Making a profit isn't enough for Wall St.: You are going to have to pay, with your money (and maybe your life!)

Wendell Potter, in his “Health Care Un-Covered” substack, recently (Aug 6, 2025) reports that ‘As Americans Struggled, Health Insurers Made a Record-Breaking $71.3 Billion in Profits. In 2024, seven big insurers posted $71.3 billion in profits and paid their CEOs more than $146 million.’ There are several things being said in that sentence. First is that health insurance companies made a lot of profit. Second is that some people, specifically health insurance CEOs, are doing very well, thank you. Third is the assumption that Americans are struggling, presumably with their health insurance and healthcare. Let’s think about each of these.

These health insurance companies, per the chart that Potter includes, made $71.3B in profits. That seems like a lot to me. For most, it’s also more than the prior year. But not for all. Note that Humana made 33% less than in 2023, a mere $2.7B. 

Fortunately, that was enough to continue to pay it’s CEO over $15M.

At least UnitedHealth, the largest health insurer, is doing fine, right? It increased its profits 6% over the year before, and its CEO Andrew Witty (head of UnitedHealth Group, not to be confused with the assassinated Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthCare, who worked for him), is the highest-paid health insurance CEO at $26.3M, so I guess he deserves it because the company is doing so well. That shows that I (and possibly you) are not expert in the ways of Wall St. investors. It wasn’t enough for them. Just two days earlier, on Aug 4, Potter posted ‘Inside the Midyear Panic at UnitedHealth’. It makes fascinating reading, although the lessons learned by an MBA student may be different from those learned by, say, a regular person needing healthcare. As far as Wall St. is concerned, it is not enough to stay profitable; corporate profits need to continually go up so that these investors can meet their expectations for their own profit. It is important to understand that, as much as health insurance companies can be seen to be greedy parasites who produce nothing but obstruction and cost for those providing and receiving healthcare which they sell as producing “value”, private investors are a meta-level worse. They don’t even pretend to produce anything; they are, as an old family friend liked to say, “in money”. They invest and expect money back, more money all the time, and don’t care much about how the companies they invest in get it.

Nearly 500 years ago, Shakespeare wrote the “Merchant of Venice”, an excellent but anti-Semitic play about a greedy Jewish moneylender named Shylock.* Shylock has been widely decried for centuries for demanding a pound of flesh as repayment for the loan (how horrible!) But, by today’s standards, particularly in health insurance, he’d be a piker. While a lot of people, including me, could afford to lose a pound (or 20) of flesh, the health insurance companies are being spurred on by their investors (along with their own lack of values), are doing much worse. The actions that they are taking to ensure Wall St. investors make what they believe to be sufficient ROI will end up killing people. Antonio should have been happy to give up his pound of flesh! 

Of course, the financial investors in health insurance companies are not gauche enough to literally demand the killing of their clients. But they did demand changes that will undoubtedly have that result. While UnitedHealth saw an 8% increase in their Medicare Advantage plans, which they generally like because these plans allow them to do what they do with regular insurance, obstruct access, they still had to pay more out in medical claims than the shareholders were happy about. As Potter says, “Those seniors figured out how to get at least some care despite the company’s high barriers to care (aggressive use of prior authorization, “narrow” networks of providers, etc.).” Sounds good if you’re a patient, but if you’re an investor, it’s horrific. Remember what the insurance industry calls the percent of the premiums that they collect which they actually have to pay for medical care? The “medical loss ratio”! They hate it when they make less profit because they are paying for your care! Yes, UnitedHealth made $14.3 billion in profits during the second quarter, but it was less than the $15.8 billion they made in the second quarter of 2024, so something had to be done!

Potter describes what UnitedHealth promised its investors they would do:

• Dump 600,000 or so enrollees who might need care next year  [after all it is much more profitable to collect premiums on people who won’t need care]

• Raise premiums “in the double digits” – way above the “medical trend” that PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts to be 8.5% (high but not double-digit high)[ie., you, the customer, pay more for less]

• Boot more providers it doesn’t already own out of network [when they work for you, money you pay them goes back to yourself!]

·       Reduce benefits [of course]

Yup, these changes most definitely will kill people.

