only to manage diabetes, and Medicare covers Wegovy and Zepbound only when they are prescribed for heart problems.Over the past year, states have been trying, amid rising demand, to determine how far to extend coverage for public employees. Connecticut is on track to spend more than $35 million this year through a limited weight-loss coverage initiative. In January, North Carolina announced that it would stop paying for weight-loss medications after forking out $100 million for them in 2023 — 10 percent of its spending on prescription drugs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    In Late-Stage Budget Talks, Hochul Wins Concessions From N.Y. Lawmakers

    Gov. Kathy Hochul used the $237 billion budget to wedge in contentious issues like extending Mayor Eric Adams’s control over New York City schools.In the days approaching April 1, the corridors and backrooms of the New York State Capitol tend to be filled with tension and chaos, as the governor, lawmakers and staff scramble to meet the deadline to pass a state budget that is as much a policy blueprint as it is a spending plan.This year was different.Budget talks dragged out almost three weeks past the April 1 deadline, leading some to wonder whether Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat in her first full term, had lost control of the process.But by the time the budget was officially passed by the Legislature on Saturday, it was clear that Ms. Hochul had achieved her goal: a final $237 billion budget that included a checklist of her priorities. They included new resources to fight retail crime, a statewide artificial intelligence consortium, and a landmark housing deal aimed at bolstering residential construction — all without raising taxes on the wealthy.The governor’s long-game approach seemed to reflect lessons she has learned in reaching the three budget agreements since she took office in 2021: that a governor can lead while honoring the spirit of collaboration and that a good deal is better than a fast one.After Ms. Hochul announced on Monday that leaders had reached agreement on a budget framework, she continued to negotiate over the next few days, most notably persuading state lawmakers to use the budget to extend mayoral control of New York City schools for two more years.The final budget contains $2.4 billion to support migrant services in New York City, an increase of half a billion dollars over last year’s funding that should cover case management, medical expenses and legal resources. It also includes a substantial new tax break for developers, expanded tenant protections and new enforcement powers for localities to crack down on unlicensed cannabis shops.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • in

    Americans Are Signing Up for Obamacare in Record Numbers

    The NewsMore than 15 million people have signed up for health insurance plans offered on the Affordable Care Act’s federal marketplace, a 33 percent increase compared to the same time last year, according to preliminary data released by the Biden administration on Wednesday.Federal health officials project that more than 19 million people will enroll in 2024 coverage by the end of the current enrollment period next month. That total would include those who gain coverage through state marketplaces, continuing the record-setting pace.“It means more Americans have the peace of mind of knowing that going to the doctor won’t empty their bank account,” Xavier Becerra, the health and human services secretary, said in a statement.An Affordable Care Act sign-up kiosk in a mall in Miami this month.Rebecca Blackwell/Associated PressWhy It Matters: The Affordable Care Act is expanding its reach.Despite a recent warning from former President Donald J. Trump, the front-runner in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, that he was “seriously looking at alternatives” to the Affordable Care Act, the latest surge in marketplace enrollment is a testament to the law’s enduring power.Legislation passed earlier in the Covid-19 pandemic increased federal subsidies for people buying plans, lowering the costs for many Americans. The Biden administration also lengthened the sign-up period and increased advertising for the program and funding for so-called navigators who help people enroll.“More and more people are realizing they can come onto the marketplace,” said Cynthia Cox, the director of the Program on the Affordable Care Act at KFF, a nonprofit health policy research group.She added: “Just because the A.C.A. has been around for a while doesn’t mean people who need to sign up for it know how to do that.”One Eye-Popping Statistic: 750,000 sign-ups in a single day.On Dec. 15 — the deadline to sign up for coverage that begins on Jan. 1 — nearly 750,000 people opted for a marketplace plan on HealthCare.gov. It was the largest single-day total yet.Dr. Benjamin Sommers, a health economist at Harvard who served in the Biden administration, said that improved outreach helped explain the record sign-ups. “I’m pleasantly surprised,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • in

    A Democratic Governor in Mississippi? He Thinks It’s Possible.

