Sign up today

Sign up today
Softphone APP for Android &IOS

RG Richardson Communications News

I am a business economist with interests in international trade worldwide through politics, money, banking and VOIP Communications. The author of RG Richardson City Guides has over 300 guides, including restaurants and finance.

eComTechnology Posts

'Disgraceful': U.S. Lobbying Blocks Global Fee on Shipping Emissions

'Disgraceful': U.S. Lobbying Blocks Global Fee on Shipping Emissions ‘Disgraceful’: U.S. Lobbying Blocks Global Fee on Shipping Emis...

He’s the ‘Mozart’ of Math and Trump Killed His Funding

He’s the ‘Mozart’ of Math and Trump Killed His Funding

He’s the ‘Mozart’ of Math and Trump Killed His Funding

The latest casualty in the administration’s assault on higher education is a legendary researcher who embodies the best of America.

(Composite / Photos: GettyImages / Shutterstock)

TERENCE TAO MAY BE ONE OF THE SMARTEST human beings on the planet. That’s not an exaggeration.

Now a UCLA professor, Tao has been a mathematics superstar for pretty much his entire life, going all the way back to the early 1970s when he was a 2-year-old with building blocks showing the other kids how to count. He was 7 when he started calculus, 13 when he became the youngest person ever to win the International Mathematical Olympiad, and 19 when he started his Ph.D. at Princeton.

Tao’s work on prime numbers has provided crucial insights into random-number generation, which is the way computers produce figures that cannot be predicted and that has implications for cryptography. His research into the math of imaging has helped to make MRIs faster and smarter.

In 2006 Tao was awarded the Fields Medal—math’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize, as anyone who has watched Good Will Hunting knows. In 2017, National Geographic included Tao in its “Genius” issue alongside Michelangelo, Darwin, and Einstein. And among his many admirers Tao is known as the “Mozart of Math”—a term of affection in a sometimes cutthroat world, where Tao has a reputation for mentoring young, still undiscovered scholars and sharing credit generously.

He is pretty much the platonic model of an intellectual, innovator, and teacher—the best of America, in so many ways. And now he’s a cautionary tale too, because he just lost his funding in the latest wave of Trump administration cuts. It has left him questioning the future of American STEM research, and his place within it.

“A year ago I was absolutely sure I would be staying at UCLA for the foreseeable future,” Tao told me. “But now that there are existential risks . . . I cannot make any long-term predictions.”

The wave hit on Sunday, when...

U.S. President Donald Trump doesn’t understand economics - Victoria Times Colonist

U.S. President Donald Trump doesn’t understand economics - Victoria Times Colonist

Comment: Donald Trump doesn’t understand economics

Beyond the international trade issues, Trump also has a faulty understanding of monetary policy.
web1_6857708683b2baceebd56676jpeg
President Donald Trump announces new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, in Washington. Mark Schiefelbein, AP

A commentary by a retired ­professor of economics at the University of Victoria.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s shallow, contradictory understanding of economics — a blend of truths, partial truths, untruths and strategic silences — leads to many unhealthy economic ­policies.

On international trade issues, Trump has two obsessions: foreign trade deficits (which Trump believes, incorrectly, are entirely the foreigners’ fault) and tariffs (which Trump believes, also incorrectly, are paid by foreigners).

Trump fails to understand that at the aggregate ­(macroeconomic) level, a deficit in the government budget (a purely domestic problem) must be offset by some combination of savings that exceed ­investments or imports that exceed exports.

A surplus of savings over investment could finance the budget deficit, leaving foreign trade balanced.

However, as Stephen Roach has argued, “Trade deficits are a painfully visible ­manifestation of America’s myopic ­unwillingness to save for the future.”

If a savings surplus is taken out of the picture as a ­balancing force, the budget deficits and trade deficits must move together.

As a consequence of the ­passage of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), the American budget deficit will be about $3.4 trillion more than it otherwise would have been over the decade from 2025 to 2034 (Congressional Budget Office estimate).

A corresponding persistence in the foreign trade deficit will be unavoidable.

This brings us to Trump’s second obsession: tariffs (which he refers to — bizarrely — as “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”)

Trump believes that tariffs will solve the trade imbalances (by restricting imports) and will also offset the income tax cuts in OBBB by collecting revenues.

What he never mentions is that these two results conflict with each other.

High tariffs seriously reduce imports and, therefore, may not generate much revenue.

Trump is still engaged in bullying negotiations, so it remains to be seen what the longer-term tariff rates will be.

If the rates ultimately average 25%, somewhere between the 15% on EU and 35% on Canada, on 2024’s imports of $4.12 trillion, the revenues would be a maximum of $1.03 trillion, or only about 55% of the budget deficit — and in fact substantially less than this because tariffs this heavy will certainly impede some imports.

Before we leave tariffs, we have to ask: Do foreigners pay the tariffs? In general, the answer is no.

As argued by Chad Bown and Douglas Irwin, “multiple independent studies of Trump’s first-term tariffs found that importers passed along the effect of border taxes to U.S. businesses and households. In the end, Americans paid the tariffs, not foreign companies.”

Beyond the international trade issues, Trump also has a faulty understanding of monetary policy.

Recently, he has begun to attack Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, arguing that the current interest rates (around 4.5%) are much too high and should be cut to 2% or even 1%.

His justification for this is that lower interest rates would make it much easier for the federal government to cover the interest costs of the national debt. Viewed in isolation, this is certainly true, but it is a partial truth.

The problem with such low interest rates, unmentioned (perhaps unnoticed) by Trump, is that such strong monetary stimulus, especially combined with the fiscal stimulus of OBBB’s proposed income tax cuts, would increase employment (a positive result) but would also push price inflation higher (a negative result).

Balancing unemployment with price inflation is a continuous tight-rope walk and was particularly difficult after the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2019.

U.S. unemployment shot up to 6.7% in 2020 and real GDP decreased by 1.0%, but then — as a result of former president Joe Biden’s crisis response package and the rapid development of vaccines — GDP growth and employment recovered but price inflation topped out at 8.0% in 2022, and the bitter memories of that inflation almost certainly contributed to the defeat of the Democrats in the 2024 election and brought Trump back to office.

Trump doesn’t put the economic pieces together.

The three-pronged inflationary pressure of the tariffs’ impact on prices of imports, the fiscal stimulus of OBBB’s major tax cuts and the monetary stimulus of dramatically lower interest rates will almost certainly put the U.S. economy through another episode of serious price inflation, thereby endangering Republican prospects in the 2028 election.

Perhaps Trump simply doesn’t care about 2028, since the 22nd Amendment prevents him from seeking re-election.

However, he is already talking about having one of his children succeed him in the Oval Office.

From this perspective, it seems that Trump doesn’t understand what his policies will do either to the American economy or to his children’s political ­prospects.

Trump is Wrecking our Travel Industry

 

Trump is Wrecking our Travel Industry

Anti-Trump fervor threatens foreign tourism and travelers between our border states, anticipating a poor showing at the forthcoming World Cup and Olympic games

Donald Trump’s vicious anti-immigrant agenda, trade wars, international bullying, and contempt for allies come with a price tag. The United States will lose international talent (both students and workers) to other countries. Americans are already paying higher prices on goods made (partially or in whole) overseas. Less noticed, but equally troubling: The U.S. is already losing billions in tourism while bracing itself for an underwhelming 2026 men’s World Cup and 2028 Olympics.

“[A] study from the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) that analyzed the economic impact of tourism in 184 countries revealed the U.S. was the only country forecast to see international visitor spending decline in 2025,” Forbes reports. “The WTTC projects the U.S. to be on track to lose $12.5 billion in international visitor spending this year compared to last year, according to the research.” That represents a nearly $30B swing from a projected $16.3B increase.

Unsurprisingly, the biggest downturn comes from Canada, the source of about ¼ of international tourism in 2024. “Last year, Canadians spent $20.5 billion—nearly twice what Americans spent at McDonald’s restaurants in all of last year,” Forbes noted. “In May, Canadian visitation dropped 38% by car and 24% by air compared to the same month in 2024.” Trump’s tariffs coupled with his obnoxious chatter about Canada becoming the 51st state have, predictably, convinced many Canadians not to visit.

The fallout disproportionately hits northern states such as Maine, a tourist destination that lies on the border. “Maine’s Office of Tourism says that Canadian visitors spent about $497.7 million in the state in 2024,” an NBC TV affiliate reported earlier this month. “But now state officials warn that up to 225,000 Canadian tourists could be lost in 2025 — a shortfall that could cost the state hundreds of millions in tourism revenue.” In May alone, 85,000 fewer Canadians came in than during May 2024.

