• Police seek suspects in deadly birthday party shooting
  • Lawmakers launch inquires into U.S. boat strike
  • Nov. 29, 2025, 10:07 PM EST / Updated Nov. 30, 2025,…
  • Mark Kelly says troops ‘can tell’ what orders…

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleOct. 3, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Berkeley Lovelace Jr.Most of President Donald Trump’s supporters back keeping enhanced subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans, the central obstacle in ending the government shutdown, according to a new poll from the nonpartisan health policy research group KFF. It was conducted Sept. 23 through Sept. 29, just days before Congress failed to pass a funding measure to keep the government open.More than 22 million people receive the subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year unless Congress extends them. Losing the subsidies could mean that average out-of-pocket premium payments could double in 2026, from $888 a year to $1,904, an earlier KFF analysis found.Around 4 million people are projected to go without coverage next year because they can no longer afford it, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Extending them would cost the federal government around $350 billion over the next decade.The new survey found 59% of Republicans and 57% of “Make American Great Again” supporters favor extending the enhanced subsidies.The nationally representative sample of 1,334 adults were asked whether they support extending the subsidies, not whether they support including them in budget negotiations. Whether to include them is a sticking point in the ongoing budget battle, with Democrats arguing they must be extended before open enrollment next month, when many enrollees will be shocked to find their premiums are increasing.Overall, more than three-quarters of the public — 78% — say they want Congress to extend them. That includes 92% of Democrats and 82% of independents.“We get a very clear message that the majority of the public, regardless of their partisanship, regardless of their insurance, support Congress extending these tax credits,” said Ashley Kirzinger, the director of survey methodology and associate director of the public opinion and survey research program at KFF. “It’s really hard to take a benefit away after it’s been given to people.”The enhanced subsidies were put into place under the 2021 American Rescue Plan, which made ACA plans affordable for many middle-class families. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 extended them through 2025.Standard ACA subsidies for people with very low incomes are expected to continue — although their premiums are expected to rise too without the additional tax credit, and they also may be at risk of losing their coverage.According to the poll, about 4 in 10 people with an ACA plan say they would go without insurance if the amount they had to pay each month nearly doubled.Similar shares — 37% — said they would continue to pay for their current health plan, while 2 in 10 say they would get coverage from another source, like an employer.“That’s going to result in a large number of individuals losing health coverage and becoming uninsured,” Kirzinger said. “When people don’t have health coverage, not being able to go to the doctor, not being able to get primary care, it can result in all kinds of detrimental health outcomes.”Dr. Adam Gaffney, a critical care physician and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, said going without insurance can also devastate people’s finances.“They accrue large bills, debt and even go bankrupt,” he said.Some people who keep their insurance may also take a hit to their finances. When respondents were asked if they could afford coverage if their premiums nearly doubled, 7 in 10 who purchase their own insurance say they would not be able to afford the premiums without significantly cutting back on their household budgets.Despite the risk to peoples’ health and finances, many Americans still don’t know that the enhanced subsidies are set to end.Among people who buy their own coverage, about 6 in 10 said they’ve heard just “a little” or “nothing at all” about the subsidies’ expiration.Art Caplan, the head of the medical ethics division at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, said many will learn for the first time when open enrollment begins on Nov. 1.They’re at real risk of “sticker shock,” Caplan said. “And most of these people, who tend to be working-class folks, tend to be more MAGA. They won’t like it.”When people who support extending the subsidies were asked who deserves the most blame if they expire, 39% said President Donald Trump and 37% said Republicans in Congress. Just 22% said that Democrats would deserve the blame.Berkeley Lovelace Jr.Berkeley Lovelace Jr. is a health and medical reporter for NBC News. He covers the Food and Drug Administration, with a special focus on Covid vaccines, prescription drug pricing and health care. He previously covered the biotech and pharmaceutical industry with CNBC.