Most insurance involves has you betting against yourself; you pay premiums to protect you if something happens that you do not want (or expect) to happen, but might. You have homeowner’s insurance, but you hope your house doesn’t burn down. You have auto insurance, but you hope you are not in a car accident. Originally, health insurance followed the same idea; it was not intended to pay for routine care, but to protect you if you had to be hospitalized and or have surgery for something you didn’t expect. But then it began covering (or hopefully covering) regular medical care, visits, treatments, and drugs. It was paying for what you wanted – regular care, not unexpected and unanticipated “major medical” care. This is different from what insurance usually is. Actually, though, insurance companies preferred as it is predictable and relatively low cost. With Medicare Advantage plans, for example, they take money from Medicare to cover seniors who are happy to have coverage for prevention, doctor visits, drugs, and even gym membership without having to pay separately for a Part D plan, a Medicare Supplement plan (to cover the 20% of hospital costs Medicare Part A doesn’t pay for), etc.

When those people get sick, however, they want their bills paid, and not infrequently United and the others were denying it. But as Potter points out, not often enough to please their investors. People were sometimes, increasingly, getting their bills paid – indeed CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was requiring that they be paid. That is what infuriated investors – all that money going to pay for medical care rather than profit and shareholder dividends! So, they will reduce benefits, increase premiums, further limit the doctors you can see and hospitals you can use, and make being sick more unpleasant than it already is. Tough luck.

But that’s what you get when you have a “healthcare” system that exists primarily to make profit, not to provide healthcare. When you live in the United States. Why do we put up with this?

 

 

* Jews were moneylenders because it was an area open to them; in those quaint days Christians actually thought they had to abide on the Biblical prohibition on earning interest from lending money. It’s complicated; most of the prohibitions are actually in the Old Testament, but this was often interpreted as not lending money to other Jews; Christians were OK. Of course, they were presumably lending to other Jews when New Testament describes Jesus turning over the tables of the moneylenders in the Temple, saying per Matthew 5:42 ‘Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you’. Anyway, both Jews and Christians lend money – “invest” – now.

 

Medicare and Medicaid at 60: Need more -- and more threatened -- than at 50!

Ten years ago, on August 2, 2015, I posted Medicare and Medicaid at 50: Time to include “US” all on the 50^th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid. I lived in Kansas City, and with local pride noted that the legislation was signed by President Lyndon Johnson on July 30, 1965 at the Truman Library in Independence, MO, just outside KC, with President Truman and Mrs. Truman present. They received Medicare cards #1 and #2. There was reason for this symbolism; President Truman had tried to pass a national health insurance program in 1945, but it failed, confronting the shameful opposition of the American Medical Association. In some major ways, his proposed program was more ambitious than even Medicare and Medicaid together would end up being, as it would have covered 85-90% of Americans (it would, however, have been voluntary; opponents could have chosen not to pay in and thus not be covered). In 1946, the Republicans took over Congress and so the proposed legislation was dead, Republicans historically (and currently) opposing anything that benefits most of the American people.

President Lyndon Johnson signing the Medicare and Medicaid Acts with former President Harry Truman at the Truman Library in Independence, MO, in 1965. Ironically, Lyndon Johnson himself never made it to Medicare age, dying in 1973 at age 64.

Medicare provided universal health insurance to seniors, who had previously lived their last years in fear that they would get sick and be bankrupt and unable to afford care, as well as people with some serious disabilities including blindness. Medicaid, a different program funded by a federal-state partnership, with the federal government paying usually more than 50% and up to 90% depending on the average state income, was meant to cover the poorest Americans. Of course, each state set both the eligibility standards (how poor you had to be, and what else you had to be besides poor) and the benefits. And, of course, many states set standards well below the poverty level and provided very limited benefits.

A few years before that 50^th anniversary, in 2010, Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Affordable Care Act, ACA, also known as Obamacare, which significantly expanded access to health coverage. One major component of the law was the establishment of insurance exchanges where individuals who were previously uninsured could purchase health insurance at group rates, which were more affordable than had previously been available to individuals. The other important component allowed states to expand their Medicaid programs to people who made too much money to have previously been eligible. This part was supposed to fill in the gap and cover those who, despite making too much for Medicaid, still were too poor to qualify for the ACA exchanges, and this was a lot of people. Remember, Medicaid did not cover people who were just poor (even really really poor); you had to be, as stated by Dr. Bridget McCandless, the CEO of the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City at that 2015 event, “poor and…”:

Poor and pregnant, poor and the mother of small children, poor and disabled, poor and in a nursing home, poor and – and the tears rolled down her cheeks – a child.

As I have noted before, despite the lying propaganda put out by Republicans before the passage of HR 1 (the “Big Beautiful Bill”) this year, few Medicaid recipients are able-bodied but unemployed childless adults. Most are small children and their mothers or disabled or in nursing homes – and nursing homes, almost all of which are privately and profitably run, account for most of the money spent. By the way, neither Missouri nor Kansas (the other state in the Kansas City region) took the opportunity to expand Medicaid, even though the federal government would have initially paid 100% and after a few years 90% of the cost, so some of its citizens simply continued to suffer and die.

However, despite this, in the opinion of most Republicans in Congress, too many people were getting health care, and it was costing too much money which could otherwise be used for more important projects, mainly cutting taxes on the wealthiest people in this country. This “problem” is being addressed by HR 1, which will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, result in about 11 million people losing Medicaid coverage. Of course, this is denied by some; Vice President J.D. Vance said “Don’t believe every false media report that you’ve heard, because our explicit goal in the Trump administration is to protect people’s healthcare.” You can either believe him just saying that based on no data, or believe the CBO, or you can wait and see. Also, many Congressional Republicans expressed great concern about the bill’s impact on Medicaid, including my Congressman, Juan Ciscomani (AZ-6), but voted for it anyway. Note: voting for a bill with reservations is the same as voting for a bill!

Medicare will also be significantly (negatively) impacted by HR 1, as discussed in detail by the Commonwealth Fund. They address primarily low-income Medicare recipients with disabilities (arguably a particularly vulnerable group!) who have been eligible for assistance programs that help pay their Part B (outpatient) and Part D (drug coverage) premiums. HR 1 makes it possible for states to create additional obstacles to becoming enrolled in these assistance programs. A lot of Republicans have also talked about the tax savings people will get from Medicare payments, but it will not be very much, and benefit few:

Tax changes for people age 65 and older. The law includes a $6,000 annual tax deduction for adults over 65 with taxable incomes up to $75,000 annually ($150,000 for those filing jointly), with smaller deductions for those making up to $175,000 ($250,000 filing jointly) for 2025–2028. Low-income older adults generally do not make enough taxable income to be eligible for the deduction, but the provision could help middle- and higher-income older adults. The CBO has not separately estimated the cost of this deduction.  [Commonwealth Fund] 

Then there are the rest of us on Medicare. Another major Republican passion is privatizing both Medicare and, indeed, Social Security. Mostly they don’t like to talk about it openly because these are the two most popular programs in the nation, but that is what they are working on. And sometimes one – often a billionaire Cabinet secretary who hasn’t the slightest idea of how regular people live (are there any others?) -- slips up and says just that. In this case it was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who told us that the “Trump Accounts” for children were literally a “backdoor” for privatizing Social Security. And they also come in through the front door. The “Medicare Advantage” program is one of the main mechanisms for doing this; it is not Medicare (it takes the Medicare dollars that would provide for your care and pays them to an insurance company that basically puts you in their HMO or PPO) and is only advantageous for some recipients, mostly those who are not too sick. Note that these plans can vary a lot – in general government retirees are in better plans than those from the private sector – but the key issue is that rather than being in Medicare, which has to cover you, you are in a private insurance program which can – and does – often deny your claims, as it does for the non-Medicare insured. (see for example my posts "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times": Threats to the public's health from Medicaid cuts, MAHA, and others, Jun 7, 2025, and Open Enrollment Season for Medicare and Medicare Advantage: What you should know, Oct 7, 2024).

In 1945, under President Truman, the American people needed comprehensive universal health coverage. In 1965, under President Johnson, they still needed it, and some of the most vulnerable Americans, the elderly and poor, got Medicare and Medicaid. In 2010, under President Obama, they still needed it, and got some expansion of coverage from the ACA. In 2025, under President Trump, they need it more than ever, but the coverage that we do have is being deeply eroded. 

Meanwhile, the people of every other wealthy country have universal health care, longer lives, and better health outcomes, and it costs them way less! Are we such suckers?

