JD Vance Gets Perfectly Shamed After Claiming Medicaid Cuts In Budget Bill Are 'Immaterial'

Critics slammed Vice President JD Vance after he claimed that the "minutiae of the Medicaid policy" in President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," are "immaterial" to the millions of Americans who would lose their healthcare coverage if it were to become law.

According to The Washington Post, the bill "includes the biggest reduction of funding for the federal safety net since at least the 1990s, targeting more than $1 trillion in social spending." WaPo noted that the $3 trillion package "partially pays for its large price tag by slashing spending on Medicaid and food stamps SNAP), which congressional Republicans maintain are rife with fraud."

Vance said the biggest priority for the administration in passing the bill—which cleared the Senate on Tuesday and must now pass the House before lawmakers send it to Trump's desk—is eliminating the "generous benefits" migrants receive, effectively downplaying the impact that the other cuts in the 940-page legislation will have on American lives.

He said:

"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits. The OBBB fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."

"Everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."

You can see his post below.

It's not "immaterial" however.

The legislation is projected to slash Medicaid funding by around 18% and reduce the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by about 20%, based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also forecasts that the bill could cost roughly 12 million fewer people their Medicaid coverage; over 2 million fewer people would rely on food assistance.

Under the bill, individuals earning just above the federal poverty line would be required to start paying out of pocket for certain Medicaid services, such as doctor visits and lab tests.

States would be allowed to charge these enrollees up to 5% of their income in cost-sharing, potentially adding up to hundreds of dollars each year. Experts warn that while Democratic-led states may opt for relatively low co-pays, Republican-led states could impose higher fees that many low-income residents would be unable to afford.

Additionally, the legislation includes provisions to limit loopholes that increase federal reimbursements to hospitals for Medicaid services. Hospital associations warn the changes could jeopardize the viability of rural hospitals already under financial strain. With less federal funding and more uncompensated care, some facilities may be forced to shut down or cut services significantly.

Vance was swiftly criticized for his heartless remark.

According to the Leonard Davis Institute of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, hundreds of thousands of people could lose their lives in the coming years as a result of these cuts.

The cuts are projected to cost more than 51,000 people their lives every year. Dual-eligible individuals—those who rely on both Medicaid and Medicare—would die as a result of losing subsidies that lower the cost of their medications to the tune of 18,200 people a year.

The legislation would postpone for ten years the implementation of a new federal rule requiring minimum staffing levels in nursing homes—a policy aimed at improving quality of care. Experts at UPenn found that delaying this rule could result in approximately 13,000 additional deaths annually among nursing home residents.

Meanwhile, researchers at Yale estimate that the coverage losses resulting from the bill could lead to more than 20,000 additional deaths each year. In addition, the legislation would postpone for ten years the implementation of a new federal rule requiring minimum staffing levels in nursing homes—a policy aimed at improving quality of care.