At a June 16 summit hosted by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, governors from six New England states plus New York sat down with Canadian officials. WBUR reported: “In Massachusetts, it’s about a 20% decline, Healey said. Vermont reports hotel reservations by Canadians are down 45% and credit card spending is down 36%.” Between February and April, Maine’s tourism experienced a 26% decrease, according to Maine Gov. Janet Mills. “It’s not the tariffs that affected them so much as the hurt pride for Canadian citizens. And I understand that.”

The downturn is not limited to the Northeast. CNN reported in June that North Dakota had lost an estimated $13.4 million in spending from Canada while Canadians’ hotel bookings in Montana dropped 73% in the first three months of the year.

Nor is this limited to border states. At the end of May, the Wall Street Journal reported on a nationwide drop in tourist bookings from overseas. “Flight bookings to the U.S. from Europe are down by about 12% through August. San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are seeing even larger decline.” Trump and his noxious policies are the most obvious cause for the travel downturn: “Some cite the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown and reports of foreign visitors being detained or deported from the U.S. Others say they want to signal their discontent with the White House’s policies, echoing boycotts of American-made products by Canadians and Teslas in Europe.”

While New York City has been able to sustain its tourism, other parts of New York state, including Buffalo, have been slammed. The Buffalo Bills, according to the New York Times, have 8,000 Canadian ticket holders (more than 10% of the stadium capacity). The franchise and surrounding businesses have grounds to worry whether the Bills will be playing to patches of empty seats. No Buffalo sports team can afford to ignore recent signs that Canadian traffic has slowed. (Canadian crossings for a recent Toronto Maple Leaf’s game in Buffalo Sabers dropped more than 30% from a game last March.)

As bad as things have been to date, Trump’s impact on attendance at the men’s World Cup in 2026 (cohosted with Mexico and Canada) and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles will likely be devastating. Earlier this month, 90 civil society groups implored FIFA to use its influence with Trump “to push the Trump administration to guarantee the rights of millions of football fans looking to attend the World Cup next summer.” (Even if he does, why would anybody trust a Trump “guarantee”?)

If foreigners run the risk of being barred entry, hassled, detained, or deported (including to third countries where they have no attachment) hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of fans may stay away. Trump’s travel bans (which by then may be expanded to more countries) could be used to prevent fans, players, team officials, and others from entering the games, something that even other human rights miscreants like China and Russia have not tried to pull. With matches spread among Canada and Mexico, fans could decide to visit only those countries, shunning the U.S. (FIFA almost certainly will not move matches out of the U.S. unless teams and major sponsors threaten to stay away—an unlikely development, given the sort of retribution Trump could exact.)

The 2028 Olympics may be even more dicey considering Trump’s animus toward Los Angeles and willingness to deploy military forces there. If even a fraction of the foreign visitors stay away, the enormous investment (over $70B) required to host the event could be put at risk. The Olympic organizers insist Trump will not interfere with travelers, but as with FIFA, no one can ensure Trump will keep any promise. (Visitors know this as well, which will prompt many to simply avoid the hassle and watch from home.)

International visitors have figured out that they can register their outrage over a racist, authoritarian bully simply by voicing their dissent with their feet and their wallets. (And really, who could blame them?) But American hospitality businesses, event promoters, sponsors, advertisers, athletes, and fans—not to mention all those invested in the international image of the U.S.—will take it on the chin.

The Contrarian is reader-supported. To join our growing community and assist us in the court of law and courts of public opinion, become a free or paid subscriber.

How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics gather the monthly jobs report? | USAFacts


How does the Bureau of Labor Statistics gather the monthly jobs report? | USAFacts
The latest edition of the Bureau of Labor Statistics's (BLS) monthly jobs report, released August 1, 2025, reported “little change” in jobs numbers since April. Citing the report, President Trump directed his team to fire the Commissioner of Labor Statistics, Erika McEntarfer.

Does Microsoft Teams Support VoIP?

 

Does Microsoft Teams Support VoIP?    

Yes! Microsoft Teams is more than just an internal collaboration tool. It is a fully capable VoIP phone system that supports both internal and external calling over the internet.  

With Microsoft Teams Phone, users can place and receive calls over the internet to external numbers such as landlines and mobile phones.   

Its intelligent call routing and call forwarding features, voicemail, calling queues, and auto-attendants enable it to function as a complete replacement for traditional PBX phone systems.  

Thanks to its deep integration with the Microsoft 365 ecosystem and support for third-party VoIP providers, Teams becomes a centralized communications hub that supports on-site, remote, and hybrid work environments.  


Will journalism become impossible in the U.S.?


Will journalism become impossible in the U.S.?

Don’t just take my word for it. The Reporters Without Borders organization compiles a World Press Freedom Index that shows how the United States is slipping. On a scale of 0 to 100, Norway ranks as the top country for press freedom with a rating of 92.31. The United States went from 76.15 in 2020 to 65.49 in 2025 – from “satisfactory” to “problematic.” The United States now ranks just below Sierra Leone, Romania, and Liberia.

Trump & GOP Will Finally Bring Healthcare to its Knees

Trump & GOP Will Finally Bring Healthcare to its Knees

Trump & GOP Will Finally Bring Healthcare to its Knees

The new GOP budget breaks the back of an already fragile and failing healthcare system in the United States.

By Max from UNFTR

Watch the video report of this article below or click here.

Healthcare in the United States is some of the best in the world.

If you can afford it.

Health coverage in the United States is some of the worst in the world.

If you can afford it.

Those are the first and last lines of this story. Our job today is to fill in the blanks in between with a sense of urgency because new studies just released revealed how the Trump administration’s new budget bill is likely the final death blow to a system already teetering on the edge.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.


The American healthcare system is already in crisis. Outcomes aren’t better than other peer nations, and in some cases it’s far worse, despite the fact that we have the highest cost of coverage and the second highest out-of-pocket costs in the world.

So while we’re going to go through how the new GOP legislation is about to destroy the fragile healthcare ecosystem starting in 2026, it’s important to be honest about our starting point.

That said, literally every delivery source of healthcare coverage is going to be affected. Whether you get your insurance from the ACA exchange, the government or your employer, costs are going up. By a lot. That’s the takeaway from the GOP approach to healthcare, which is all rooted in the GOP promise to “repeal and replace.”

Ascribing blame can be satisfying but once again we have to be honest that the blame is spread far and wide when it comes to the system we currently have in place. But there’s no question that the Republicans’ tear-it-all-down strategy is going to cause undue and unnecessary pain and suffering for the vast majority of American households. And they have neither a plan nor the intention to solve this crisis.

To the GOP it’s as simple as “make more money or just don’t get sick”.

This also means the Democrats have the opportunity of a lifetime to finally see the solution that’s been sitting in front of them for more than six decades.

Manufactured Crisis

We're about to witness the biggest healthcare crisis in decades, and it's entirely manufactured. Right now, as we speak, millions of Americans are losing their Medicaid coverage due to the draconian work requirements embedded in what Republicans euphemistically call the "One Big Beautiful Bill." But here's what they don't want you to know: this isn't just going to hurt the people who lose coverage—it's going to devastate everyone.

When millions of people get kicked off Medicaid, state budgets don't just magically fix themselves. States are going to scramble to fill that gap, and guess what happens next? The entire private insurance market gets slammed with higher costs because it reduces the risk pool required to make insurance affordable.

We're already seeing insurance companies request premium increases of 15% or more for 2026—the largest increases we've seen since 2018. And that's before the full impact of these Medicaid cuts hits.

This is the perverse reality of building a healthcare system around private insurance and employment-based coverage. When one part fails, the whole rickety structure starts to collapse. And the people who suffer? Working families, small businesses, and anyone who dares to get sick in America.

But here's the thing—this crisis could be the catalyst for the solution we should have implemented decades ago. Because while other developed nations figured out long ago that healthcare is a public good, not a profit center, we've been trapped in a system designed to extract wealth, not deliver care.

Private healthcare markets are built on fundamentally perverse incentive structures. You cannot have a system designed to help people stay healthy—which requires fewer medical interventions—when that same system is designed to generate profits from more care and expensive interventions. If fire departments made money every time they put out a fire and their jobs depended on it, there would be a lot of arsonists in the department.

Of course, we don’t need that ridiculous hypothetical scenario to drive home the idea of perverse incentives. Take the private prison industrial complex that thrives on recidivism and punitive laws for minor offenses that put people behind bars for less and for longer. Or a healthcare system that incentivizes insurers to deny claims and providers to make as much money on everything from routine visits and prescription drugs to hospital stays.

That's why every other developed country treats healthcare as a central government responsibility. It's not a fringe progressive idea—private insurance is the fringe idea, and we're about to see exactly why it's failing so spectacularly.


How We Got Here

The American healthcare system isn’t some grand design based on careful policy analysis. It was an accident of history that we've been too stubborn to fix. During World War II, wage freezes meant employers couldn't compete for workers with higher pay, so certain ones— most notably unions—started offering health benefits instead. What began as a wartime workaround became the foundation of our entire system.

When Lyndon Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid as part of the Great Society, it was supposed to be the beginning, not the end. Medicare and Medicaid were designed as the first steps toward universal coverage—a way to prove that government-run healthcare could work by starting with the most vulnerable populations: seniors and the indigent.

The plan was to gradually expand coverage to everyone. But the implementation costs were higher than expected, and political resistance was fierce. Believe it or not, it was the American Medical Association that fought it tooth and nail, convinced that government involvement would destroy the profession. They were wrong, of course—Medicare became wildly popular and efficient—but the damage was done. The momentum for universal coverage stalled.

It would be years before we had another shot under Jimmy Carter. Ted Kennedy was pushing hard for a comprehensive national health plan, but the relationship between Kennedy and Carter was so toxic that they couldn't work together. Another ‘Democrats eating their own’ moment when personal politics killed what could have been the moment we joined the rest of the developed world in treating healthcare as a right.

Once Ronald Reagan took office, the window closed completely. The Reagan era ushered in the philosophy that government is the problem, not the solution, and private markets can solve everything. The healthcare industry, smelling opportunity, began its massive expansion. Insurance companies grew larger and more powerful. Hospital systems consolidated. The pharmaceutical industry discovered it could charge whatever it wanted.

Instead of a rational system designed to keep people healthy, we built a labyrinthine extraction machine designed to generate profits. And we've been living with the consequences ever since.

This employment-based system creates massive vulnerabilities. When people lose their jobs, they lose their healthcare. When companies can't afford rising premiums, they cut benefits or drop coverage entirely. We need elaborate safety net programs like Medicaid precisely because our primary system is so unreliable.

But here's the irony: every time we try to patch the system with safety net programs, conservatives complain about government spending and dependency. They've created a system that requires government intervention, then complain about government intervention. It's maddening.

The next major attempt at healthcare reform came under Bill Clinton in the early 1990s. Recall that it was actually Hillary Clinton who led the charge, developing a comprehensive plan that would have provided universal coverage while maintaining a role for private insurance. It was complex and in retrospect looked a lot like Obamacare.

The response was swift and brutal. Newt Gingrich and the Republican coalition in Congress launched an all-out assault on the plan, painting it as government overreach and socialized medicine. The insurance industry spent millions on the infamous "Harry and Louise" ads, featuring a couple worrying about government bureaucrats coming between them and their doctor—while completely ignoring the insurance company bureaucrats already doing exactly that.

The Clinton plan died, and with it, any hope of meaningful reform for another generation.

Share

When Barack Obama came into office, he faced the same basic choice: push for a true universal system or try to work within the existing private insurance framework. He chose the latter, and the result was the Affordable Care Act—a plan that, ironically, was originally developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation and implemented in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. And if Heritage sounds familiar, they were the lead sponsor of Project 2025.

Think about that for a moment. Obama's signature healthcare achievement was based on a conservative think tank's plan designed to preserve the private insurance market while forcing people to buy coverage through mandates. It was literally designed to avoid creating a government-run alternative that might compete with private insurers.

The ACA did accomplish some important things. It brought millions of people into coverage through the exchanges, expanded Medicaid in most states, and eliminated some of the worst practices of insurance companies like denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. These were genuine improvements that saved lives and prevented bankruptcies.

But the fundamental structure remained intact. We still had a system designed to generate profits, not health outcomes. And predictably, costs continued to rise. Insurance companies found new ways to extract profits—raising deductibles, narrowing networks, and increasing out-of-pocket costs. Pharmaceutical companies continued their relentless price increases. Hospital systems kept consolidating and raising prices.

The ACA slowed the rate of cost increases temporarily, but it couldn't solve the underlying problem: when your system is designed to maximize profits rather than health outcomes, costs will always spiral upward. You can't regulate your way out of a fundamentally misaligned incentive structure.

Healthcare providers, now guaranteed more paying customers through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion, had every incentive to raise prices. They knew insurance companies would pass those costs on to patients and taxpayers.

The ACA essentially guaranteed a larger customer base for an already dysfunctional market.