 

 

 

Recalling an old post: Le Havre and not paying for health care -- in France

Sometimes I think about old posts, and how sad it is that things have not changed in the years since I wrote them. But, as with this one, from Jan 12, 2012, I enjoyed writing it, and highly recommend the film that inspired it, Le Havre.

 One thing to NOT worry about: paying for health care -- in France

Pay primary care more: Kennedy may be getting this one right!

I have recently written strong criticisms of Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his positions on a number of issues, including most importantly vaccines (see RFK, Jr.: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is Dangerous to Your Health!). Not only is he wrong about vaccines being dangerous, he is in fact creating major danger by discouraging their use. The polio vaccine essentially eliminated a disease that was a major scourge in the US as well as the rest of the world, as did the measles vaccine. Many other vaccines protect our children – and adults – from other serious viral diseases like influenza, COVID, mumps, chicken pox, rubella, shingles, and human papillomavirus (HPV) which causes cervical cancer, as well as bacterial diseases including diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and Hemophilus influenza b. The last is something most people have not heard of, but early in my career was a major cause of morbidity and death in infants and young children from meningitis, pneumonia, and epiglottitis, which caused their throats to swell rapidly and choke off their breathing. Many others have articulately expressed this concern, including the pediatrician Perri Klass in the New York Times. While these diseases affected people of all social classes, they were more prevalent among the poor and minority groups such as the people I cared for at Chicago’s Cook County Hospital. Indeed, research has demonstrated tremendous benefits from vaccines on the health of children and other populations that go far beyond just the decrease in the specific diseases that they target to decreasing all-cause mortality!

Kennedy is wrong about many other things, if not all of as of such immediate potential danger as urging people to not get vaccinated. These include nonsense like suggesting that people who eat right and exercise won’t get disease, that raw (unpasteurized) milk is better for you, and that “natural” is always better (which, even if we could agree on a definition of “natural”, it isn’t). One recent example is his arguing for Coke to use “natural” cane sugar rather that high-fructose corn syrup, both of which are sugar and have calories and in large amounts are bad for you.

But there turns out to be one area where Kennedy and I seem to agree, which is the need to take concrete action to increase the number of primary care physicians. Lots of people, including politicians, healthcare providers, and health policy experts, express concern about the shortage of primary care, but have done nothing to address the real cause of this problem – that primary care physicians (and the nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants working with them) get paid a lot less than do physicians in other specialties. Kennedy appears to be doing something other than wringing his hands. On several occasions I have written about the RUC, the AMA committee that decides how to divide up the pie of Medicare dollars among specialists by deciding how much each thing doctors do is worth relative to other things that they do. (Changes in the RUC: None.. How come we let a bunch of self-interested doctors decide what they get paid? July 21, 2013, Doctors' incomes and patient coverage: both need to be more equal July 26, 2014, and most recently, Not enough primary physicians OR Nurse Practitioners: It's the money, stupid!, June 27, 2024).

Not to get too technical, there is a set amount of Medicare dollars and the RUC decides (or recommends to CMS, which almost always accepts those recommendations) how many physical exams, say, are equivalent to one gall bladder surgery, considering (theoretically) both difficulty and time. This makes a tremendous difference in physician income and, I would argue, specialty choice by medical students. And, over the years, the amount of time it takes for doctors to do some things, particularly procedures, changes. Colonoscopies used to be estimated to take an hour and a quarter, but now are routinely done in 30 minutes. Cataract surgeries take a fraction of the time that they once did. This can result in physicians billing for more procedures than the model assesses as possible in a day. In contrast, the time it takes for a physical exam, or to listen to an interpret a person’s story, hasn’t changed significantly. The composition of the RUC, according to the AMA, represents all specialties, but its membership has a low proportion of primary care doctors – five of the 32 seats. Unsurprisingly, then, specialist-performed procedures are valued more highly than cognitive work. And, very important, these rates (relative value units) do not affect only Medicare payments – virtually all insurers pay based upon Medicare rates, so it is the whole health system! Prior to this new regulation, alternative models for allocating payment have been developed, such as this 2025 publication from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

So, now, maybe, a change. The NY Times reports that, buried in an 1800-page HHS regulation, are proposed changes in the RUC methodology that would benefit primary care. This would be real action! In addition to reassessing these relative values, the action would also look at the current practice of reimbursing more for the same procedures done in a hospital than in a doctor’s office, a major way that hospitals make money. And, for those who think “of course it costs more to do something in a hospital”, this is a technicality; it simply means that the hospital owns the practice or clinic. So two, say, skin biopsies performed in similar doctor’s offices across the street from each other are now reimbursed at very different rates if one is owned by a hospital. This is absurd and inequitable, and getting rid of it makes terrific sense!

