Pennsylvania’s U.S. Sens. Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Dave McCormick should become part of a bipartisan effort to stop the House budget bill that will drastically cut health care and food assistance for millions of Americans.

Last month, House Republicans pushed through President Donald Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a proposal that slashes Medicaid, which provides health care coverage for millions of low-income Americans.

A preliminary estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the budget proposal would reduce the number of people with health care by 8.6 million over a decade.

Fetterman and McCormick should oppose the House bill now before the Senate.

Although the bill was pushed by a Republican president and Republican-controlled House, Sen. McCormick should put country over party and join Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, who have voiced concerns about the House bill’s approach to Medicaid. Sen. Hawley has even vowed to oppose any bill that cuts the program.

“If this bill gets enacted, it would represent the biggest rollback in federal support for health care ever,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF posted on Bluesky.

Supporters claim the bill protects the vulnerable and only targets able-bodied adults who aren’t working.

However, past experience on the state level shows the changes would impact more than just able-bodied adults and could result in an attack on a vital service for low-income Americans that could cost lives.

“We know that these [requirements] don’t work to encourage work, but they are very effective at having people fall through the cracks and lose their health insurance,” says Joan Alker, a professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy.

The following are some of the problems with the House bill:

•The bill would lead to more people without health insurance.

Starting in 2026, many able-bodied Medicaid enrollees under 65 would be required to show that they work, volunteer or go to school in exchange for the health insurance coverage.

However, when Arkansas became the first state to implement work requirements during Trump’s first presidency, many of the people screened out of coverage were working or had a disability, said Adrianna McIntyre, a health policy expert at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Meanwhile, imposing work requirements didn’t lead to more people getting jobs. It only led to more people without health insurance.

“More than 18,000 lost coverage in Arkansas after it kicked in 2018, and the program was later blocked by federal courts,” reports the Associated Press.

• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, already requires work for some of its roughly 42 million recipients. Adults ages 18-54 who are physically and mentally able and don’t have dependents must work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month, or else be limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period.

The bill would raise the work requirement to age 65 and also extend it to parents without children younger than age 7. The bill also would limit the ability to waive work requirements in areas with high unemployment rates.

The combination of those changes could put 6 million adults at risk of losing SNAP benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Republican lawmakers have set a July 4 deadline for both chambers to pass the bill and work out any differences and get it to Trump’s desk for final approval.

As the bill heads to the Senate it needs extensive rework over the next few weeks or it should be completely redone. Americans deserve a better budget bill.

Reprinted from the Philadelphia Tribune