admin - Latest News - October 3, 2025
admin
33 views 16 secs 0 Comments




Most of President Donald Trump’s supporters back keeping tax credits for Affordable Care Act plans, the central obstacle in ending the government shutdown, according to a new poll.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleOct. 3, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Erika EdwardsMeasles outbreaks continue to simmer and spread across the country, with cases now popping up quickly in Minnesota.On Wednesday, the Minnesota Department of Health alerted residents that it had confirmed 10 new cases since Monday, bringing the state’s tally so far this year to 18.“We have been worried about this all year,” said Dr. Chase Shutak, a pediatrician and medical director at Children’s Minnesota in Minneapolis. “When the outbreaks began in Texas, all of us anticipated that it would eventually work its way up into our state.”Shutak was referring to a massive measles outbreak in West Texas, which totaled 762 cases. Ninety-nine patients needed to be hospitalized as a result of the outbreak, and two young girls died. In Minnesota, as of Thursday afternoon one child had been hospitalized at Children’s Minnesota, a spokesperson said. Most of the Minnesota cases are among families who traveled within the U.S., according to the state’s health department. None of the children had received the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. It was unclear, however, whether the patients were old enough to qualify for the shots, usually given in two doses starting around age 1. Arizona, too, is dealing with a large, growing outbreak that has spread across the area bordering southwestern Utah. Fifty-nine cases have been confirmed in Arizona, with one hospitalization. Most cases are in Mohave County, located in the state’s far northwestern corner, bordering Utah. “You can safely say that we are actually a part of Northern Arizona’s outbreak,” said David Heaton, public information officer for the Southwest Utah Public Health Department. “There’s one town that straddles the state line, and all of our cases appear to be linked.”Forty-four measles cases have been identified in Utah, largely among unvaccinated young people. Five needed to be admitted to the hospital but have since recovered, Heaton said.If outbreaks continue around the country until the end of January, the United States will lose its status of having had eliminated measles 25 years ago. This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a total of 1,544 confirmed measles cases. Of those, just 21 cases were diagnosed in people visiting the U.S. from other countries. The government shutdown hasn’t affected the CDC’s monitoring of the ongoing measles spread, according to a person in leadership who was not authorized to speak to the media.Falling vaccination ratesA recent NBC News investigation found notable declines in childhood vaccination rates in more than three-quarters of counties and jurisdictions since 2019. And among states with data on kids who get the MMR vaccine, 67% don’t have enough coverage for herd immunity.
NEXT
Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleBy Jamie GrayLONDON — A woman has been named to the post of Archbishop of Canterbury for the first time in the history of the Church of England. The Bishop of London, Sarah Mullally, will be installed into the church’s most senior role in March 2026. Mullally is the first female Archbishop of Canterbury to be chosen since women were allowed to become bishops in 2014. As the spiritual leader of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury heads a global Anglican community of around 85 million people, across 165 countries.In a statement following her appointment, Mullally said: “As I respond to the call of Christ to this new ministry, I do so in the same spirit of service to God and to others that has motivated me since I first came to faith as a teenager.” “At every stage of that journey, through my nursing career and Christian ministry, I have learned to listen deeply — to people and to God’s gentle prompting — to seek to bring people together to find hope and healing.” Mullally’s appointment comes 11 months after the previous archbishop, Justin Welby, resigned after a damning report into his handling of the case of a prolific child abuser associated with the church. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed Mullally’s appointment, saying she would play “a key role in our national life.”“The Church of England is of profound importance to this country. Its churches, cathedrals, schools, and charities are part of the fabric of our communities,” he said in a statement.Jamie GrayJamie Gray is a senior desk editor for NBC News based in London. 
