Demonstrators in Midtown on the Fourth of July voice their disapproval towards President Trump's newly enacted "Big Beautiful Bill"
The recently passed "Big Beautiful Bill" has stirred up a storm of controversy, with healthcare professionals, advocacy groups, and politicians expressing concerns over its potential impact on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the national debt.
The bill, which includes approximately $863 billion in Medicaid cuts and $295 billion in SNAP cuts from fiscal years 2025 to 2034, has sparked protests in cities across the nation, including Midtown Manhattan. Critics argue that these cuts could lead to millions of Americans losing coverage, with up to 10.9 million potentially losing Medicaid or Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace coverage, and an additional 5.1 million losing coverage once enhanced marketplace premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025.
Governor Kathy Hochul has been vocal in her criticism of the bill, describing it as stripping health care, hiking costs, and slashing food assistance for millions. She has also stated that the new law would make life harder for working families and that she has worked closely with the NY legislature to "brace for the impact and protect as many New Yorkers as possible."
The bill's impact on the national debt is also a cause for concern. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the new legislation will raise the national debt limit by $5 trillion and add another $3 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade.
Healthcare professionals, such as Dr. Steve Auerbach, a retired pediatrician and public health doctor, have shared stories about patients who couldn't afford healthcare, including those who died because of a heart attack or couldn't afford to check out a lump in their breast. Auerbach has criticized the bill, stating that it would make the U.S. healthcare system worse for the first time in American history, and called for universal healthcare.
The bill's opponents argue that the cuts to Medicaid and SNAP could lead to widespread job losses in healthcare and related sectors, as well as increased financial strain on hospitals and nursing homes. Advocacy leaders emphasize that the "ultimate cost of these historic cuts... will be human lives," predicting unnecessary deaths among vulnerable populations if state lawmakers do not intervene.
The bill's passage has generated widespread public opposition, with protests taking place across the nation. Democratic leaders, such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have strongly criticized the bill, calling it an "all-out assault on the health and the well-being of everyday Americans."
A June Quinnipiac University poll found that only 29% of voters supported the bill, while 55% opposed it. The bill's critics argue that it disproportionately benefits the top 1% earners, with the tax and spending bill calling for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
In summary, the "Big Beautiful Bill" has significant implications for Medicaid, SNAP, and the national debt, as well as sparking strong reactions from protesters and healthcare professionals. Critics argue that the bill's cuts to Medicaid and SNAP could lead to millions of Americans losing coverage, increased financial strain on hospitals and nursing homes, and widespread job losses in healthcare and related sectors. The bill's opponents also argue that the "ultimate cost of these historic cuts... will be human lives," predicting unnecessary deaths among vulnerable populations if state lawmakers do not intervene.
The "Big Beautiful Bill" has sparked controversy in the realm of policy-and-legislation and general-news, with critics such as Dr. Steve Auerbach and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries claiming that it disproportionately benefits the top 1% earners while potentially leading to millions losing health-and-wellness coverage under Medicaid or Affordable Care Act marketplaces. The bill's impact on health-and-wellness is further emphasized by advocacy leaders who predict unnecessary deaths among vulnerable populations if state lawmakers do not intervene.
