SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Instead of investing in this critical industry, the new Senate bill spells disaster for those who provide care and those who need it most. (Photo: Fuerza del Valle)
The Senate Republicans' "Better Care Reconciliation Act," which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), would slash resources needed for Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The homecare workforce, one of the country's fastest-growing, would be extremely hard hit by the plan. The passage of this bill would not only kill homecare jobs, but make homecare workers sicker, while permanently destabilizing the homecare industry.
The number of homecare workers in the country is conservatively estimated to be two million, and it has been growing by about 7 percent per year. Every day, these workers, who are primarily women, provide critical care for seniors, people who are sick, and persons living with disabilities. Homecare workers meet the needs of seniors who want to stay at home as they get older and people of all ages who have disabilities and want to live independently. The daily assistance of homecare workers makes it possible for millions of people across the country to live in their communities.
Yet instead of investing in this critical industry, the new Senate bill spells disaster for those who provide care and those who need it most. Priscilla Smith, from Fayetteville, North Carolina, has been a homecare worker for seven years. She says she's most concerned that the people in the facility where she works won't get the care they need. "Medicaid is what pays for workers like me to provide care," Smith said. "And many elderly people can't afford private insurance."
The bill ends Medicaid expansion and introduces per capita caps and block grants. Combined, these changes spell the end of Medicaid in its current status as a successful, responsive program. For decades, Medicaid has allowed seniors and adults and children living with disabilities to get the homecare they need to live at home and in their communities.
At the same time, the bill includes multiple tax breaks for the wealthy, including retroactive tax breaks for high-income households.
The exact number of people who would lose Medicaid is not yet known due to the furtive and hasty way in which the bill was created, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has announced that by the year 2026, 22 million people would lose insurance under the bill and cuts to Medicaid would reach $772 billion. The CBO also predicts that few people who lose their Medicaid eligibility would be able to purchase insurance "because of the expense for premiums and the high deductibles" for individual market plans.
Because the ACA expanded healthcare access for many people, it additionally created positive growth in healthcare jobs, from doctors to home health aides. If the ACA is cut, there will be an estimated three million jobs lost by 2021. Between 305,000 and 713,000 homecare workers will lose their jobs if the Senate is allowed to restrict Medicaid through per capita caps alone. This estimate does not account for eventual job losses due to the end of Medicaid expansion.
Currently, most homecare workers subsist on poverty wages of under $12,000 a year, and as a result, have a turnover rate of up to 60 percent a year. As one of the fastest-growing sectors in the country, home care has the potential to provide good, stable jobs with wages that are high enough to support working families. However, the Senate bill sucks Medicaid's resources dry, limiting any possibility for raising worker wages and locking this majority woman-of-color workforce into perpetual poverty wages.
Most families and individuals must rely on Medicaid-funded services to obtain homecare. However, the average yearly cost of a home health aide is $45,760 -- unaffordable for most families. There are not enough homecare workers to meet current needs, let alone the growing needs of the nation's seniors. The ACA expanded the supply of homecare workers in the United States, primarily by providing Medicaid-funded services to more people who needed homecare. With the Senate's proposed Medicaid cuts, there won't be enough funding for lower-income adults and seniors to get help from homecare workers. This means that more people living with disabilities and seniors will be forced into institutional homes, which are far more expensive than in-home care.
Before the Affordable Care Act passed, one in three homecare workers was uninsured. Under the ACA, home care workers' uninsured rate decreased by 26 percent, in large part due to increased access to Medicaid. With the Senate bill's massive cuts to the program, homecare workers will lose their affordable coverage, and be forced to work with vulnerable and sick persons, while unable to treat their own illnesses.
Homecare worker Priscilla Smith is making her voice heard through We Dream in Black, a program of the National Domestic Workers Alliance that focuses on improving conditions for African American domestic workers. In the health care fight in Washington, she sees a bigger struggle over economic justice.
"This Senate bill sends a message that our work doesn't matter. That the lives of aging people don't matter. But we are the people who help put money into the health care system in the first place."
Smith's solution? "We need more people in political office who understand care from the bottom up, because at one point or another, everyone will need care."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
The Senate Republicans' "Better Care Reconciliation Act," which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), would slash resources needed for Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The homecare workforce, one of the country's fastest-growing, would be extremely hard hit by the plan. The passage of this bill would not only kill homecare jobs, but make homecare workers sicker, while permanently destabilizing the homecare industry.
The number of homecare workers in the country is conservatively estimated to be two million, and it has been growing by about 7 percent per year. Every day, these workers, who are primarily women, provide critical care for seniors, people who are sick, and persons living with disabilities. Homecare workers meet the needs of seniors who want to stay at home as they get older and people of all ages who have disabilities and want to live independently. The daily assistance of homecare workers makes it possible for millions of people across the country to live in their communities.
Yet instead of investing in this critical industry, the new Senate bill spells disaster for those who provide care and those who need it most. Priscilla Smith, from Fayetteville, North Carolina, has been a homecare worker for seven years. She says she's most concerned that the people in the facility where she works won't get the care they need. "Medicaid is what pays for workers like me to provide care," Smith said. "And many elderly people can't afford private insurance."
The bill ends Medicaid expansion and introduces per capita caps and block grants. Combined, these changes spell the end of Medicaid in its current status as a successful, responsive program. For decades, Medicaid has allowed seniors and adults and children living with disabilities to get the homecare they need to live at home and in their communities.
At the same time, the bill includes multiple tax breaks for the wealthy, including retroactive tax breaks for high-income households.
The exact number of people who would lose Medicaid is not yet known due to the furtive and hasty way in which the bill was created, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has announced that by the year 2026, 22 million people would lose insurance under the bill and cuts to Medicaid would reach $772 billion. The CBO also predicts that few people who lose their Medicaid eligibility would be able to purchase insurance "because of the expense for premiums and the high deductibles" for individual market plans.
Because the ACA expanded healthcare access for many people, it additionally created positive growth in healthcare jobs, from doctors to home health aides. If the ACA is cut, there will be an estimated three million jobs lost by 2021. Between 305,000 and 713,000 homecare workers will lose their jobs if the Senate is allowed to restrict Medicaid through per capita caps alone. This estimate does not account for eventual job losses due to the end of Medicaid expansion.
Currently, most homecare workers subsist on poverty wages of under $12,000 a year, and as a result, have a turnover rate of up to 60 percent a year. As one of the fastest-growing sectors in the country, home care has the potential to provide good, stable jobs with wages that are high enough to support working families. However, the Senate bill sucks Medicaid's resources dry, limiting any possibility for raising worker wages and locking this majority woman-of-color workforce into perpetual poverty wages.
Most families and individuals must rely on Medicaid-funded services to obtain homecare. However, the average yearly cost of a home health aide is $45,760 -- unaffordable for most families. There are not enough homecare workers to meet current needs, let alone the growing needs of the nation's seniors. The ACA expanded the supply of homecare workers in the United States, primarily by providing Medicaid-funded services to more people who needed homecare. With the Senate's proposed Medicaid cuts, there won't be enough funding for lower-income adults and seniors to get help from homecare workers. This means that more people living with disabilities and seniors will be forced into institutional homes, which are far more expensive than in-home care.
Before the Affordable Care Act passed, one in three homecare workers was uninsured. Under the ACA, home care workers' uninsured rate decreased by 26 percent, in large part due to increased access to Medicaid. With the Senate bill's massive cuts to the program, homecare workers will lose their affordable coverage, and be forced to work with vulnerable and sick persons, while unable to treat their own illnesses.
Homecare worker Priscilla Smith is making her voice heard through We Dream in Black, a program of the National Domestic Workers Alliance that focuses on improving conditions for African American domestic workers. In the health care fight in Washington, she sees a bigger struggle over economic justice.
"This Senate bill sends a message that our work doesn't matter. That the lives of aging people don't matter. But we are the people who help put money into the health care system in the first place."
Smith's solution? "We need more people in political office who understand care from the bottom up, because at one point or another, everyone will need care."
The Senate Republicans' "Better Care Reconciliation Act," which would repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), would slash resources needed for Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. The homecare workforce, one of the country's fastest-growing, would be extremely hard hit by the plan. The passage of this bill would not only kill homecare jobs, but make homecare workers sicker, while permanently destabilizing the homecare industry.
The number of homecare workers in the country is conservatively estimated to be two million, and it has been growing by about 7 percent per year. Every day, these workers, who are primarily women, provide critical care for seniors, people who are sick, and persons living with disabilities. Homecare workers meet the needs of seniors who want to stay at home as they get older and people of all ages who have disabilities and want to live independently. The daily assistance of homecare workers makes it possible for millions of people across the country to live in their communities.
Yet instead of investing in this critical industry, the new Senate bill spells disaster for those who provide care and those who need it most. Priscilla Smith, from Fayetteville, North Carolina, has been a homecare worker for seven years. She says she's most concerned that the people in the facility where she works won't get the care they need. "Medicaid is what pays for workers like me to provide care," Smith said. "And many elderly people can't afford private insurance."
The bill ends Medicaid expansion and introduces per capita caps and block grants. Combined, these changes spell the end of Medicaid in its current status as a successful, responsive program. For decades, Medicaid has allowed seniors and adults and children living with disabilities to get the homecare they need to live at home and in their communities.
At the same time, the bill includes multiple tax breaks for the wealthy, including retroactive tax breaks for high-income households.
The exact number of people who would lose Medicaid is not yet known due to the furtive and hasty way in which the bill was created, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has announced that by the year 2026, 22 million people would lose insurance under the bill and cuts to Medicaid would reach $772 billion. The CBO also predicts that few people who lose their Medicaid eligibility would be able to purchase insurance "because of the expense for premiums and the high deductibles" for individual market plans.
Because the ACA expanded healthcare access for many people, it additionally created positive growth in healthcare jobs, from doctors to home health aides. If the ACA is cut, there will be an estimated three million jobs lost by 2021. Between 305,000 and 713,000 homecare workers will lose their jobs if the Senate is allowed to restrict Medicaid through per capita caps alone. This estimate does not account for eventual job losses due to the end of Medicaid expansion.
Currently, most homecare workers subsist on poverty wages of under $12,000 a year, and as a result, have a turnover rate of up to 60 percent a year. As one of the fastest-growing sectors in the country, home care has the potential to provide good, stable jobs with wages that are high enough to support working families. However, the Senate bill sucks Medicaid's resources dry, limiting any possibility for raising worker wages and locking this majority woman-of-color workforce into perpetual poverty wages.
Most families and individuals must rely on Medicaid-funded services to obtain homecare. However, the average yearly cost of a home health aide is $45,760 -- unaffordable for most families. There are not enough homecare workers to meet current needs, let alone the growing needs of the nation's seniors. The ACA expanded the supply of homecare workers in the United States, primarily by providing Medicaid-funded services to more people who needed homecare. With the Senate's proposed Medicaid cuts, there won't be enough funding for lower-income adults and seniors to get help from homecare workers. This means that more people living with disabilities and seniors will be forced into institutional homes, which are far more expensive than in-home care.
Before the Affordable Care Act passed, one in three homecare workers was uninsured. Under the ACA, home care workers' uninsured rate decreased by 26 percent, in large part due to increased access to Medicaid. With the Senate bill's massive cuts to the program, homecare workers will lose their affordable coverage, and be forced to work with vulnerable and sick persons, while unable to treat their own illnesses.
Homecare worker Priscilla Smith is making her voice heard through We Dream in Black, a program of the National Domestic Workers Alliance that focuses on improving conditions for African American domestic workers. In the health care fight in Washington, she sees a bigger struggle over economic justice.
"This Senate bill sends a message that our work doesn't matter. That the lives of aging people don't matter. But we are the people who help put money into the health care system in the first place."
Smith's solution? "We need more people in political office who understand care from the bottom up, because at one point or another, everyone will need care."
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee said that "continued uncertainty" caused by the president's policies could reduce manufacturing investments by nearly half a trillion dollars by the end of this decade.
US President Donald Trump's tariff whiplash has already harmed domestic manufacturing and could continue to do so through at least the end of this decade to the tune of nearly half a trillion dollars, a report published Monday by congressional Democrats on a key economic committee warned.
The Joint Economic Committee (JEC)-Minority said that recent data belied Trump's claim that his global trade war would boost domestic manufacturing, pointing to the 37,000 manufacturing jobs lost since the president announced his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in April.
"Hiring in the manufacturing sector has dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade," the Democrats on the committee wrote. "In addition, many experts have noted that in and of itself, the uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Based on both US business investment projections and economic analyses of the UK in the aftermath of Brexit, the Joint Economic Committee-Minority calculates that a similarly prolonged period of uncertainty in the US could result in an average of 13% less manufacturing investment per year, amounting to approximately $490 billion in foregone investment by 2029," the report states.
"The uncertainty created by the administration so far could significantly damage the broader economy long-term."
"Although businesses have received additional clarity on reciprocal tariff rates in recent days, uncertainty over outstanding negotiations is likely to continue to delay long-term investments and pricing decisions," the publication adds. "Furthermore, even if the uncertainty about the US economy were to end tomorrow, evidence suggests that the uncertainty that businesses have already faced in recent months would still have long-term consequences for the manufacturing sector."
According to the JEC Democrats, the Trump administration has made nearly 100 different tariff policy decisions since April—"including threats, delays, and reversals"—creating uncertainty and insecurity in markets and economies around the world. It's not just manufacturing and markets—economic data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that businesses in some sectors are passing the costs of Trump's tariffs on to consumers.