Related Post
October 12, 2025
Oct. 12, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Lawrence HurleyWASHINGTON — The way Louisiana’s Republican leaders put it, the pervasive racial discrimination in elections that led to the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is all in the past.That is why they are now urging the Supreme Court, in a case being argued on Wednesday, to bar states from using any consideration of race when drawing legislative districts, gutting a key plank of the law that was designed to ensure Black voters would have a chance of electing their preferred candidates.Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill told NBC News that the Voting Rights Act was designed to address blatantly discriminatory policies and practices that prevented Black people and other minorities from voting decades ago.“I think the question now is, have we gotten to a point where those obstacles really don’t exist anymore?” she said. “I don’t think they exist in Louisiana,” she added.At issue is a congressional district map that Louisiana grudgingly redrew last year after being sued under the Voting Rights Act to ensure that there were two majority-Black districts. The original map only had one in a state where a third of the population is Black, according to the U.S. census.The state’s new legal argument, which may appeal to a conservative-majority Supreme Court, is that drawing a map to ensure majority-Black districts violates the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments, which were both enacted after the Civil War to ensure former slaves had equal rights under the law, including the right to vote.Supreme Court appears skeptical of LGBTQ conversion therapy bans04:02Conservatives say those amendments bar any consideration of race at any time, and the Supreme Court has previously embraced this “colorblind” interpretation of the Constitution.Civil rights activists say that approach makes a mockery of both the post-Civil War amendments and the Voting Rights Act, not to mention their experience on the ground in Louisiana.Press Robinson, who is one of the plaintiffs who challenged Louisiana’s original congressional map, said he had to sue in 1974 just so he could take his place as an elected official on the East Baton Rouge Parish School Board.“Has Louisiana really changed? I don’t see it,” he told reporters on a recent call.The issue reaches the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, just two years after it surprisingly rejected a similar bid to weaken the Voting Rights Act in another redistricting case.The court, however, has struck blows against the law in other rulings in 2013 and 2021.In the 2023 case, the court rejected a Republican-drawn congressional map in Alabama on the grounds that it discriminated against Black voters, leading to a new map being drawn that included two majority-Black districts.The vote was 5-4, with two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the court’s three liberals in the majority. Four other conservatives dissented.In Wednesday’s oral argument, Kavanaugh will be a focus of attention, in part because of what he said in his separate concurring opinion in the Alabama case.Although Kavanaugh voted with the majority, he expressed some sympathy for the argument that even if race could at one point be considered as a factor in ensuring compliance with the Voting Rights Act, it no longer can be.But, he added, “Alabama did not raise that temporal argument in this Court, and I therefore would not consider it at this time.”Now, piggybacking on Kavanaugh’s opinion, Louisiana’s lawyers eagerly embrace the argument Alabama did not make.Among other things, Louisiana points to the court’s 2023 ruling that ended the consideration of race in college admissions, which was issued just three weeks after the Alabama voting rights ruling.Chris Kieser, a lawyer at the right-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation, which supports Louisiana in the case, said in an interview that the upshot of a ruling in the state’s favor is that there could be no obligation to ever intentionally draw majority-Black districts.“Districts should not be drawn based on the expected race of the — whoever is going to be the member of Congress representing it,” he said.That could lead to a decline in the number of legislators at the national and state level who are Black or Latino.In that scenario, minority voters would still be able to bring separate racial gerrymandering claims under the Constitution if there is obvious racial discrimination, Kieser argued, although such cases are difficult to win.Depending on what the court does, the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, known as Section 2, could survive in limited form.A ruling that leads to a reduction in majority-Black and other minority districts would have a partisan impact that could favor Republicans, as Black voters historically favor Democrats. If the court rules quickly, there is even a chance that new maps could be drawn ahead of the hotly contested 2026 midterm elections.The case has a convoluted history, arising from litigation over the earlier map drawn by the state Legislature after the 2020 census that included one Black-majority district out of the state’s six districts.The state drew the current map in order to comply with that ruling, but was then sued by a group of self-identified “non-African American” voters who argued that in seeking to comply with the Voting Rights Act, the state had violated the Constitution.The Supreme Court originally heard the current case earlier this year on a narrower set of legal issues but, in an unusual move, asked in June for the parties to reargue it. Over the summer, the court then raised the stakes by asking the lawyers to focus on the constitutional issue.As a result of that complicated background, the various briefs filed in the case — including one submitted by the Trump administration in support of Louisiana — make a number of different legal arguments.That makes it difficult to know ahead of Wednesday’s oral argument what the justices will focus on, said Sophia Lin Lakin, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union who is part of the legal team defending the latest Louisiana map.“It is so strange. Normally, we would always understand the question we are trying to answer,” she said.Lin Lakin does not think the case should be used as the vehicle for a “full-on assault” on the Voting Rights Act.But, she conceded, “there is some risk the way that’s being presented that the court may be interested in that bigger question.”Lawrence HurleyLawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News.
November 6, 2025
Mexico president to press charges after being groped
November 23, 2025
NASA video shows aurora and lightening flash across U.S.
November 10, 2025
Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during exams, lawsuit says
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved