Democrats are sure they’ve found a winning formula in instigating voter anger over Republican “cuts” to Medicaid. The progressive talking points are already set for the midterms: Thanks to the GOP and President Donald Trump, vulnerable men, women and children will lose their health care coverage and be thrown out of hospitals and onto the streets.

In fact, the hysteria reveals a soft Democratic underbelly that Republicans would be wise to exploit.

Democrats have spent the past 60 years fostering a dependent class that will reward them at the polls. Programs created as safety nets for the poor and disabled have been expanded so they now cover many Americans who earn well in excess of the poverty line. The cost of Medicaid for the federal government nearly tripled from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2023. The nation is $37 trillion in debt.

It is against this fiscal reality that the “big beautiful bill” imposes modest reforms on Medicaid to ensure its long-term solvency doesn’t threaten coverage for those it was originally meant to serve. The program is not being cut. Spending on Medicaid will grow more than 31 percent — about $200 billion — over the next decade as part of the Republican legislation. The bill also tightens eligibility requirements and imposes a limited work requirement for able-bodied recipients.

The latter changes have Democrats reaching for the pearls, claiming on one hand that Medicaid recipients already work, while claiming on the other hand that untold millions will lose their coverage and become uninsured in the coming years thanks to these new demands. A letter from the Congressional Budget Office released during debate on the legislation estimated that 7.8 million Americans could become uninsured.

But the numbers are revealing. As The Wall Street Journal noted last month, the 7.8 million figure, the CBO reports, consists of 4.8 million who would refuse to comply with the work requirement, 1.4 million who are receiving coverage but are in the United States illegally and 1.6 million who “have access to other forms of subsidized coverage such as the ObamaCare exchanges.”

Does the vehement opposition to the Medicaid components of the bill imply that Democrats are against work requirements for able-bodied adults who currently benefit from the entitlement? Does it also signify support for allowing illegal immigrants to sign up for Medicaid? Republican political candidates who face progressive blowback on the campaign trail for supporting Medicaid reform would be wise to get their opponents on the record in this regard.

Moderate voters will be interested to hear the answers.

_____

©2025 Las Vegas Review-Journal. Visit reviewjournal.com.. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.