    With a promise to expand Medicaid and a focus on turning out Black voters, Brandon Presley is confident he can do what no Democrat has done in 20 years. After stopping by a meet-and-greet in Ridgeland, a porch festival in Vicksburg, the Great Delta Bear Affair in Rolling Fork and an event on a baseball diamond in Yazoo City, Brandon Presley entered a packed room in McComb, launching into the message he believes can get a Democrat — namely, himself — elected governor of Mississippi. He would immediately move to expand Medicaid, which would help resuscitate rural hospitals and provide largely free government health insurance to most low-income adults. He would slash a hated tax on groceries. Above all, he assured the crowd, he would be a very different governor than Tate Reeves, the Republican incumbent, whom he denounced as ensconced in privilege and dented by scandal.“The fight in politics in Mississippi is not right versus left,” Mr. Presley, an elected public utilities commissioner and a former mayor of Nettleton, his tiny hometown in northern Mississippi, said in McComb. “And sometimes, it’s not even Democrat versus Republican. It’s those of us on the outside versus those of them on the inside.” Mr. Presley’s campaign has been a built on a bet that his human touch and populist platform can forge a coalition of Black and liberal-to-centrist white voters, some disaffected Republicans among them, that is robust enough for him to win. It is a test of a blueprint that Democrats have long relied on, but to diminishing effect in recent decades, as Republicans have tightened their grip on power in Mississippi and most of the South.Mr. Presley, left, and Tate Reeves, the Republican incumbent, during a debate on Wednesday.Brett Kenyon/WAPT, via Associated PressYet Mr. Presley has gained decent momentum — and with it, the attention of Democrats outside Mississippi. He has raised more than $11 million since January, far outpacing Mr. Reeves, and has used the money to flood television and radio stations with campaign advertisements. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report recently found that the election had “morphed into a competitive fight.” But it also classified the race as “likely to lean Republican” — a splash of cold water underscoring that, no matter how much ground Mr. Presley gains or optimism he has inspired in Southern Democrats, he still faces difficult odds in a state that has not elected a Democratic governor in 24 years.In the race for governor four years ago, Jim Hood, then the state attorney general and the last Democrat elected to statewide office, was seen as the most viable candidate the party had fielded in Mississippi in more than a decade. Yet he lost to Mr. Reeves by about five percentage points.Still, Mr. Presley sensed an opening. He believed that Mr. Reeves’s shaky popularity ratings, fury over a sprawling scandal involving welfare funds being directed to the pet projects of wealthy and connected Republicans, and dissatisfaction over the state’s eternal struggle for prosperity could allow him to accomplish what previous Democratic candidates could not. If neither candidate wins a majority of the popular vote on Tuesday, the race will go to a runoff on Nov. 28. Mr. Presley has invested enormous effort in mobilizing Black voters, a crucial bloc in a state where nearly 40 percent of the population is Black. But turning out the rest of the coalition that Mr. Presley needs — for example, white working-class voters who might have voted for Mr. Reeves last time — will be instrumental.“You can’t win if you don’t win white crossover votes,” said Byron D’Andra Orey, a political science professor at Jackson State University. For months, Mr. Presley has had marathon days ping-ponging across Mississippi, stopping in all 82 counties. He has become a frequent presence at football games on historically Black college campuses, as well as at festivals and small gatherings in community centers. In each place, he has made the same case: He is not a liberal — he opposes abortion rights — and he is certainly no elite. True, Elvis Presley was his second cousin, but a distant relative’s fame did nothing to boost his family’s fortunes. His mother was left to raise him and his siblings on her own after his father was killed when he was 8. Mr. Presley has become a frequent presence at football games on historically Black college campuses, as well as at festivals and small gatherings in community centers.Emily Kask for The New York Times“I’m white, and I’m country — it ain’t nothing I can do about it,” Mr. Presley told a mostly Black audience at one campaign stop. “But I get up every day and go to bed every night trying to pull Mississippi together.”The state fractures along racial and regional lines, creating a landscape that is anything but homogeneous, even as it tilts heavily in the Republican Party’s favor. The western flank, including the flat expanse of farmland in the Delta, votes for Democrats. Mr. Presley has wagered that one of his goals in particular can unify Democrats and Republicans, Black and many white voters: joining the 40 other states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Researchers have forecast that doing so would make the coverage available to roughly 230,000 lower-income adults over six years. Polls in Mississippi — where death rates are among the nation’s highest for heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer — have indicated overwhelming support.Mr. Reeves has been adamant in his opposition to expanding Medicaid, pointing to the cost (most of which would be a federal responsibility) and dismissing it as “welfare.” In September, he proposed an alternative that, if approved by federal officials, would increase funding for some hospitals but would not provide coverage for the uninsured. Mr. Presley with a supporter in Fulton, Miss.Houston Cofield for The New York TimesGrant Dowdy, a dentist in Greenville who came to the festival in Rolling Fork, said he was prepared to break a consistent streak of voting for Republicans precisely because of Mr. Presley’s support for Medicaid expansion. Mississippi, he said, “needs to be like every other sensible state in the nation.”But in such a polarized political climate, where party allegiance often outweighs all else, recruiting enough Republicans to tip the scale toward Mr. Presley may prove impossible. In 2001, he became the youngest mayor in Mississippi when was elected to lead Nettleton, a city of some 1,900 people in the state’s northeast. Since then, Mr. Presley, 46, has been elected four times to represent a vast swath of northern Mississippi on the state’s Public Service Commission, which regulates telecommunications, electric, gas, water and sewer utilities. Colleagues and supporters said the position — in a district filled with heavily conservative areas — helped him hone the solicitous approach he is bringing to the governor’s race. Mr. Reeves has cast Mr. Presley as a liberal aligned with President Biden, and his campaign as orchestrated by the national Democratic Party. He has pointed out that most of Mr. Presley’s fund-raising haul has come from outside Mississippi. “Ask yourself: Why are they dropping historic money on Mississippi to flip it blue?” Mr. Reeves said on social media in October. “It’s because they know Brandon Presley will govern like a liberal Democrat.”Mr. Reeves is also emphasizing his conservative bona fides, including tax cuts he has signed and a promise to keep pursuing his ambition of eliminating the state income tax. Mr. Presley has been elected four times to represent a swath of northern Mississippi on the state’s Public Services Commission.Houston Cofield for The New York TimesHe has touted the state’s unemployment rate, which has fallen to just over 3 percent — the lowest it has been in decades. He has also campaigned on raises he approved last year for public schoolteachers that were among the largest in state history, amounting to average increase of about $5,100 a year. Mr. Reeves has also said that his administration is trying to claw back money misspent in the welfare scandal, in which more than $77 million was siphoned from the state’s poorest residents to fund projects like one championed by Brett Favre, the former N.F.L. player, to build a volleyball stadium at the University of Southern Mississippi. Mr. Reeves was the state’s lieutenant governor at the time. Mr. Presley knows how to rouse a crowd, evoking a pastor in one moment and insult comic the next. He skewered Mr. Reeves at the candidate forum in McComb to cheers of approval and howling laughter, offering an almost cartoonish depiction of the governor as unfamiliar with and unsympathetic to the hardships facing the working poor.“Like the pharaoh of old, his heart has turned to stone,” Mr. Presley said. He also took particular delight in roasting upgrades reportedly made to the governor’s mansion, like a special shelter for lemon trees and a pricey ice maker (“It better make that good Sonic ice!”).At various stops, he has told crowds about a promise to his wife, Katelyn, whom he married just three months ago: If he wins, they will feed the homeless out of the governor’s mansion. His concern for the needy, he says, grew out his own experience enduring the turmoil and indignities of poverty. Some who came out to hear him speak recently said they were drawn to Mr. Presley because his early struggles sounded familiar — and simply because he was there, reaching out to them.“Look where he is,” said Joseph M. Daughtry Sr., the police chief in Columbus, where Mr. Presley had navigated a maze of country highways to speak to a few dozen people at a community center in a poor, largely Black neighborhood. “We have somebody who understands us,” Chief Daughtry said. “Somebody who cares about us. And somebody who is not ashamed of us.”Mr. Presley walked over to shake his hand. More

  • in

    The G.O.P. Goes Full-on Extremist

