Chuck Darwin<p>Trump's entire <a href="https://c.im/tags/Project2025" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>Project2025</span></a> Policy Agenda is huge<br>--over 900 pages as I understand it<br>--but given the nature of this website, I'm going to restrict myself to discussing the <a href="https://c.im/tags/healthcare" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>healthcare</span></a> policy section, which is thankfully "only" 54 pages long.</p><p>Since there's so much to wade through here, I'll be breaking this into several individual posts.</p><p>First up, according to Edwin Park, Research Professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families, <br>here's how Project 2025 would impact <a href="https://c.im/tags/MEDICAID" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>MEDICAID</span></a>:<br> • It would convert federal Medicaid funding into <a href="https://c.im/tags/BLOCK" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>BLOCK</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/GRANTS" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>GRANTS</span></a> (a set amount of money which would remain the same regardless of increased healthcare cost growth, enrollment growth, unexpected additional costs from recessions, disasters, another global pandemic, etc.<br> • It would require <a href="https://c.im/tags/states" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>states</span></a> to pay a much larger share of Medicaid costs<br> • It would eliminate states ability to use provider <a href="https://c.im/tags/taxes" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>taxes</span></a>, which states use to pay part of their share<br> • This in turn would prevent states from being able to access even the already-reduced <a href="https://c.im/tags/federal" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>federal</span></a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/revenue" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>revenue</span></a><br> • It would eliminate many Medicaid protections & requirements, including adding coverage time <a href="https://c.im/tags/limits" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>limits</span></a> and lifetime benefit <a href="https://c.im/tags/caps" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>caps</span></a><br> • It would allow states to increase <a href="https://c.im/tags/premiums" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>premiums</span></a> & cost sharing for enrollees and add them to <a href="https://c.im/tags/children" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>children</span></a> and pregnant women<br> • It would allow states to drop coverage of <a href="https://c.im/tags/nursing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>nursing</span></a> home care and long-term services<br> • States would no longer have to coverage non-elderly non-<a href="https://c.im/tags/disabled" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>disabled</span></a> parents<br> • It would add more red tape & make it more <a href="https://c.im/tags/difficult" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>difficult</span></a> for people to apply for, enroll in and renew their coverage<br> • It would let states add work reporting <a href="https://c.im/tags/requirements" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>requirements</span></a>, which have proven to be a disaster in the handful of states that it's been allowed for to date<br> • It would push for Medicaid <a href="https://c.im/tags/vouchers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>vouchers</span></a> for less affordable & far less comprehensive private coverage<br> • It would remove most federal <a href="https://c.im/tags/oversight" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>oversight</span></a> of state Medicaid programs...except for <a href="https://c.im/tags/abortion" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>abortion</span></a> & reproductive healthcare, where it would crack down with <a href="https://c.im/tags/draconian" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>draconian</span></a> federal requirements including prohibiting Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding, prohibiting coverage of travel to get an abortion and eliminating Medicaid funding for states which require abortion coverage in private policies*</p><p>*Note: As of 2022, that included California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Washington.</p><p>Overall, Park estimates that<br>🔸 Project 2025 would slash federal Medicaid funding by more than 50% over the next decade.🔸</p><p><a href="https://acasignups.net/24/07/05/lets-take-look-donald-trumps-project2025-medicaid-agenda-shall-we" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">acasignups.net/24/07/05/lets-t</span><span class="invisible">ake-look-donald-trumps-project2025-medicaid-agenda-shall-we</span></a></p>