Though Kennedy did not explicitly suggest limiting Medicaid benefits for those engaging in behaviors deemed unhealthy, his comments could be interpreted as such, said Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. West Virginia limited Medicaid benefits in 2007 if patients did not follow healthy behaviors and sign a “personal responsibility” agreement — federal approval for that was withdrawn following Barack Obama’s election.

Public health experts were alarmed by Kennedy’s remarks, saying they suggest that Kennedy may limit access to health care based on personal behavior. They also come as potential cuts to insurance for low-income Americans, Medicaid, loom amid a push for deep budget reductions in Congress.

Though Kennedy did not explicitly suggest limiting Medicaid benefits for those engaging in behaviors deemed unhealthy, his comments could be interpreted as such, said Joan Alker, executive director and co-founder of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. West Virginia limited Medicaid benefits in 2007 if patients did not follow healthy behaviors and sign a “personal responsibility” agreement — federal approval for that was withdrawn following Barack Obama’s election.

Cost-cutting measures championed by Elon Musk and his U.S. DOGE Service are causing chaos with a surge in calls to an already struggling toll-free phone number, foot traffic at field offices that are rapidly losing staff and a website that keeps crashing. Republican lawmakers have scrambled to prevent Social Security offices from closing in their districts. And Democrats have redoubled their focus on Social Security as they search for an effective response to President "Old Donald".

Since 1940, the Social Security Board of Trustees has released an annual report that intricately details how the program generates income and where every dollar of its outlays (i.e., benefits and, to a lesser extent, administrative expenses) is directed.

The grim reality of President 'Old Donald''s Social Security proposals

While there's little doubt the president's three-pronged approach to Social Security would likely keep voters happy, what's popular and well-intentioned isn't always what's financially best for Social Security. The grim reality is that none of these three proposals would meaningfully improve the program. In fact, two of the three would make things decisively worse.

Social Security only has three sources of funding:

The 12.4% payroll tax on wages and salary between $0.01 and $176,100, as of 2025.

The interest income earned on its asset reserves, which are invested in special-issue government bonds, as required by law.

The tax on benefits.

Removing the taxation of benefits would lower estimated income by $950 billion to $1.45 trillion over a decade, based on various estimates. In other words, it would speed up the timeline to the OASI's asset reserve depletion date and potentially increase the amount benefits need to be cut for retired workers and survivor beneficiaries.

Strengthening Social Security will require some tough decisions. President 'Old Donald''s Social Security plan simply doesn't cut it.

Among the options under discussion by GOP lawmakers and aides are new work requirements and spending caps for the programs, according to seven people familiar with the talks, many of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Those conversations have included some economic officials on "Old Donald's" transition team, the people said.

However, concern is high among some Republicans about the political downsides of such cuts, which would affect programs that provide support for at least 70 million low-income Americans, and some people familiar with the talks stressed that discussions are preliminary.

Republicans are also discussing stripping presidential authority to recalculate benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food stamp program known as SNAP, lawmakers say. The 2017 farm bill allowed the White House to increase benefits even if doing so raised the national debt. Republicans argue that if they eliminate that authority and hem in SNAP benefits ' which increase automatically with inflation ' that should count as reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, according to some estimates.

Social Security's retired-worker beneficiaries are an estimated nine years away from seeing their monthly benefit cut by 21%.

'Old Donald' has offered two very clear Social Security proposals.

Unfortunately, neither of the incoming president's plans would improve Social Security's worsening financial trajectory.

For the last 23 years, national pollster Gallup has been surveying retirees to gauge what role their Social Security income plays. In all 23 years, between 80% and 90% of respondents noted their Social Security check accounted for a "major" or "minor" source of income, including 88% in 2024. In other words, Social Security benefits are necessary for an overwhelming majority of retirees to make ends meet.

Here’s another scandal that 'Old Donald' doesn’t want you to know about, and it doesn’t involve Adolf Hitler, Jeffrey Epstein or Jan. 6. No, this one involves you — specifically, your retirement.

But in 2021, Social Security started to run a deficit. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the trust fund will run out before 2035. At that point, benefits will immediately shrink by more than 20%, around $400 per month per recipient on average.

This impending crisis, fortunately, is solvable. Vice President Kamala Harris has proposed raising revenue by increasing taxes on Americans who make over $400,000 annually. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ Social Security Expansion Act — which Harris co-sponsored as a senator — would go even further: Income over $250,000, as well as business and investment income, would become subject to the payroll tax (currently, payroll tax income is capped at $168,000, so even, say, Jeff Bezos pays no taxes on his income beyond that). These adjustments would make the program solvent for decades, benefits would increase by $200 a month and just 7% of Americans would see their taxes go up. And unlike many tax increases, this one is popular with voters.

David R. Williams and Rachel Hardeman are population health researchers at different universities with one thing in common: Both have been added to a right-wing “watch list” for teaching about and researching the ways racism affects health.

At the American Academy of Dermatology, some members proposed “sunsetting all diversity, equity and inclusion programs,” arguing DEI has evolved into a political movement filled with perceived antisemitism that labels people as oppressed or oppressor — a proposal that failed at the annual meeting in March.

A growing number of U.S. institutes created to explore the nexus between racism and health — and the researchers who preside over them — are finding themselves under attack, their missions and funding in peril barely four years after the nation had what many called its “racial reckoning.”

It reflects a broader movement. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education’s DEI Legislation Tracker, state lawmakers have introduced at least 85 anti-DEI bills since 2023. More than a dozen Republican attorneys general sent a letter urging Fortune 100 companies to reexamine their DEI strategies after the Supreme Court banned race-conscious college admissions policies. And the conservative activist who led the campaign to oust Claudine Gay, Harvard University’s first Black president who resigned amid plagiarism allegations in January, said on X that it was “the beginning of the end for DEI in America’s institutions.”

We estimate that Medicare enrollees will save $1.5 billion when the new prices go into effect in 2026,” said Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “For so many people, being able to afford these drugs will mean the difference between debilitating illness and living full lives.”

But many Americans have little awareness of Democrats’ efforts. Thirty-six percent of voters said they knew that a law required the federal government to negotiate the price of some prescription drugs for Medicare, according to a poll released in May by KFF, a nonpartisan health-care think tank. About one-quarter of voters said they knew that a federal law would limit out-of-pocket spending on prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries.

Last August, the Biden administration announced the 10 expensive drugs it selected for negotiation with pharmaceutical companies and the government. More than half of the drugs chosen for the initial round are medications to prevent blood clots or treat diabetes.

From Medicare to Obamacare, health care has long been a powerful and polarizing issue in the race for president. This year, the issue of reproductive health care is dividing Americans. The high cost of prescription drugs and access to affordable health care are also concerns.

So how exactly does the ticket of former president 'Old Donald' and JD Vance compare with Vice President Kamala Harris and Tim Walz when it comes to our health? National health reporter Dan Diamond breaks down what we know from the candidates’ current policies and track records. iblockquote>