    There are no moderate Republicans in the House of Representatives.Oh, no doubt some members are privately appalled by the views of Mike Johnson, the new speaker. But what they think in the privacy of their own minds isn’t important. What matters is what they do — and every single one of them went along with the selection of a radical extremist.In fact, Johnson is more extreme than most people, I think even political reporters, fully realize.Much of the reporting on Johnson has, understandably, focused on his role in the efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Let me say, by the way, that the widely used term “election denial” is a euphemism that softens and blurs what we’re really talking about. Trying to keep your party in power after it lost a free and fair election, without a shred of evidence of significant fraud, isn’t just denial; it’s a betrayal of democracy.There has also been considerable coverage of Johnson’s right-wing social views, but I’m not sure how many people grasp the depth of his intolerance. Johnson isn’t just someone who wants to legalize discrimination against L.G.B.T.Q. Americans and ban gay marriage; he’s on record as defending the criminalization of gay sex.But Johnson’s extremism, and that of the party that chose him, goes beyond rejecting democracy and trying to turn back the clock on decades of social progress. He has also espoused a startlingly reactionary economic agenda.Until his sudden elevation to speaker, Johnson was a relatively little-known figure. But he did serve for a time as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group that devises policy proposals. And now that Johnson has become the face of his party, people really should look at the budget proposal the committee released for 2020 under his chairmanship.For if you read that proposal carefully, getting past the often mealy-mouthed language, you realize that it calls for the evisceration of the U.S. social safety net — not just programs for the poor, but also policies that form the bedrock of financial stability for the American middle class.Start with Social Security, where the budget calls for raising the retirement age — already set to rise to 67 — to 69 or 70, with possible further increases as life expectancy rises.On the surface, this might sound plausible. Until Covid produced a huge drop, average U.S. life expectancy at age 65 was steadily rising over time. But there is a huge and growing gap between the number of years affluent Americans can expect to live and life expectancy for lower-income groups, including not just the poor but also much of the working class. So raising the retirement age would fall hard on less fortunate Americans — precisely the people who depend most on Social Security.Then there’s Medicare, for which the budget proposes increasing the eligibility age “so it is aligned with the normal retirement age for Social Security and then indexing this age to life expectancy.” Translation: Raise the Medicare age from 65 to 70, then keep raising it.Wait, there’s more. Most nonelderly Americans receive health insurance through their employers. But this system depends greatly on policies that the study committee proposed eliminating. You see, benefits don’t count as taxable income — but in order to maintain this tax advantage, companies (roughly speaking) must cover all their employees, as opposed to offering benefits only to highly compensated individuals.The committee budget would eliminate this incentive for broad coverage by limiting the tax deduction for employer benefits and offering the same deduction for insurance purchased by individuals. As a result, some employers would probably just give their top earners cash, which they could use to buy expensive individual plans, while dropping coverage for the rest of their workers.Oh, and it goes almost without saying that the budget would impose savage cuts — $3 trillion over a decade — on Medicaid, children’s health coverage and subsidies that help lower-income Americans afford insurance under the Affordable Care Act.How many Americans would lose health insurance under these proposals? Back in 2017 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Donald Trump’s attempt to repeal Obamacare would cause 23 million Americans to lose coverage. The Republican Study Committee’s proposals are far more draconian and far-reaching, so the losses would presumably be much bigger.So Mike Johnson is on record advocating policies on retirement, health care and other areas I don’t have space to get into, like food stamps, that would basically end American society as we know it. We would become a vastly crueler and less secure nation, with far more sheer misery.I think it’s safe to say that these proposals would be hugely unpopular — if voters knew about them. But will they?Actually, I’d like to see some focus groups asking what Americans think of Johnson’s policy positions. Here’s my guess, based on previous experience: Many voters will simply refuse to believe that prominent Republicans, let alone the speaker of the House, are really advocating such terrible things.But they are and he is. The G.O.P. has gone full-on extremist, on economic as well as social issues. The question now is whether the American public will notice.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    Fixing America’s Health Care System

    More from our inbox:Trump’s Trial Dates and the Odds of ConvictionDoes Barbie Really Need Ken?September Dawn Bottoms for The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “How Do We Fix the Scandal That Is American Health Care?,” by Nicholas Kristof, with photographs by September Dawn Bottoms (column, Aug. 20):Nicholas Kristof scratches the surface of the failures of the health care system in this country. I have been in practice for 28 years as a cardiologist and internist and have seen firsthand the miraculous breakthroughs in cardiac care as well as the appalling level of care typical in treatment of chronic diseases, especially among minority populations.Most care in this country is delivered by large for-profit and nonprofit entities (which function largely as for-profit entities but avoid taxes). These systems are incentivized to invest in high-end tertiary care, typically cardiac, orthopedic, neurosurgical and oncologic care, as they have the highest reimbursement.Chronic care for conditions such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure are not sexy areas of medicine and for the most part offer low compensation from Medicare, Medicaid and commercial payers.Our health care system needs to incentivize primary care and force nonprofit entities to allocate larger portions of their budgets to primary care or lose their nonprofit status.Daniel ZangerBrooklynTo the Editor:Nicholas Kristof has written a cogent and damning column. One piece of the health care crisis we must also address is physician education and remuneration.New physicians have delayed earning potential in order to attend medical school and have endured at least three years of paltry pay and extremely demanding schedules as medical interns and residents. By the time they are able to practice medicine after at least seven years of post-college training, they are unlikely to set up practice in rural areas with the lowest pay, fewest colleagues for support, professional isolation and limited call coverage. They are also less likely to practice in pediatrics or family medicine than in a medical specialty.Indeed, no one can blame them for wanting to work in a place conducive to comfortably repaying student loans as well as paying for malpractice insurance.Bright, hardworking young people can find myriad other fields of work and skip the stress that is modern U.S. medicine.If we are serious about improving health outcomes and reducing infant mortality, depression and skyrocketing rates of diabetes and other illnesses, then we need to completely revamp physician education.Nurses, doctors and hospital staff are heroes. Let’s treat them as such. Pay for their education, and incentivize work in underserved and high-risk locales.Susan BaloghBostonTo the Editor:Only last month the Department of Health and Human Services found that some of the country’s largest for-profit insurance companies, which together manage Medicaid programs that cover the majority of the 87 million individuals on Medicaid, denied more than one of every four requests for doctor-ordered treatments or medications for patients enrolled in their Medicaid plans. Medicaid serves many who live with the disadvantages that often lead to higher rates of diabetes and other chronic illnesses for which timely and consistent care is essential to better outcomes. Providing the services that doctors prescribe for these patients would go a long way to fixing the scandal described by Mr. Kristof.Ted HermanProvidence, R.I.The writer is a former health insurance executive.Trump’s Trial Dates and the Odds of ConvictionDoug Mills/The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “This Indictment Does Something Ingenious,” by Norman Eisen and Amy Lee Copeland (Opinion guest essay, Aug. 16): The Georgia indictment might be ingenious, but the fact remains that Donald Trump won Georgia in 2016 and missed by a whisker winning again in 2020. So there is an overwhelming likelihood that some of his base of supporters will be on his jury and will not vote for his conviction no matter the strength of the evidence.Harold J. SmithWhite Plains, N.Y.To the Editor:There are many legitimate factors to take into account in determining when any criminal trial might begin, but one factor not to take into account is the defendant’s job. At the moment, Donald Trump is looking for a job (president) and in essence interviewing to get the job (campaigning).So let’s hope that the one factor that none of the judges consider in setting Mr. Trump’s trial date is his “interviewing schedule.”The judges might consider that at least some of Mr. Trump’s potential “employers” might want to know before hiring him whether or not he is a felon and set to spend many years in prison.Eugene D. CohenPhoenixDoes Barbie Really Need Ken?Iris Schneider/Los Angeles Times, via Getty ImagesTo the Editor: Re “Why Barbie and Ken Need Each Other,” by Ross Douthat (column, nytimes.com, Aug. 9):As a young woman, I agree with Mr. Douthat that “Barbie” contains some real, not-talked-about ambivalence concerning what female empowerment truly means.However, the core failing of “Barbie” is not, as he suggests, its failure to unite Barbie and Ken romantically, but a failure to imagine a world in which people of all genders can successfully lead together. Mr. Douthat’s insinuation that romance and reproduction must be the basis of any kind of productive union between men and women is archaic and troubling.This being said, the assertion of the “Barbie” movie that Ken is “superfluous” is also concerning. It is not, of course, that women have a need for men, but that humanity requires all of its members’ collaboration to achieve its highest potential. And yet, at the end of the movie, when Ken is relegated to a status equal to that of women in the real world (read: oppressed), any hope for a world in which people — or dolls — of all genders can live fulfilled, empowered lives remains elusive.Mary ElliotLenox, Mass.To the Editor:Certainly, there is evidence that married people tend to be happier than the unmarried. But that largely applies to people who are happily married. Unhappily married people are not only less happy than the happily married, but also less happy than those who are divorced, and less healthy than those who are single, divorced or widowed.There are some important factors that suggest Barbie and Ken’s union might not be a happy one. Barbie never expressed any interest in a relationship with Ken or with anyone else. As Barbie was being ushered into a black S.U.V. and taken to the Mattel headquarters, Ken high-tailed it back to Barbieland solo. While there, as Gloria (played by America Ferrera) so clearly summarized, he took Barbie’s house, he brainwashed her friends, and he tried to control the government.No one needs 40 years of General Social Survey data to know that they would be miserable. Stop trying to convince women that the key to their happiness is committing to emotionally damaged men against their self-interest and better judgment.Theresa HastertAnn Arbor, Mich. More

  • in

    Republican debt ceiling plans could see most vulnerable Americans lose aid

    As debt ceiling negotiations come down to the wire with the 1 June deadline looming, some Republican leaders seem determined to use critical safety net programs – specifically, Medicaid and Snap – as a bargaining chip, and millions of America’s most vulnerable families may pay the price.Cuts and restrictions to these essential programs, which offer healthcare and food assistance, will cause further hardship to families who are already struggling – and who in many cases can’t afford the basic essentials like food and shelter. The Republican fixation on appending work requirements to these benefits are also ineffective: data shows these policies are not needed and don’t produce any substantial solutions. Some critics say they also force people to find jobs that don’t actually lead to economic mobility, prolonging their need for federal assistance.“Most Americans with health coverage through Medicaid are already working if they are able to,” Senator Ron Wyden, chairman of the Senate finance committee, said in a recent statement. He also noted that “the track record shows work reporting requirements are a bureaucratic nightmare for Americans”.If Democrats make these concessions to the GOP, the cuts would also be one more blow to vulnerable people this year, many of whom just recently experienced slashed benefits when emergency Snap benefits ended along with the public health emergency for Covid-19 in May. At the same time, grocery prices are soaring: The US Department of Agriculture estimates all food prices are predicted to increase 6.5% in 2023, on top of the jumps in cost we’ve already seen over the past year or so.Maine resident Hazel Willow, single mother to a four year old, recently left an abusive relationship and says these programs provide the essential support she desperately needs to survive and heal.“The way I’m best able to provide for my child, to make sure I’m living my highest good as myself, a mother, a citizen and human in society, is to heal and recover with whatever ability I have in my body that day,” Willow said. “To do that safely and successfully, I need the societal safety net of Snap, Tanf, Wic, and others.”Willow notes that – like everyone else she knows who relies on these programs – she would love to be more self-sufficient, and wishes she had more options that would provide her with more financial breathing room and agency over her own life.“A life in which you live or die by your access to these programs is not an easy one. In my new world – where almost everyone is on most of these same programs – I have yet to meet someone who has an easy day, who is happy and safe with the way their life is and feels content to simply exist on these benefits.”Paco Vélez, president and chief executive of Feeding South Florida, said there are more than a million people struggling with food insecurity in his region and worries that more restrictions will make the situation even more dire.“The proposed work restrictions expand the minimum 20 hour per week work requirement from ages 18 to 49 to include ages 50 to 55,” said Vélez. “Many times, individuals that are unable to work fall through the cracks and have a hard time filing for an exemption or navigating the process to obtain disability, although their health is at risk, or they are unable to perform in a job they used to be able to do.”“My Snap benefits run out by the second week of the month and that is already shopping for whatever I can find on sale,” says Lilia Jorge Perez, 51, of Hollywood, Florida, who relies on Feeding South Florida. “I want to buy more healthy foods like vegetables, fruits, chicken or fish but that would take most of my benefits.”Perez came to the US from Cuba last year and has been struggling to find work because she is still waiting for her work permit. She was recently cut off from Medicaid and cash assistance and is grateful to be receiving Snap benefits.“It is already difficult to find work and even worse for those over 50 with little to no education and who don’t speak English,” says Perez. “I know people shouldn’t have to rely only on the government to provide for themselves, but if we are already facing the possibility of homelessness from the raise in rent, and people are going without food because of the prices, how can the politicians make it worse during such a difficult time in the United States?”Work restrictions often create obstacles for people accessing benefits, while also putting additional strain on staff and resources that are already stretched thin in such programs. Many families are required to navigate a notoriously complicated and time-consuming process in order to submit documentation proving they are meeting the requirements.And many communities – especially those in high-poverty areas – lack the resources to help residents who are facing food insecurity.“The families we serve may not have access to a computer, miss the required phone interview, or have notices mailed to a former address,” said Vélez. “Expanding the age for work requirements will force more folks to jump through these hoops to access food – a necessity.”Meanwhile, the cuts could deprive millions of Americans access to healthcare at a time when Covid continues to have significant impacts. The pandemic emergency status may have officially ended earlier in May, but tens of thousands of Americans are still getting sick with the virus or dealing with the lingering symptoms of long-term Covid.A mandatory national Medicaid recertification process involving all program enrollees – known as an “unwinding” – has already begun as states resume the annual eligibility verification procedures that had been on hold during the pandemic. KFF estimates that between 5.3 million and 14.2 million people will lose Medicaid coverage just through that process alone.States that saw some of the largest Medicaid enrollment surges during the pandemic – such as California, New York and Florida – are also likely to be among those with the largest number of people who lose coverage during this unwinding process. That means many people living in those states will soon be left uninsured – particularly in states like Florida, which didn’t adopt the Medicaid expansion, meaning fewer people meet the criteria for eligibility.Adding work requirements and other barriers to coverage will compound the healthcare access crisis – and place significant strain on community resources including emergency rooms (where uninsured patients will seek care if they have no other option).The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) says the red tape created by the Republicans’ proposed work restrictions would jeopardize the health coverage and access to care of 21 million Americans.Kimberley Causey-Gomez, commissioner of the Virgin Islands Department of Human Services, notes that more than 40% of the territory’s population relies on Medicaid, and she worries that many of them may be at risk of losing coverage (and the access to healthcare) should work requirements become a reality.Meanwhile, in Maine, Willow thinks the wealthy, including lawmakers and administrators who create and oversee these policies, don’t appreciate the consequences their actions have for people who rely on these programs – people who play an important role in our communities and society.“The people who make your coffee, cut your hair or bag your groceries. The staff at the gas stations and restaurants you frequent,” she said.“Your life is supported by these programs whether you see them or not.”This article was supported by the Economic Hardship Reporting Project More