Trump’s Big Bill Is Not-So-Beautiful for Small Businesses

U.S. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, is a dream of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. However, the same bill now on the floor of the Senate is also a loaded gun of healthcare spending cuts aimed at the American people, 11.8 million of whom could lose their coverage by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Some of these Americans are mom-and-pop entrepreneurs. Dr. Alexia McClerkin owns The Wellness Doc in Houston, Texam. She can't afford to buy herself health insurance and relies on Medicaid for her three sons' coverage. Dr. McClerkin has a bird's-eye view of how her patients cope with paying their healthcare bills.

Doug Scheffel is president of ETM Manufacturing in Littleton, Massachusetts. Two of his employees rely on state health exchanges. Other employees of Scheffel are care providers for family members receiving Medicaid.

Over half, or 52%, of responding small business owners stated that climbing healthcare insurance harms their bottom lines.

In a recent survey of 574 small business owners, 7 of 10 opposed the spending cuts in H.R. 1 that seeks to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to this Small Business for America's Future (SBAF) survey, 27% support the healthcare cuts in H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and 5% are not sure.

This SBAF survey found that 58% of small businesses have owners, employees, or family members who rely on Medicaid, healthcare that covers the disabled, elderly, and low-income Americans, or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP coverage), low-cost or free care for kids in families whose annual income disqualifies them from Medicaid, an alternative to unaffordable private healthcare insurance.

According to the SBAF survey, 56% of respondents themselves, their employees, or family members use Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage with premium tax credits set to expire that are not extended in the H.R. 1 legislation. Over half, or 52%, of responding small business owners stated that climbing healthcare insurance harms their bottom lines.

"Small businesses cannot afford to be shut out of access to affordable healthcare. Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and enhanced ACA premium tax credits are lifelines for small business, their families, and their workers," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a written statement. "If Republicans gut these programs or allow them to expire, healthcare costs for small businesses and their families will skyrocket, employees will lose coverage, and entrepreneurs will be stifled. We must expand access to health coverage for all, especially small businesses."

A policy alternative for universal health coverage is Medicare for All. However, passing such legislation through Congress for the president to sign faces stiff opposition from the healthcare industry. It has been successful in blocking Medicare for All.

"Small business owners have been crying out for relief from crushing healthcare costs for years, and Congress' response is to make it worse," said SBAF co-chair Walt Rowen, owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in Columbia, Pennsylvania, in a statement. "These cuts don't solve problems—they shift costs from government programs onto the businesses least able to absorb them, all while extending tax breaks for corporations that already pay lower effective rates than the corner store."

The Republican Nursing Home Apocalypse

Imagine learning that your grandmother’s nursing home is closing. The nearest one with room for her is a three-hour drive away. It doesn’t accept Medicaid, so if your grandmother is among the two-thirds of nursing home patients who are covered by Medicaid, she’s out of luck.

Your grandfather still lives at home. But the hospital near his house is closing, too. If he has a medical emergency, he’ll have to go to an overburdened hospital that’s 40 minutes away.

That’s what will happen if President Donald Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law. There’s nothing beautiful about this hideous betrayal of the American people. Unless you’re a billionaire who can hop in a helicopter to see your private doctor, it will make your health care worse. All to give that same billionaire a giant tax cut.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

The Big Ugly Bill cuts a trillion dollars from Medicaid. Even if you’re not on Medicaid, this will hurt you and your family. That’s because hospitals and nursing homes around the country rely on Medicaid for much of their funding.

If this bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close. At the nursing homes that remain open, seniors and people with disabilities will wait in agony for someone to take them to the bathroom or give them their pain medication.

Those whose nursing homes close will struggle to find another one with room for them, especially if they rely on Medicaid. If they manage to find one, it will likely be hours away from their loved ones.

This bill is a disaster for people who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing homes and other long-term care. But it’s also a disaster even for those who don’t directly rely on Medicaid, because it will devastate the entire healthcare system. Rural areas will be hit hardest, but nowhere and no one (except for billionaires) is safe.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told Iowans concerned about the bill’s Medicaid cuts that “we all are going to die.” Many of us will die faster, including the hundreds of Iowans who will lose their nursing home beds.

In Iowa alone the impact is massive across the entire state and in each vulnerable Republican House District.

In Iowa’s 1st District, represented by Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, four nursing homes with a collective 280 beds will close: Aspire of Muscatine (46), Mississippi Valley Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center—Keokuk (83), Iowa City Rehab and Health Care Center—Iowa City (89), and Azria Health Prairie Ridge—Mediapolis (62).

In Iowa’s 2nd District, represented by Republican Ashley Hinson, two nursing homes with a collective 271 beds will close: Heritage Specialty Care—Cedar Rapids (201) and Cedar Falls Healthcare Center (70).