The diffusion of medical services to people and communities is primarily driven not by the health needs of the populations in different areas but by the potential to make the most money for health care providers. These are largely, and increasingly, hospitals and health systems, as well as enormous insurance-company and private-equity owned practices rather than individual or small group physician-owned practices. So, we get enormous hospital campuses and medical facilities in major cities and wealthy suburbs and little or nothing in poor neighborhoods and rural areas. This should change. The only reason for decisions about what healthcare services to provide and where to provide them should be the health needs of people, and not on how much profit can be made.

The new HHS regulation will be a big step in this direction if it redirects Medicare (and thus all insurer) funds to primary care, and does not preferentially favor hospital-owned practices. To the extent that he is responsible for it, Kennedy should be congratulated. However, while it is a big step, it is not a solution. The next, necessary, step is a universal health insurance program where every single person is covered and covered by the same system, and where establishment (and closure) of health facilities, and the services that they provide or do not, is entirely based on the health needs of the people. Of course, there will be a lot of resistance – highly paid specialists will resist the proposed HHS reimbursement changes, and the institutionalized powerful insurance companies and other big players who are making lots of money from “healthcare” will oppose more comprehensive changes. Indeed, they already are, with highly funded social media campaigns against universal health care.

We are glad for this first step, but we need to keep fighting to get a comprehensive health program – like those of every other wealthy country!

The growth of the healthcare sector in the economy is not matched by an increase in health

Healthcare is a big industry in the US. Really big. Per a recent NY Times article, it is the largest employer in the nation, its growth demonstrated by this graphic:

The plummeting in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades (it being more profitable to make things in poorer countries thanks to lower wages) and the more gradual but steady fall in retail jobs as a result of the on-line economy leading to the closure of “brick and mortar” stores, have been big contributors to this phenomenon, but the growth in the number of health care jobs is also undeniable. Indeed, as seen in the graphic below, in 1990 healthcare was the largest employer in no state, but in 2024 it is the largest in all but 11! This is an incredible change, and has incredible implications for the US economy and for the health of Americans. Unfortunately, they are not entirely positive.

While growth in employment may be good for the economy overall, and helps those who have jobs in that sector, this is only true to the extent that they are good jobs, or at least are jobs that employ people who would otherwise be unemployed. Not all healthcare jobs are well-paying, and if they are relatively poor paying jobs that have replaced better paying jobs in manufacturing, the folks who have them are not better off. It is not necessarily good for the individual who is paying for their healthcare, even when they are employed in the healthcare industry (many “lower end” jobs in this industry do not come with good, or even any, health insurance). The cost of insurance has gone way up, as has the proportion of it that is borne by the individual or household. As a third graphic from this article shows, the growth in the percentage of household expenditures that is for healthcare has also been phenomenal, now being larger than the portion spent on groceries or housing.

One big issue is that not all of these healthcare jobs are actually providing healthcare to people. They include those who do, nurses and doctors and other clinical providers, and also those providing home care services, who are often at the lowest end of both the salary and benefit scale. Many of these workers are on both Medicaid and food stamps, an indictment of the healthcare industry and a rebuttal to those (mostly Republican) politicians who justify cutting those programs by saying that they are abused by able-bodied adults who should “get a job”. In addition to clinical providers, “healthcare” jobs also include multiple levels of administrators and managers in healthcare and in the insurance industry. Indeed, many work in the artificial industry created by the conflict between the two about whether and how much insurance should pay for care, both sides engaged in an essentially socially non-productive struggle.  

The growth in administrative personnel – a hold-all term for those not involved in clinical activities – is illustrated by the following chart, which looks at the increase in physicians compared to administrators/managers over time. What we see represents a towering infrastructure mainly aimed at making money, either for healthcare institutions or insurers. Even though physicians are only one piece of the clinical pie, it is a pretty impressive contrast. Nurses, and the demand for nurses, has grown more dramatically (if not as fast as that of administrators). This is in part because the number of physicians hasn’t grown as fast as the demand for clinical services, and some services previously provided by physicians are now done by nurses, including Advance Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) such as Nurse Practitioners, Nurse Midwives, Nurse Anesthetists, and other Clinical Nurse Specialists. There are currently about 4 million nurses, with about ¾ being RNs (not counting APRNs), and 1 million physicians (State of the US Healthcare Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, November 2024, downloaded from https://bhw.hrsa.gov). There is some question about the degree to which the number of “primary care” physicians is all doctors who are actually practicing primary care, especially among general internists, many of whom are hospitalists (40% or greater).

 

So, we have both an amazing growth in the number of healthcare jobs and in the portion of a regular household budget that is spent on healthcare (including direct payments, insurance premiums, copays, coinsurance, deductibles). Obviously these are related phenomena; after all the growth in the number of jobs, as well as in the number of buildings dedicated to healthcare (see Ron Shansky and Healthcare in the US: We need more than buildings, May 10, 2025) has to be paid for somehow. The “somehow” is money spent on healthcare services, which is paid by people either directly or through their insurance premiums and other payments. While it is in large part these buildings, and these jobs, that have led many to say that the US has the “best healthcare system in the world”, it is mostly the biggest.

The argument that we have the best healthcare system would be bolstered by demonstrating that, as a result of, or even coincidentally with, this enormous physical and human resources infrastructure, the health of the American people was great, or even had significantly improved. Sadly, it has not, and doesn’t appear to be headed in that direction. Certainly, many people get great health care, particularly those who are wealthier, well-insured, and live in major metropolitan areas. But many don’t, even including people in all those groups. The overall health status of the American people not only remains lower than that of all comparable (ie, wealthy) countries, and even many “middle income” (poor by US standards) countries, but the gap is increasing, not decreasing. I included a few graphs from The Commonwealth Fund’s comparative international ranking, Mirror Mirror on the Wall, in the blog cited above, including one showing how far ahead we are in health care spending, but will reproduce here the one showing 2024 health system performance rankings.

New changes in health financing resulting from the Trump-GOP “One Beautiful Bill” will have major negative consequences, making these circumstances worse, much of which is documented in How to Wreck the Nation’s Health, by the Numbers, an excellent and thorough essay in the NY Times by long-time health services researcher Dr. Steven H. Woolf. Eleven million people will lose Medicaid coverage, and the vast majority will not be able-bodied adults who are voluntarily unemployed. Most Medicaid beneficiaries are children and their mothers. Most Medicaid dollars are spent on people in nursing homes (both those that started out low-income and those that “spent down” because of the cost of long-term care and got poor enough to qualify).  A recent Commonwealth Fund study estimates significant job loss and negative impact on the economy from this bill,  

In 2029, cuts to Medicaid and SNAP would cause state gross domestic products to fall by $154 billion, 18 percent more than the $131 billion they would save the federal government. The cuts would result in the loss of 1.22 million jobs nationwide, equivalent to a 0.8-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate. States with higher rates of poverty would likely be harmed more. State and local tax revenues would fall by $12 billion.

Rural areas would be particularly affected, especially in health care. Unlike the major urban medical centers I described earlier, rural hospitals often operate at the margins of financial viability. Because rural populations are poorer, older, and sicker, they are more dependent upon Medicare and Medicaid as payers. Many have closed in the last several years, and many more are likely to as a result of the coming cuts, as documented by the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research in North Carolina and reported in KFF Health News and the University of Arizona Center for Rural Health.

The degree to which this new law will negatively impact the most vulnerable people in our nation – the poor, rural, children, seniors – is so dramatic that it is impossible to believe this was not the intention. It is certainly consistent with the goals of Project 2025, as summarized here by the American Public Health Association. If this seems inexplicably mean and cruel, it is. Even many GOP congresspeople and senators noted this before going ahead and voting for the bill anyway (note: voting for the bill under protest is the same as voting for the bill).

We are going to have to work very hard to try to minimize the negative impact, and it will take all those healthcare buildings and jobs working, not to make profit but to make us healthy. Good luck with that.