As a news organization, we have a responsibility to adhere to the facts. In my personal life, I’ve always believed that we have the technology and resources to uncover the truth about anything. Yet, misinformation continues to spread, and too often, people accept opinions as facts without verifying them for themselves. This is precisely why mainstream media is losing viewers—because instead of presenting facts, some outlets promote fear-driven narratives that lack credibility. We have the opportunity to fact-check false rhetoric, which I’m doing here today.
I developed a strong interest in this issue because, for many Black seniors, programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are essential for their survival. These programs are not merely policy talking points; they represent a lifeline. Exploiting their fears for political gain is not leadership—it’s manipulation. Instilling fear in Black seniors does not foster change, and instilling fear in Black people overall is not a way to create change.
We’ve witnessed this repeatedly—fear-driven narratives employed to control, distract, and divide. It’s no different from certain Black leaders promoting DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives while Black individuals continue to be the last to reap any benefits. It’s no different from Black entertainers and leaders who are compensated to push a narrative that only serves to pull our community deeper into confusion. It’s time to stop allowing them to lead us down the rabbit hole of fear and misinformation.
Medicare is Not Being Cut
The latest budget proposal, H. Con. Res. 14 does not eliminate Medicare. In fact, Medicare funding increases year over year under the plan. The bill focuses on cost reduction measures, such as adjusting reimbursement rates for healthcare providers and implementing efficiencies to sustain the program.
Similar Medicare adjustments have occurred under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan introduced the Medicare prospective payment system to control hospital costs. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, signed by President Bill Clinton, included Medicare reductions and the introduction of Medicare+Choice. Under President George W. Bush, Medicare Part D was established in 2003 to provide prescription drug coverage while incorporating cost-sharing measures.
The healthcare reforms introduced under President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 share similarities with some of the cost-cutting measures outlined in the current budget proposal, H. Con. Res. 14. A key focus of the ACA was reducing Medicare expenditures through adjustments to provider reimbursements and the promotion of value-based care, which rewarded healthcare providers for efficiency and improved patient outcomes rather than the volume of services rendered. These measures aimed to curb unnecessary spending while maintaining or enhancing the quality of care.
Similarly, the current budget proposal in H. Con. Res. 14. emphasizes cost reduction strategies for Medicare, including potential adjustments to provider payments and administrative efficiencies to ensure the program’s long-term sustainability without cutting core benefits.
Both the ACA and H. Con. Res. 14 also highlights efforts to reduce fraud and increase transparency in healthcare spending. Under the ACA, the federal government implemented stricter oversight of Medicare billing and fraud prevention initiatives to prevent wasteful expenditures. Likewise, the current budget proposal directs agencies to identify inefficiencies and implement policies that protect taxpayer dollars while ensuring Medicare funds are allocated effectively. The Trump administration also expanded upon these principles by introducing pricing transparency rules, requiring hospitals and insurers to disclose costs upfront, which aligns with the broader goal of fiscal responsibility in healthcare. While the political approaches to healthcare reform differ, the ACA and the current budget proposal are committed to making Medicare more efficient without directly cutting benefits for seniors.
Medicaid Faces Adjustments, Not Elimination
Medicaid, on the other hand, may undergo potential adjustments. The budget proposal calls for $2 trillion in mandatory spending cuts but does not explicitly target Medicaid for direct reductions. Instead, any changes would likely focus on eligibility requirements, reimbursement rates, or fraud prevention. Historically, efforts to decrease Medicaid spending have concentrated on improving efficiency rather than reducing coverage. While staying informed is crucial, claims that millions will suddenly lose Medicaid benefits are exaggerated.
Social Security Remains Untouched
Social Security is not being eliminated either. It is funded separately through payroll taxes (FICA), which means Congress cannot simply “cut” Social Security overnight. While the program does face long-term funding challenges, these challenges existed long before this budget. Any significant changes—such as raising the retirement age or adjusting cost-of-living increases—would require separate legislation and bipartisan agreement. If you hear that Social Security is being slashed, ask yourself: where in the bill does it say that? The answer: it doesn’t.
The Speaker’s Response to Medicaid Concerns
The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, refuted Democratic claims that the GOP’s budget plan would slash Medicaid benefits, asserting that the proposed cuts would strictly target inefficiencies rather than impact needy recipients. “The White House has made a commitment, and we have made the same commitment, that we will not touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid,” Johnson reiterated.
Johnson also highlighted the necessity of work requirements for able-bodied Medicaid recipients. “Public opinion polls show that nearly 90% support the idea that Medicaid should be for those who truly need it—not for 29-year-old men lounging on their couches playing video games,” he stated.
Why the Fear?
Fear sells. Misinformation about these programs spreads rapidly, especially on social media, where sensational headlines drive engagement. Politicians from both sides utilize these claims to garner support or attack their opponents. However, fear-mongering benefits no one and contributes to real stress and anxiety for those reliant on these programs. While budget discussions deserve careful analysis, we must prioritize facts over hysteria.
But we also need to start holding Black leaders accountable. Too many high-profile figures—whether in politics, media, or entertainment—are being paid to promote narratives that do nothing to uplift us. They use fear to keep us emotionally invested, dependent, distracted, and divided. Meanwhile, the policies and programs they claim to fight for often leave us last in line for benefits.
What Can You Do?
If you’re worried about these programs, staying informed is the best thing you can do. Read the legislative text, not just the headlines, news commentary, or someone’s feelings. Many times, legislations are 60 to 100 pages or even more. You can also run it through AI for a summary of the document. Watch for political spin and engage in the discussion by contacting your representatives. Technology gives us access to the truth—we have to utilize it. The real conversation should focus on strengthening these programs for future generations rather than spreading fear about losing them overnight.
The next time someone says, “You’re losing your Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security,” you can confidently respond, “That’s simply not true.”
I will challenge you, the reader, even more. I have attached the bill for you to research. You don’t have to take my word for it. Download it, run it through AI, and get a bill summary yourself. We have the tools to seek truth—let’s use them.