In Iowa’s 3rd District, represented by Republican Zach Nunn, two nursing homes with a collective 113 beds will close: Aspire of Perry (46) and Granger Nursing and Rehabilitation Center—Granger (67).

And this story repeats across the entire country. There is no place to hide from the tsunami being unleashed against nursing homes. Anyone who has dealt with the current system knows how bad it is now. It is about to be a whole lot worse. Nursing homes that don’t close outright will become death traps as the demand far outstrips the supply.

All of this needless death and chaos, just so some billionaires can get trillions in tax handouts that they don’t even need.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

Polling shows that Americans hate the Big Ugly Bill—if they know about what’s in it. The problem is that most of them don’t. Nearly half of Americans are completely unaware of the bill, and only 8% of them know it cuts Medicaid.

Talk to your friends and family members. Tell them that Republicans are about to cause a nursing home and hospital apocalypse—but it isn’t too late to stop it. The Senate is voting on the Big Ugly Bill very soon. Then, it goes back to the House of Representatives, where Republicans will try to rush the bill through before the public can learn about it.

Call your representative and both senators now at 202-224-3121. The key swing votes in the Senate include Susan Collins of Maine (the oldest, and most rural, state in the country) and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. If you know anyone in those states, urge them to call today and tell their senators to stop the nursing home apocalypse!

The Time Has Arrived for a Comprehensive Middle East Peace

The attack by Israel and the U.S. on Iran had two significant effects. First, it once again exposed the root cause of turmoil in the region: Israel’s project to “reshape the Middle East” through regime change, aimed at maintaining its dominance and blocking a Palestinian state. Second, it highlighted the futility and recklessness of this strategy. The only path to peace is a comprehensive agreement that addresses Palestine’s statehood, Israel’s security, Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, and the economic recovery of the region.

Israel wants to topple the Iranian government because Iran has supported proxies and non-state actors aligned with the Palestinians. Israel has also consistently undermined U.S.-Iran diplomacy regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Instead of endless wars, Israel’s security can be ensured by two key diplomatic steps—ending militancy by establishing a Palestinian state with United Nations Security Council guarantees, and lifting sanctions on Iran in exchange for a peaceful and verifiable nuclear program.

Israel has driven the region to a 4,000-kilometer swash of violence from Libya to Iran through its reckless, lawless, and warmongering actions, all ultimately aimed at preventing a State of Palestine by “remaking” the Middle East.

The far-right Israeli government’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state is the root of the problem.

When the British empire promised a Jewish homeland in Mandatory Palestine in 1917, the Palestinian Arabs constituted 90% of the population and Jews less than 10% of the population. In 1947, with intense U.S. lobbying, the U.N. General Assembly voted to grant 56% of Palestine to a new Zionist state, while the Jews were only 33% of the population. Palestinians rejected this as a violation of their right to self-determination. After the 1948 war, Israel expanded to 78% of Palestine, and in 1967, occupied the remaining 22%—Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.

Instead of returning occupied lands in exchange for peace, Israeli right-wing politicians insisted on permanent control of 100% of the land, with the Likud founding charter declaring in 1977 that there would be only Israeli sovereignty “between the Sea and Jordan.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu represents this policy of domination—and has served as prime minister for a total of 17 years since 1996. When he came to power, he and his U.S. neocon allies authored the “Clean Break” strategy to block the creation of a Palestinian state. Instead of pursuing land for peace, Israel aimed to reshape the Middle East by overthrowing governments that supported the Palestinian cause. The U.S. would be the implementing partner of this strategy.

This is exactly what happened after 9/11, as the U.S. led or sponsored wars against Iraq (invasion in 2003), Lebanon (U.S. funding and arming Israeli aggressions), Libya (NATO bombing in 2011), Syria (CIA operation during 2010’s), Sudan (supporting rebels to break Sudan apart in 2011), and Somalia (backing Ethiopia’s invasion in 2006).

Contrary to the glib promises by Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress in 2002—that regime change in Iraq would bring a new day to the Middle East—the 2003 Iraq War augured the events that were to come across the region. Iraq descended into turmoil, and since then, each new war has brought death, destruction, and economic disarray.

This month, Israel attacked Iran even as negotiations between Iran and the U.S. were underway to ensure the peaceful use of Iran’s nuclear program—repeating the same WMD propaganda that Netanyahu used to justify the Iraq War.

Israel has been claiming for more than 30 years that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. However, on June 18, 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general stated that there is “no proof of a systematic effort” by Iran to develop nuclear weapons. More to the point, Iran and the U.S. were actively engaged in negotiations according to which the IAEA would monitor and verify the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

The attack on Iran proves yet again the futility and nihilism of Netanyahu’s approach. The Israeli and U.S. attacks accomplished nothing positive. According to most analysts, Iran’s enriched uranium remains intact, but is now in a secret location rather than under IAEA monitoring. In the meantime, with Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, neither peace nor security have been achieved.

