SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
idaho
'Death Warrant': New Fears Emerge as GOP Medicaid Cuts Come Closer to Reality
"If we make one wrong decision as the parents of a critically ill child, that could be the end of it," said one Louisiana mother about the added paperwork burdens being imposed by the GOP's budget law.
Sep 02, 2025
Several reports published on Tuesday highlighted the negative impacts that are expected from Medicaid cuts included in the Republicans' budget law.
The Medicaid cuts, which passed this past summer as part of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, are estimated to total $1 trillion over the next decade and are projected to kick more than 10 million Americans off their health insurance. However, the cuts are also expected to have several other knock-on effects that could negatively impact the entire American healthcare system.
Rhian Lubin, a reporter for The Independent, recently traveled to Louisiana, where she met a 28-year-old mother named Hannah McDaniel who relies on Medicaid to pay for treatment for her two-year-old son, Myles, who suffers from an incurable heart defect.
As McDaniel explained to Lubin, she is already inundated with paperwork required to keep Medicaid paying for Myles' lifesaving care, and she fears that the new work requirements added by Republicans will only add to the burden and increase the risk that her son's care will be cut off.
"If we make one wrong decision as the parents of a critically ill child, that could be the end of it," said McDaniel, who added that when the GOP passed its budget package it felt like "the government had signed Myles' death warrant."
Lubin wrote that these cuts will make it especially hard for patients who live in rural communities, where local hospitals have for years been under financial strain and are in greater danger of closing thanks to the GOP's budget.
"Any cuts to that program are going to trickle down and impact children, whether that's pediatric practices who depend on Medicaid to be able to stay open or children’s hospitals," West Virginia pediatrician Lisa Costello told Lubin.
The impact of these cuts is projected to be felt nationwide, as The Idaho Statesman reported that nursing homes and hospice care facilities in the Gem State are also bracing for a catastrophic loss of funding.
The report highlighted Table Rock Senior Living at Park Place, an assisted living facility in the city of Nampa, which will see a cut in its reimbursement rates paid out by Idaho's Department of Health and Welfare in response to the GOP's Medicaid cuts. Gary Connell, who runs Table Rock Senior Living, told The Idaho Statesman that such cuts are "going to cause a lot of havoc" at both his facility and senior residences across the state.
Expected cuts to Medicaid reimbursement rates in the state are likely to force more facilities to decline Medicaid recipients as patients, which would in turn place higher burdens on emergency rooms.
"We're going to see serious access issues now, and then, what’s going to happen? They're going to go to the hospital emergency room," Democratic Idaho state Sen. Melissa Wintrow told The Idaho Statesman. "We can't refuse people at the hospital emergency room, and that's a higher cost of care, which means the legislature is going to take it on the chin in the end."
Over in North Carolina, local public radio station WHQR reported that dentists in the state are similarly fearful of lower reimbursement rates that would force them to cut off Medicaid recipients from care.
Before the GOP passed its budget law, North Carolina lawmakers were actually considering a bill that would have boosted the reimbursement rate from 35% to 46%. But with less money projected to come in from the federal government over the next decade, they abandoned the effort.
Dr. Robert Stowe, a dentist based in Winston-Salem, said that the North Carolina state legislature's current plan to slash reimbursement rates by an additional 3% this year would likely be a tipping point for many healthcare providers.
"You got a system that the reimbursement is so low now that you have providers who are seeing Medicaid dental patients that they're taking a loss on already," he explained to WHQR. "Then you're going to cut that fee by 3%—it's just untenable."
Finally, Ohio Capital Journal reported that the Medicaid cuts could come at great expense for many low-income Ohio military veterans who rely on the program.
According to the report, roughly 10% of US veterans use Medicaid for services for which they aren't eligible to receive through the US Department of Veterans Affairs, including some mental health treatment.
Dr. Forrest Faison, the former surgeon general of the United States Navy, told Ohio Capital Journal that many veterans who depend on Medicaid "because of job issues, disability, PTSD" may fall through the cracks due to the Medicaid cuts. He also emphasized that the cuts could fall particularly hard on Medicaid recipients in rural Ohio.
"A lot of these veterans, especially in Ohio, live in rural areas," he said, "where even if you've got some benefits, you may not have the services available."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Rules Rocky Mountain Wolves Wrongly Denied Endangered Species Protections
One advocate said the ruling "offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act."
Aug 05, 2025
Conservationists cautiously celebrated a U.S. judge's Tuesday ruling that the federal government must reconsider its refusal to grant protections for gray wolves in the Rocky Mountains, as killing regimes in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming put the species at risk.
Former President Joe Biden's administration determined last year that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections for the region's wolves were "not warranted," sparking multiple lawsuits from coalitions of conservation groups. The cases were consolidated and considered by Montana-based District Judge Donald Molloy, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.
