How the Big Beautiful Bill Threatens Everyone

I’ve done both street-level and systems-level work with—and among—the people who are about to lose their healthcare because of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill.”

I want to dispel a few persistent myths—about the people most affected by this legislation and about what’s actually happening behind the political spin.

1. The Myth of the Idle Poor

One of the favorite talking points of BBB supporters is that this bill only takes Medicaid away from “able-bodied, able-minded” individuals who simply refuse to work. If only that were true.

In all my experience, I’ve never met a person who actually wants to be homeless, who prefers instability, or who wouldn’t welcome connection to services—most of which only become available once you have a permanent address.

I have met countless individuals who are clearly disabled, yet have not been officially classified as such by the Social Security Administration. Why not? Because the process is deeply flawed.

Homeless people, by definition, have no stable, permanent address. That should be obvious.  It should also be obvious that a safety net that requires an address can’t possibly catch or help the most vulnerable.  Homelessness  makes it nearly impossible to receive correspondence, fill out paperwork, or remain in contact with agencies. And even when those hurdles are somehow overcome, the SSA routinely denies initial applications—sometimes automatically.

I’ve seen cases take years to resolve, even when the person has clear medical documentation and even when highly trained social workers and counselors are doing everything right.

Until now, Medicaid has been a critical lifeline during this liminal period—a bridge that allows people to access care while navigating the slow-moving machinery of disability classification. When the BBB kicks in, that lifeline will be cut.

And when it is, thousands of people stuck in this bureaucratic no-man’s-land will be left with nothing. It’s not just immoral. It’s economically reckless.

2. The Myth of Government Waste

Another popular refrain is that Medicaid is bloated, mismanaged, and wasteful—that it’s a drain on public resources and ripe for cuts. But this argument falls apart when you look at the actual impact of the program.

Medicaid isn’t just a health plan. It’s one of our most cost-effective tools for preventing larger-scale social and economic crises. It keeps people out of emergency rooms, where care is exponentially more expensive. It reduces hospitalizations. It lowers incarceration rates and decreases the burden on mental health and addiction systems. In short, it keeps people stable.

Cutting Medicaid in the name of “fiscal responsibility” is like smashing the brakes on your car to save gas. You may feel like you’re saving something now, but you’re setting yourself up for disaster later. We will pay for these problems one way or another. The only question is whether we’ll do it preventively—with dignity and foresight—or reactively, through crisis management that’s far more expensive and far less humane.

3. The Myth of the Deserving vs. Undeserving Poor

Perhaps the most harmful myth of all is the one that divides people into the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor. We’ve told this story in American policy and culture for generations. It’s the quiet moral justification behind countless cuts, restrictions, and barriers.

But real life doesn’t fit neatly into those categories. People lose jobs. They get sick. They flee violence. They struggle with trauma, addiction, and mental illness—often without support. These aren’t personal failings; they’re deeply human realities, compounded by structural inequities: underfunded schools, unaffordable housing, generational poverty, systemic injustices that cut across race, gender, and geography. 

To speak of “undeserving” poor is to ignore these realities—and to ignore our own responsibility. It allows us to believe that someone else’s suffering is somehow earned, or inevitable, or irrelevant. The BBB doesn’t punish people for poor choices made with the best of intentions.  It punishes them for circumstances they were born or thrust into.  It punishes homeless veterans, opioid addicts, people in poverty regardless of color, and, ironically, it punishes many of the people who think they support it.

What’s more, many people don’t even realize that the healthcare they rely on is Medicaid—because it goes by different names in different states. In some places it’s called MassHealth, in others, TennCare, or Medi-Cal. These programs may feel local or distinct, but they’re all part of the broader Medicaid system. That means people who support the so-called Big Beautiful Bill may not even realize that they’re voting to gut their own coverage—or the coverage that keeps their parents, neighbors, or children healthy. The disconnect is dangerous, and it’s being exploited.

Where This Leads

The “Big Beautiful Bill” isn’t beautiful. It’s devastating. It punishes the vulnerable while claiming to protect taxpayers. It strips essential care from people already fighting uphill battles against illness, poverty, and bureaucracy. And it does so based on myths that are convenient for those in power—but ruinous for the rest of us.

Excerpts from Michelle Obama’s Statement on the Failed Insurrection

“Like all of you, I watched as a gang—organized, violent and mad they’d lost an election—laid siege to the United States Capitol,” she continued. “They set up gallows. They proudly waved the traitorous flag of the Confederacy through the halls. They desecrated the center of American government. And once authorities finally gained control of the situation, these rioters and gang members were led out of the building not in handcuffs, but free to carry on with their days.”

“What if these rioters had looked like the folks who go to Ebenezer Baptist Church every Sunday? What would have been different?”

“I think we all know the answer. This summer’s Black Lives Matter protests were an overwhelmingly peaceful movement—our nation’s largest demonstrations ever, bringing together people of every race and class and encouraging millions to re-examine their own assumptions and behavior,” Obama wrote. “And yet, in city after city, day after day, we saw peaceful protestors met with brute force. We saw cracked skulls and mass arrests, law enforcement pepper spraying its way through a peaceful demonstration for a presidential photo op.”

You can read Michelle Obama’s full statement on Instagram.

Why Pay Even This Much?: Murdoch and Jobs Set to Launch “The Daily”

Like you don't go here every single time.

You might know that News Corp. is set to launch “The Daily”, its much-anticipated (because everyone says so) daily iPad newspaper project next week.  According to Cutline, Steve Jobs will be joining Rupert Murdoch for the big event.

As Courtney Boyd Meyers notes at The Next Web: “‘The Daily’ is expected to cost .99 per issue and will implement a new ‘push’ subscription feature from iTunes that automatically bills customers on a weekly or monthly basis, with a new edition delivered to your iPad each morning.”

I have one very basic question.  Are you willing to pay .99 a day for content you can get elsewhere for free?  Sure, “The Daily”‘s content is exclusive according to a passing definition, but this only matters if you believe that people will pay to read “Daily” writers instead of their analogs on free news sites and marquee free niche and general interest blogs. While it’s true that the who and how of written content have been reasons for preferring one print publication over another, the same rules don’t apply when deciding what might compel you to buy a print magazine or paper instead of finding comparable web treatments of the same issues, trends, and interests .  If online (largely free) content is killing print, why should people pay for “The Daily”?  I won’t discount the pull of novelty and the excitement people muster about having the latest new thing, even if that thing is ephemeral (not to mention ethereal).  And I haven’t forgotten how the experts said “no one will pay .99 for a song” and how all of those experts were wrong.  I also haven’t forgotten that no one I personally knew was saying that, that most people wanted a cheap, easy, legal way to get songs online. There was a need, and Steve Jobs filled it.

I don’t know anyone who feels badly about reading free online content instead of plunking down subscription fees or cover prices for print.  It’s been said so much, but the rising (really, already risen) culture of consumers expects this kind of content to be widely available and largely free.  $30 a month for a newspaper, even a really cool, Steve Jobs-enabled one, doesn’t feel like a solution to anything.  It’s neat that creative people built the device and creative people of a whole different skill-set are using it for what will be, I’m sure, an intuitive and even beautiful publication.  But unless the endgame is the movement of all relevant content everywhere behind a handful of corporate pay walls…well, actually, that doesn’t even matter because it can’t ever happen as long as the net is neutral.  Crap.  I told you penmanship was the engine of democracy.

In any case, in 2011, most people have a daily newspaper they can read across all of their devices, and it even includes super-localized updates about the people they care most about. It can be custom-tailored, with very little effort, to their specific interests.  It’s free. It’s huge. It’s Facebook.