Israel has driven the region to a 4,000-kilometer swash of violence from Libya to Iran through its reckless, lawless, and warmongering actions, all ultimately aimed at preventing a State of Palestine by “remaking” the Middle East.

The solution is clear: It is time for the United States to recognize that its own strategic interests require a decisive break from partnering in Israel’s destructive strategy.

Prioritizing genuine peace in the Middle East is not only a moral imperative, but a fundamental U.S. interest—one that can only be achieved through a comprehensive peace deal. The key pillar of this deal is for the U.S. to lift its veto on a Palestinian State on the borders of June 4, 1967, and to do so at the start, not in some vague distant future that never actually arrives.

For more than 20 years, Arab nations have backed a practical peace plan. So too has the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with its 57 member countries, and the League of Arab States (LAS), with its 22 members. So too have almost all the nations in the U.N. General Assembly. So too has the International Court of Justice in its 2024 ruling that Israel’s occupation is illegal. Only Israel, with support from the U.S. veto, has stood in the way.

Here is a seven-point peace plan in which all parties would benefit. Israel would gain peace and security. Palestine would achieve statehood. Iran would win an end to economic sanctions. The U.S. would win an end to costly and illegal wars fought on Israel’s behalf, as well as the risks of nuclear proliferation if the current violence continues. The Middle East would win economic development, security, and justice.

• First, an immediate cease-fire would apply across the entire region—and the cease-fire would include an immediate release of all hostages and prisoners.
• Second, the U.N. Security Council would vote upfront to welcome Palestine as the 194th U.N. Member State on the June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. Israel and Palestine could subsequently agree on mutually desired border adjustments.
• Third, Israel would withdraw from all territories occupied since 1967. U.N.-mandated international forces would ensure a peaceful, orderly transition; a transfer of Palestinian territories to Palestinian authorities; and mutual security for both Israel and Palestine.
• Fourth, the territorial integrity and sovereignty would be guaranteed for Lebanon, Syria, and all states in the region. All non-state armed groups would be demilitarized, and foreign troops would be withdrawn.
• Fifth, the U.N. Security Council would adopt an updated nuclear agreement with Iran, including binding verification, and with all economic sanctions on Iran lifted alongside Iran’s verified compliance with the peaceful uses of its nuclear program.
• Sixth, Israel and all Arab and Islamic states would establish full diplomatic relations following the admission of the State of Palestine as a U.N. member state.
• Seventh, the Middle East nations would establish an international fund for rebuilding the war-torn parts of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine, with contributions coming from within the region and from external sources.

Trump Attacks Leading Export Sector: Tourism and Universities

Six Quick Thoughts on First Quarter GDP Report

Trump’s Attack on NIH Will Mean Fewer Drugs and Likely More Expensive Ones

Looking at What People Do, Not What They Say

The Deportation Drive: Trump Promised Millions of Dangerous Criminals

Live Coverage: Final SCOTUS Decision Day

The Supreme Court Dealt A Blow to Trans Rights. Here's How to Take Action

Jose Antonio Vargas on What We Get Wrong About Immigration Reform

Parents Push Back Against the Trump Administration's Latest Attack on Working Families

Read Detained Activist Mahmoud Khalil’s Letter to His Son

How the Supreme Court’s Ruling on ‘Universal Injunctions’ May Affect Birthright Citizenship

In a June 27 ruling, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to partially halt nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for certain people born in the U.S. We look at what that may mean for the president's order going forward.

The post How the Supreme Court’s Ruling on ‘Universal Injunctions’ May Affect Birthright Citizenship appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Questions Linger About Iran’s Enriched Uranium Stockpile After U.S. Airstrikes

The location of some enriched uranium is still in question after the U.S. bombed three key nuclear facilities in Iran, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency and experts on arms control and global security.

The post Questions Linger About Iran’s Enriched Uranium Stockpile After U.S. Airstrikes appeared first on FactCheck.org.

RFK Jr.’s New Vaccine Panel Casts Doubt on Hepatitis B Shot at Birth

The chair of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s newly constituted vaccine advisory committee announced in his first meeting that the panel will revisit the longstanding practice of vaccinating all babies against hepatitis B, questioning whether it was “wise” to administer shots “to every newborn before leaving the hospital.” Experts, however, say there are valid reasons to vaccinate babies against hepatitis B, and that it has proven to be safe and very effective.

The post RFK Jr.’s New Vaccine Panel Casts Doubt on Hepatitis B Shot at Birth appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Candidíase – Conheça as causas, sintomas e tratamentos

Cirurgia Plástica não tem idade

Com que roupa eu vou? Dicas de qual roupa usar

Cuidados com a pele – Aprenda a fazer limpeza de pele caseira

Visão embaçada e distorcida nem sempre é miopia: fique atento aos sinais do ceratocone