Reform, by its nature, is disruptive. It makes winners and losers. It closes loopholes, redirects resources, and imposes structure where ambiguity once offered comfort. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, recently passed by the Senate, is focused on reform. The name is not satirical; it is the actual title of the legislation. One controversial component is the restructuring of key provisions of Medicare and Medicaid. Those changes are celebrated in some quarters as a long-overdue return to discipline and intent, and denounced in others as heartless, cruel, and ideologically driven. Predictably, the debate has broken along familiar, hardened lines.
But perhaps more troubling than the policy changes themselves is the way
Americans now process such changes, or more accurately, how they are processed
for us. People no longer approach legislation with curiosity or critical
thought. Most don't read the bills, track the debates, or weigh the trade-offs.
Instead, they wait for the narrative to be handed down by their side of the
ideological aisle, often in the form of weaponized slogans, social media posts,
and pre-packaged outrage.
For progressives, particularly those following influencers like Occupy
Democrats or politicians like Senator Bernie Sanders, the reaction was
instantaneous and entirely predictable: this was a giveaway to the rich, an
attack on immigrants, and a move to “strip health care from vulnerable people
to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.” It’s a refrain so overused that it no
longer seeks to persuade; it simply activates. Senator Sanders described it as
“a death sentence for low-income and working-class people, pushed through to
give tax breaks to billionaires who don’t need them.”
None of these statements addresses the actual provisions of the bill. They do not acknowledge that Medicare is facing insolvency within a decade. They do not acknowledge that Medicaid was originally designed as a temporary safety net, not an open-ended entitlement that grows with every economic downturn and political negotiation. But the purpose of these messages isn’t analysis—it’s mobilization. These influencers aren’t prioritizing public understanding; they’re leveraging outrage for clicks, shares, and donations. Their message may be rooted in sincere concern, but it often favors emotional mobilization over informed judgment.
To be fair, the Right does this too. There are commentators and social media
voices who reduce every policy decision to fairness for “the hardworking
taxpayer,” dismissing anyone harmed by changes as lazy, undeserving, or,
increasingly, foreign. If someone loses coverage under new eligibility rules,
well, that's their problem. The conservative side can be quick to dehumanize,
to turn real people into data points or warnings about socialism. Rhetoric
about “parasites on the system” or “open border freeloaders” is just as
manipulative as progressive alarmism—it simply targets a different tribe.
The truth, of course, is more complicated. The bill focuses on making it
harder for certain non-citizens, including some who have lived and worked
legally in the U.S. for years, to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. It removes
eligibility for people in temporary or humanitarian immigration statuses. It
penalizes states that expand Medicaid beyond federally accepted definitions.
It is essential to understand that many of the affected immigrants are here
legally, as asylum seekers, refugees, or under humanitarian parole. But during
the Biden administration, a historic lack of enforcement and a permissive use
of emergency immigration tools led to widespread abuse of these designations.
Hundreds of thousands entered not through structured, deliberate vetting, but
through overwhelmed border infrastructure and loosely applied legal categories.
While these individuals are technically “lawfully present,” the process that
granted that status often sidestepped the spirit of the law. The resulting
strain on local hospitals, schools, and housing, particularly in small towns, has
made these reforms not only a fiscal necessity but a question of social
stability. The reforms in this bill aim to reassert the distinction between
legality achieved through structured immigration and legality resulting from
bureaucratic dysfunction.
American citizens are not the focus of the changes; however, the bill
reintroduces work requirements for non-disabled adults. It also introduces new
documentation standards that could delay or disrupt coverage even for some U.S.
citizens, particularly the elderly, the homeless, or those without access to
vital records. Some of these hardships are unintentional. Others are by design.
The policy goal is not just to save money but to tighten eligibility, increase
scrutiny, and discourage the casual or opportunistic expansion of benefit
programs beyond their original purpose.
That means, inevitably, some citizens will struggle, be disenrolled, or denied
service in error, beyond the intention of the reforms. Processes must be established
to minimize these types of errors and to create an appeal process that provides
a vehicle for correction.
The question we ought to be asking as a nation is not whether the policy is
perfect or perfectly fair. It’s whether we can still handle the truth that some
pain is the price of discipline, and whether we have the civic maturity to hold
two competing truths at once: that reform is needed, and that it will cause
hardship. Because if we can’t hold both ideas, if we can only see policy
through the filter of team loyalty or partisan fear, then we are no longer
capable of self-governance. We’re just another culture of propaganda consumers
with color-coded jerseys.
Real liberty takes effort. It demands that we read past the slogans, that we
listen even when it’s uncomfortable, and that we acknowledge trade-offs. It
asks us to take seriously both the obligation to fix what’s broken and the
human cost of doing so. This new bill isn’t a perfect solution, but it’s a rare
instance of Washington recognizing that sustainability comes at a price.
Are we still a country willing to shoulder the burden of necessary change, even
when it’s hard to do so fairly? The answer matters, not just for the future of
Medicare and Medicaid, but for the integrity of democratic self-government.
****
DISTRIBUTION: Liberty Takes Effort shifted its distribution from social media to email delivery via Substack as a Newsletter. If you would like to receive distribution, please email me at libertytakeseffort@gmail.com To see archived blog posts since 2014 visit www.libertytakeseffort.com.
DISCLAIMER: The entire content of this website and newsletter are based solely upon the opinions and thoughts of the author unless otherwise noted. It is not considered advice for action by readers in any realm of human activity. Its purpose is to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to readers to further inform the public square. Use of any information on this site is at the sole choice and risk of the reader.