As the new JEC minority report notes:
As independent research has shown, businesses are less likely to make long-term investments when they face high uncertainty about future policies and economic conditions. For manufacturers, decisions to expand production—which often entail major, irreversible investments in equipment and new facilities that typically take years to complete—require an especially high degree of confidence that these expenses will pay off. This barrier, along with other factors, makes manufacturing the sector most likely to see its growth affected by trade policy uncertainty, as noted recently by analysts at Goldman Sachs.
"Strengthening American manufacturing is critical to the future of our economy and our national security," Joint Economic Committee Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said in a statement Monday. "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said one advocate.
Congressman Rob Bresnahan, a Republican who campaigned on banning stock trading by lawmakers only to make at least 626 stock trades since taking office in January, was under scrutiny Monday for a particular sale he made just before he voted for the largest Medicaid cut in US history.
Soon after a report showed that 10 rural hospitals in Bresnahan's state of Pennsylvania were at risk of being shut down, the congressman sold between $100,001 and $250,000 in bonds issued by the Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
The New York Times reported on the sale a month after it was revealed that Bresnahan sold up to $15,000 of stock he held in Centene Corporation, the largest Medicaid provider in the country. When President Donald Trump signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last month, Centene's stock plummeted by 40%.
Bresnahan repeatedly said he would not vote to cut the safety net before he voted in favor of the bill.
The law is expected to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, with 10-15 million people projected to lose health coverage through the safety net program, according to one recent analysis. More than 700 hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, are likely to close due to a loss of Medicaid funding.
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
The economic justice group Unrig the Economy said that despite Bresnahan's introduction of a bill in May to bar members of Congress from buying and selling stocks—with the caveat that they could keep stocks they held before starting their terms in a blind trust—the congressman is "the one doing the selling... out of Pennsylvania hospitals."
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. "Hospitals across Pennsylvania could close thanks to his vote, forcing families to drive long distances and experience longer wait times for critical care."
"Not everyone has a secret helicopter they can use whenever they want," added Tal, referring to recent reports that the multi-millionaire congressman owns a helicopter worth as much as $1.5 million, which he purchased through a limited liability company he set up.
Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Times that Bresnahan's stock trading "will define his time in Washington and be a major reason why he will lose his seat."
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
"If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable," the ACLU said.
As President Donald Trump escalates the US military occupation of Washington, DC—including by importing hundreds of out-of-state National Guard troops and allowing others to start carrying guns on missions in the nation's capital—the ACLU on Monday reminded his administration that federal forces are constitutionally obligated to protect, not violate, residents' rights.
"With additional state National Guard troops deploying to DC as untrained federal law enforcement agents perform local police duties in city streets, the American Civil Liberties Union is issuing a stark reminder to all federal and military officials that—no matter what uniform they wear or what authority they claim—they are bound by the US Constitution and all federal and local laws," the group said in a statement.
Over the weekend, the Republican governors of Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia announced that they are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to join the 800 DC guardsmen and women recently activated by Trump, who also asserted federal control over the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Sending military troops and heavily-armed federal agents to patrol the streets and scare vulnerable communities does not make us safer.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) August 18, 2025 at 12:08 PM
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency in a city where violent crime is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966, according to official statistics. Critics have noted that Trump's crackdown isn't just targeting criminals, but also unhoused and mentally ill people, who have had their homes destroyed and property taken.
Contradicting assurances from military officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the newly deployed troops may be ordered to start carrying firearms. This, along with the president's vow to let police "do whatever the hell they want" to reduce crime in the city and other statements, have raised serious concerns of possible abuses.
"Through his manufactured emergency, President Trump is engaging in dangerous political theater to expand his power and sow fear in our communities," ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said Monday. "Sending heavily armed federal agents and National Guard troops from hundreds of miles away into our nation's capital is unnecessary, inflammatory, and puts people's rights at high risk of being violated."
Shamsi stressed that "federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution, including our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process, and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures. If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable."
On Friday, the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to block its order asserting federal authority over the MPD, arguing the move violated the Home Rule Act. U.S. Attorney General Bondi subsequently rescinded her order to replace DC Police Chief Pamela Smith with Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole.
Also on Friday, a group of House Democrats introduced a resolution to terminate Trump's emergency declaration.
The deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops onto our streets is a brazen abuse of power meant to create fear in the District.Join us in the fight for statehood to give D.C. residents the same guardrails against federal overreach as other states: dcstatehoodnow.org
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM
ACLU of DC executive director Monica Hopkins argued Monday that there is a way to curb Trump's "brazen abuse of power" in the District.
"We need the nation to join us in the fight for statehood so that DC residents are treated like those in every other state and have the same guardrails against federal overreach," she said.