Tag: welfare

Debunking the 100,000 Medicaid Deaths Myth

“More Americans will die—at least 100,000 more over the course of the next decade,” wrote Yale law professor Natasha Sarin in a June 9 Washington Post column about the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“That isn’t hyperbolic,” Sarin added. “It is fact.”

The average reader might be inclined to believe Sarin, who holds a Harvard Ph.D. in economics as well as a Harvard law degree, and served in the Treasury Department during the Biden administration. But contrary to her characterization, her claim is both hyperbole and not “fact.”

Sarin’s assertion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “statistical lives saved.” In particular, she and several other prominent journalists misinterpreted a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

As a professional debunker of bad research, I can say with some authority that the authors of that study, Dartmouth economist Angela Wyse and University of Chicago economist Bruce D. Meyer, wrote an excellent paper—a rarity among academic studies these days. But the University of Chicago’s press office trumpeted the paper’s findings, declaring, “Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act saved about 27,400 lives between 2010-22,” which is highly misleading. 

That take was echoed in coverage of the study by major news outlets. “The expansion of Medicaid has saved more than 27,000 lives since 2010, according to the most definitive study yet on the program’s health effects,” reported Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz in The New York Times. Their May 16 article was headlined “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives.” 

The story was also picked up by Time (“Medicaid Expansions Saved Tens of Thousands of Lives, Study Finds”), NPR (“New Studies Show What’s at Stake if Medicaid Is Scaled Back”), NBC News (“Proposed Medicaid Cuts Could Lead to Thousands of Deaths, Study Finds”), and several other news outlets. These journalists either didn’t read the study, didn’t understand it, or willfully misrepresented its findings for partisan reasons. 

In the past, conservative opponents of Medicaid have been equally guilty of misconstruing academic research to support their policy views. That is what happened with the most famous study on the subject, The Oregon Experiment—Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes, which The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published in 2013. The NBER and NEJM papers offer a similar account of Medicaid’s impact on health, but both have been misinterpreted.

Keep reading

Trump’s Deputies Use Medicaid Data to Help ICE Find Migrants

President Donald Trump’s deputies have completed a data-sharing deal to let ICE agents use government Medicaid data while enforcing the nation’s popular immigration laws, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Under a new agreement, “ICE will use the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] data to allow ICE to receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,” the agreement says,” the AP reported Thursday, adding:

The department’s assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said in an emailed statement that the two agencies “are exploring an initiative to ensure that illegal aliens are not receiving Medicaid benefits that are meant for law-abiding Americans.”

Millions of illegal migrants have shared their identities and addresses to use the taxpayer-funded Medicaid system, often via emergency rooms and state-funded clinics.

The data is not being copied to ICE. Instead, ICE will be allowed to verify identities and addresses during regular work hours.

The information-sharing deal reflects the determination of Trump’s deputies to remove a myriad bureaucratic and regulatory barriers to the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws.

Keep reading

85 Minnesota Autism Clinics Under Investigation for Millions in Medicaid Fraud

About 85 autism clinics in Minnesota are under investigation for tens of millions in Medicaid billing fraud.

The state’s Department of Human Services (DHS) is under a microscope for paying out outrageous amounts for services supposedly delivered by the state’s burgeoning autism treatment sector, according to KSTP-TV.

The records show that DHS paid out claims totally about $700 million since the state’s autism program began in 2014. But millions of that seems to be paying for services that were never rendered. And investigators say that some $20 million has been fraud.

Now, DHS is reportedly visiting every one of the state’s locations after data shows that at least 85 of them fraudulently billed the program.

One expert says that the state ignored the warning signs.

Dr. Eric Larsson with the Lovaas Institute Midwest says that some of the bills were obviously suspicious. “No apparent email address, no website. Nobody is answering the phone,” he said. “They’re certainly not trying to deliver services.”

The problem first came to light last December when the FBI raided two Minnesota autism clinics under suspicions of fraudulent billing, KROC radio reported at the time.

State DHS officials are now scrambling to make sure that the hundreds of autism centers in the state are submitting legitimate bills.

Two of the clinics under investigation are Smart Therapy Center, LLC in Minneapolis and Star Autism Center LLC in St. Cloud, which also had ties to the Feeding Our Future child meal fraud case.

Keep reading

Netflix And Chill: Farage’s DOGE Uncovers INSANE Government Funded Perks For Illegal Aliens

A British version of DOGE instituted in areas where Nigel Farage’s Reform won seats in the last round of elections has found that local government is spending hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money on unnecessary perks for illegal immigrants, including subscriptions to Netflix.

Not content with putting them up in luxury hotels and giving them loaded debit cards, at least ten local councils are providing illegal aliens with subscriptions to streaming services such as Netflix and Disney +, as well as spending close to £120,000 on fast food such as Dominoes Pizza and McDonalds.

The local governments have also handed out gift cards for electrical stores Currys and Argos, presumably so the illegals can get a TV to watch their Netflix, and even paid for outings, including trips to safari parks, the circus, and mini golf.

Keep reading

Taxpayers will no longer fund illegal aliens’ education

Taxpayers will no longer pay for the education of noncitizens in the U.S. illegally, the U.S. Department of Education said Thursday.

The department said “it will end taxpayer subsidization of illegal aliens in career, technical, and adult education programs.”

A news release said that this change takes place due to an interpretative rule issued Thursday in which “the Department rescinded a Dear Colleague letter from the Clinton Administration that enabled non-qualified illegal aliens to access federal public benefits in contravention of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).”

Title IV of PRWORA “generally limits eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of ‘qualified aliens,’” the release said.

Federal public benefits include “any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefits, or any similar benefits for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit.”

In 1997, “the Clinton Administration issued a Dear Colleague Letter that erroneously exempted career, technical, and adult education programs from being subject to PRWORA,” the release said.

“In doing so, the Department’s interpretation mischaracterized the law by creating artificial distinctions between federal benefit programs based upon the method of assistance,” the release said. “Congress made no such distinction in PRWORA.”

The department’s release said that Thursday’s interpretive rule “also ensures that postsecondary education programs authorized under the Higher Education Act (HEA), such as Pell Grants and student loans, continue to be inaccessible to illegal immigrants.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in the release: “Postsecondary education programs funded by the federal government should benefit American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” McMahon said.

“The Department will ensure that taxpayer funds are reserved for citizens and individuals who have entered our country through legal means who meet federal eligibility criteria,” McMahon said.

Director of Policy Studies Jessica M. Vaughan at the Center for Immigration Studies told The Center Square that “taxpayers should not have to subsidize vocational or other post-secondary education for illegal aliens, who aren’t allowed to work in this country.”

Keep reading

Trump Admin Ends Taxpayer Subsidies For Illegal Aliens

The departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Education, Agriculture, Labor, and Justice are ending illegal aliens’ abilities to leech off the American taxpayer by taking advantage of federal programs.

The departments announced on Thursday that illegals will no longer be able to access the government programs, as they have been able to do since the Clinton administration. The Trump administration made the move to “ensure that taxpayer-funded program benefits intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize illegal aliens,” HHS said in its announcement.

In doing so, the federal government rescinded a 1997 Dear Colleague letter that exempted such programs from being subject to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which limits “federal public benefits” to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and some “qualified aliens.”

The Education Department said that the Clinton-era letter “mischaracterized the law by creating artificial distinctions between federal benefit programs based upon the method of assistance.”

The move brings various programs in line with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump called “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders.”

The White House said that the Department of Justice “is closing longstanding loopholes that have allowed illegal aliens to access taxpayer-funded benefits,” but did not go into more detail, and the department has not yet released more information.

Keep reading

Does Medicaid demand accountability for doctors for dishonorable or even illegal behavior?

ATexas pediatrician’s controversial social media post mocking flood victims, insinuating that it would be good if Trump supporters were not protected from the disaster, and suggesting that people who voted for Trump deserve to die, raises larger questions about whether federal health officials are using any tools to hold doctors registered to provide services under Medicaid or other government programs accountable. 

In fact, a review of the federal database used for Medicaid billing shows that the federal government has repeatedly failed to remove doctors from the system who have been convicted of crimes ranging from fraud to improperly distributing opioids, calling into question the health administration’s willingness to hold medical professionals accountable for the appropriate standards of conduct and care.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), individual Medicaid programs vary according to each state’s statutes within broad Federal guidelines. Medical professionals are responsible for knowing and abiding by state-specific rules where they furnish services and for each of the programs for which they furnish services.

Keep reading

US food poverty doubles in 4 years – Axios

Food insecurity among American adults has nearly doubled since 2021, Axios reported on Sunday, citing data from Morning Consult. The striking statistic comes amid steep cuts to federal food assistance programs in the world’s largest economy, fueling concerns about the welfare of millions.

US President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed into law last week includes $230 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade. The legislation imposes stricter work requirements, extending mandates to individuals up to age 64 and reducing exemptions for parents.

The proportion of US adults reporting that they sometimes or often do not have enough to eat has been steadily rising in recent years, according to the survey.

In May, 15.6% of adults were classified as food insecure, nearly twice the rate recorded in 2021. At that time, expanded SNAP benefits and an enhanced Child Tax Credit had helped reduce poverty and increase access to food.

The increase in food insecurity comes as the US economy shows signs of strength and stock markets hit record highs.

John Leer, chief economist at Morning Consult, noted a problem: “There’s such a disconnect now between record highs on Wall Street and elevated levels of food insecurity.”

Keep reading

The Media Deploy A Cadre Of ‘Experts’ And ‘Advocates’ To Lie About Medicaid

At 11:56 a.m. last Tuesday, the United States Senate voted to pass its version of the “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill, sending it back to the House. Exactly 30 minutes later, this headline appeared: “Senate megabill marks biggest Medicaid cuts in history.”

I have already explained how the Medicaid provisions in budget reconciliation do NOT represent a “cut.” In reality, Medicaid will continue to grow over the coming decade — by roughly $1 trillion, in fact.

But it’s worth examining this article in The Hill in detail to examine the various tricks of the trade that the media use to try and, well, trick people into accepting the leftist perspective. It may not surprise readers to realize that what the media don’t write about is as important as what they do.

One-Sided Coverage

For starters, I emailed the reporter, Nathaniel Weixel, asking him a simple question: “Did you or any of your colleagues write on CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] increasing its Medicaid baseline by $817 billion — or 12 percent — in January compared to just last June?”

Weixel did not respond to my request for comment. He similarly did not respond two years ago, when I asked him why he used one set of terminology (i.e., “vouchers”) for policy proposals put forward by Republicans and another term when Democrats put forth the same proposal.

But at the risk of answering my own question, I recall not a single article in The Hill — or any other publication, for that matter — noting the massive increase in projected Medicaid spending announced in January, which came largely as a result of administrative actions by the Biden administration. So when projected spending goes up by nearly $1 trillion in a short period, it’s a non-issue, rather than an unsustainable explosion of federal taxpayer dollars, a potential massive increase in fraud, and so forth. But when projected spending goes down by roughly the same amount, then it’s “historic cuts.” Bias, anyone?

Partisan Terminology

But the bias doesn’t end there. Weixel’s Medicaid story includes all manner of cues designed to tilt a reader’s bias toward the leftist perspective.

Only Leftist “Experts” Consulted: The story quoted analysts from the Center for American Progress, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the Kaiser Family Foundation. While Weixel described CAP as “Democratic-aligned,” he neglected to mention that the other two foundations also have a leftward slant; while not as outwardly partisan as CAP, they definitely have an ideology behind them. Of course, he didn’t quote any policy experts who support Medicaid reform.

Politicians versus “Experts:” Rather than quoting conservative analysts who can speak to the merits of reforming Medicaid, Weixel instead used a generic quote about the legislation from President Trump, followed by a quick rebuttal that “experts … say … the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction” in Medicaid. Of course, only some “experts” take the view that said reduction will cause harm — but Weixel didn’t bother to quote any who disagree. A variation on this trick has the reporter describing one side’s position — “Republicans argue that …” — allowing him or her to characterize, or mischaracterize, policy views without giving voice to any of the people who hold them.

“Advocacy” Bias: In addition to using the term “experts” to describe the leftists claiming the legislation will harm Medicaid, Weixel also trots out a similarly loaded term: “advocates.” The left and the media (but I repeat myself) use this term frequently. One will almost never hear the term used to describe someone conservative, who “advocates” for less spending — or protecting the unborn, for instance. Instead, the media invariably apply the term to someone promoting more taxes, more spending, and more welfare — more government control, in other words.

The bias, and the contrast, are practically self-evident: “Advocates” care — they just want to help people — and the people who oppose these “advocates” don’t. As Ronald Reagan might say, they’re from the government and they’re here to help!

Keep reading

Democrats and the Fake News Media Are Hiding This from the American Public: Illegal Migrants Collect More Food, Housing, Cash Benefits, and Medicaid Than Natural Born Citizens

Democrat politicians and far left hacks in the legacy media are outraged that Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill cuts Medicaid for illegal aliens in the US.

They say it’s inhumane. They believe it is the American taxpayers duty to welcome millions of illegals a year into our country and to pay their bills.

Of course, this is national suicide. Democrats know this. MAGA knows this.

What these dirty politicians and their media bedfellows won’t tell you is that illegal aliens collect more benefits in food, housing, CA$H, and Medicaid than natural born Americans.

Democrats don’t want you to know this.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a report in December 2023 that compares the percentage of natural born Americans receiving government handouts versus the number of illegal aliens receiving government benefits.

The report is based on numbers and data from the 2022 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).

The study found that 59 percent of non-citizen households (e.g., green card holders and illegal immigrants) used one or more major welfare program.

This compares to 39 percent of US-born households who receive one or more major welfare program.

Illegal aliens not only broke the law to enter the country but they’re sucking our resources dry.

Democrats seem to appreciate this

Keep reading