The GOP War on Healthcare

From the moment the ACA passed, Republicans made destroying it their primary mission. They voted to repeal it over 60 times in the House. They challenged it in the Supreme Court multiple times. They refused to expand Medicaid in their states, leaving millions of their own constituents without coverage out of pure spite.

When they finally gained control of government in 2017, they came within one vote—John McCain's famous thumbs down—of repealing the entire law without any replacement plan. Think about that. They were willing to throw 20+ million people off their health insurance with no alternative, just to score political points.

When outright repeal failed, they shifted to death by a thousand cuts. They eliminated the individual mandate penalty, weakened enforcement of insurance regulations, and created junk insurance plans that provided virtually no real coverage. They sabotaged the system they couldn't destroy outright.

The COVID pandemic provided a brief reprieve. The Biden administration enhanced the premium tax credits that made coverage more affordable, and enrollment in the exchanges surged. Millions of people gained coverage, and for a moment, it looked like the system might stabilize.

But costs kept rising anyway. Despite more people joining the risk pools, insurance companies continued raising premiums. Why? Because the fundamental incentive structure hadn't changed. More customers just meant more opportunities to extract profits.

And the profiteering became increasingly sophisticated. Pharmacy Benefit Managers—middlemen who were supposed to help control drug costs—became massive profit centers themselves. The three largest PBMs took in $604 billion in 2023 alone while manipulating drug formularies to maximize their own profits.

Insurance companies developed algorithms to automatically deny a certain percentage of claims, knowing that most people won't appeal. They created networks so narrow that patients often couldn't find in-network specialists. They raised deductibles so high that people effectively had no coverage for anything but catastrophic events.

The result is national anxiety with two-thirds of adults saying they’re worried about being able to afford the cost of healthcare. Forty-one percent of American adults currently have medical debt. One in four people say they or a family member had problems paying for healthcare in the past year. About one-third of adults have skipped or postponed needed care because of cost.

Even among those with coverage as you see here, the numbers are already off the charts. I mean, $32,000 a year for family coverage and $7,000 for individual coverage? On no planet do any of these numbers make sense. It’s unsustainable for literally everyone involved.

This isn't a healthcare system—it's a wealth extraction scheme with medical care as a side effect.

Now we're about to see this dysfunctional system pushed to its breaking point. The new KFF analysis makes it crystal clear: healthcare costs are about to explode beyond anything we've seen in recent years.

Insurance companies are requesting premium increases of 15% or more for 2026—the largest increases in more than five years. But that's just the beginning. When the enhanced premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, out-of-pocket premium payments for subsidized enrollees will increase by over 75%.

And here's where the cruel mathematics of insurance markets kicks in. When premiums spike, the first people to drop coverage are the healthy ones who figure they can risk going without insurance. That leaves the insurance pools with sicker, more expensive patients, which drives costs even higher in a vicious cycle.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that letting the enhanced subsidies expire will increase the number of uninsured by 4.2 million people. But that's just the direct effect. As healthy people leave the market, the risk pools get sicker and more expensive, potentially triggering even more people to drop coverage.

Meanwhile, the One Big Beautiful Bill is throwing millions more people off Medicaid through work requirements and other restrictions.

As we’ve noted before on Meidas, when these people lose Medicaid, they don't just disappear. They show up at emergency rooms when they get sick, and hospitals are legally required to treat them regardless of ability to pay. Those costs get passed on to everyone else in the form of higher prices for insured patients.

State budgets, already strained by reduced federal Medicaid funding, will be forced to cut other programs or raise taxes to make up the difference. Either way, working families pay the price.

Corporate America is already struggling with healthcare costs. The average family premium for employer-sponsored coverage has been rising faster than wages for years. Companies are responding by shifting more costs to employees through higher deductibles and co-pays, or by dropping coverage altogether for part-time workers.

So let's be clear about who wins and who loses in this scenario. The losers are sick people who can't afford care, hospitals and providers who won't get paid for treating uninsured patients, companies struggling with rising healthcare costs, and basically every American who isn't a shareholder in an insurance or pharmaceutical company.

The winners? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies who can manage risks and manipulate reimbursements to maintain profitability no matter how many people suffer. They've built a system where they literally profit from human misery, and they're very good at it.

Healthcare costs are reaching maximum pain levels for individuals and families, with stunning increases starting next year. We're creating a system where only the wealthy can afford to get sick, while everyone else either goes without care or goes bankrupt trying to pay for it.