As the judge detailed in his 105-page decision, the advocacy groups argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to consider a "significant portion" of the gray wolf's range, the "best available science" on their populations and the impact of humans killing them, and the true threat to the species. He also wrote that "for the most part, the plaintiffs are correct."
Matthew Bishop, senior attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center (WELC), which represented one of the coalitions, said in a statement that "the Endangered Species Act requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to consider the best available science, and that requirement is what won the day for wolves in this case."
"Wolves have yet to recover across the West, and allowing a few states to undertake aggressive wolf-killing regimes is inconsistent with the law," Bishop continued. "We hope this decision will encourage the service to undertake a holistic approach to wolf recovery in the West."
Coalition members similarly welcomed Molloy's decision as "an important step toward finally ending the horrific and brutal war on wolves that the states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have waged in recent years," in the words of George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch.
Predator Defense executive director Brooks Fahy said that "today's ruling is an incredible victory for wolves. At a time where their numbers are being driven down to near extinction levels, this decision is a vital lifeline."
Patrick Kelly, Montana director for Western Watersheds Project, pointed out that "with Montana set to approve a 500 wolf kill quota at the end of August, this decision could not have come at a better time. Wolves may now have a real shot at meaningful recovery."
Breaking news! A federal judge in Missoula ruled USFWS broke the law when it denied protections for gray wolves in the western U.S. The agency must now reconsider using the best available science. A major step forward for wolf recovery.Read more: 🔗 wildearthguardians.org/press-releas...
[image or embed]
— Wolf Conservation Center 🐺 (@nywolforg.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Sierra Club northern Rockies campaign strategist Nick Gevock said that "wolf recovery is dependent on responsible management by the states, and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have shown that they're grossly unsuited to manage the species."
Gevock's group is part of a coalition represented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Humane World for Animals, formerly called the Humane Society of the United States. Kitty Block, president and CEO of the latter, said Tuesday that "wolves are deeply intelligent, social animals who play an irreplaceable role in the ecosystems they call home."
"Today's ruling offers hope that we can restore protections to wolves in the northern Rockies, but only if the federal government fulfills its duty under the Endangered Species Act," Block stressed. "These animals deserve protection, not abandonment, as they fight to return to the landscapes they once roamed freely.
While "Judge Molloy's ruling means now the Fish and Wildlife Service must go back to the drawing board to determine whether federal management is needed to ensure wolves survive and play their vital role in the ecosystem," as Gevock put it, the agency may also appeal his decision.
The original rejection came under Biden, but the reconsideration will occur under President Donald Trump, whose first administration was hostile to the ESA in general and wolves in particular. The current administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have signaled in recent months that they intend to maintain that posture.
WELC highlighted Tuesday that Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) "introduced H.R. 845 to strip ESA protections from gray wolves across the Lower 48. If passed, this bill would congressionally delist all gray wolves in the Lower 48 the same way wolves in the northern Rockies were congressionally delisted in 2011, handing management authority over to states."
Emphasizing what that would mean for the species, WELC added that "regulations in Montana, for example, allow hunters and trappers to kill several hundred wolves per year—with another 500-wolf quota proposed this year—with bait, traps, snares, night hunting, infrared and thermal imagery scopes, and artificial light."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Everyone Is Welcome Here' Signs Banned From Idaho Schools as 'Political' Statement
"To say that 'Everyone is Welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," said one Idaho teacher.
Jul 02, 2025
The Idaho attorney general's office has declared schools in the state will no longer be allowed to post signs declaring that "Everyone is welcome here" on the grounds that they are purportedly a political message aimed at criticizing the policies of President Donald Trump.
Idaho Ed News reported Monday that the office has found that signs stating "Everyone is welcome here" violate Idaho House Bill 41, a law passed back in March that bars schools from flying flags or displaying signs that represent "a political viewpoint, including but not limited to flags or banners regarding a political party, race, sexual orientation, gender, or a political ideology."
In explaining its rationale, the Idaho attorney general's office claimed that "these signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota following the 2016 election of Donald Trump" and added that "since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic Party as a political statement. The Idaho Democratic Party even sells these signs as part of its fundraising efforts.”
The signs became an issue after Sarah Inama, a teacher in Idaho's West Ada School District, had refused to take them down from her classroom in the wake of Idaho House Bill 41's passage because she did not believe that a sign welcoming students regardless of their race or ethnicity should be considered political.
In a statement to Idaho Ed News, Inama once again expressed bewilderment that anyone could find the signs to be a political statement, especially given that government institutions are already legally barred from engaging in racial discrimination.
"To say that 'Everyone is welcome' in a public school system is not political, it's the law," Inama told the publication.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular