¶ Overview
- During a March town hall, Edwards promised that it was not the intent of him, congress, or Trump to disrupt Medicaid benefits. Then he voted for a bill that set up future cuts to Medicaid. Then, before voting for the House version of the Republican reconciliation bill, Edwards said, “The flaw of this bill is that it doesn’t go far enough, fast enough, to get our fiscal house in order.” Then, in June 2025, he signed a letter with some of his colleagues expressing the “critical need to protect Medicaid and the hospitals that serve our communities.” Then, he voted for the final bill that would kick 17 million Americans off their health insurance, including nearly 12 million Americans off of Medicaid. More than 46,000 North Carolinians in the 11th congressional district were at-risk of losing their health coverage because of Edwards’ votes. Edwards’ vote could also threaten North Carolina’s Medicaid expansion, which has helped 650,000 people in the state obtain health insurance.
- Edwards, who previously lamented that all legal and legislative attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act had been exhausted, then voted to let critical enhanced premium tax credits expire. More than 760,000 North Carolinians had enrolled in ACA exchange plans for 2026, which was a 22 percent drop in enrollment compared to 2025 – the largest drop in the United States. The drop could be partially attributed to the expiration of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits.
¶ Edwards Voted For Massive Medicaid Cuts After Claiming He Wouldn’t Disrupt Medicaid Benefits
¶ before voting to cut medicaid, edwards claimed it was not the intent of him, congress, nor trump to disrupt medicaid benefits
Edwards Claimed It Was Not His, Nor Congress’, Nor President Trump’s Intent To Disrupt Medicaid Benefits For The Most Vulnerable Americans, Like The Disabled And Poor. According to a town hall held by Rep. Chuck Edwards, EDWARDS: “On the on on the on the Medicaid piece, President Trump has made it very clear to me and to other members of Congress that it is not his intent and I believe it is not Congress's intent to disrupt the benefits of the most vulnerable amongst us, such as the, the, the disabled and the poor that cannot afford the services themselves and you've seen. And you've seen no action so far, to, to, to make those disruptions.” [Congressman Chuck Edwards Town Hall, 3/13/25] (video)
Edwards: “There's No Intent From President Trump Nor From The Current Congress To Do Anything To Disrupt Payments For Medicare Or Social Security.” According to a town hall held by Rep. Chuck Edwards, “QUESTION Many of us in Western North Carolina rely on Medicaid, Medicare, and or Social Security to get health care and pay our bills. Mathematically, it is impossible to enact your proposed budget, the Republican proposed budget, without making deep cuts to these programs. What is your message to constituents who depend on these programs here? EDWARDS I would say. That I think that you might be referring to the budget resolution that was passed out of the budget committee that I sit on about 3 weeks ago it did, it did make it across the House floor. It did have quite a bit of political adversity, with, with, without any fact. There's nothing in that resolution that mentions the word Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. [CROWD GRUMBLING] There's no intent from President Trump nor from the current Congress to do anything to disrupt payments for Medicare or Social Security.” [Congressman Chuck Edwards Town Hall, 3/13/25] (video)
- Edwards: “My Good Friend Brett Guthrie, The Chairman Of The Energy And Commerce Committee, Who Deals With Appropriation For Medicaid Believes That He Can Achieve The $880 Billion Over 10 Years Without Disrupting Payments To The Most Vulnerable Amongst Us.” EDWARDS: “I have had a lot of folks, rely on a statement that they feel that they heard from CBO that we don't have enough where they may have said we don't have enough confidence in Congress to be able, to be able to achieve… I'm trying to answer the gentleman's question, sir. I'm sorry. CBO had made some statements that they didn't have enough confidence in the Congress to be able to achieve what was in that budget resolution without touching Medicaid. I would, I would just say to you, first of all, is there anything that comes out of CBO that we can believe because they're missing, they're missing their projections by trillions of dollars, and I would also say that my good friend Brett Guthrie, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who deals with appropriation for Medicaid believes that he can achieve the $880 billion over 10 years without disrupting payments to the most vulnerable amongst us.” [Congressman Chuck Edwards Town Hall, 3/13/25] (video)
Edwards Claimed The Reconciliation Bill Did Not Cut Medicaid, SNAP, Public Housing, Or Veterans’ Benefits And Accused His Constituent Of Not Having Read The Bill. According to a town hall held by Rep. Chuck Edwards, “QUESTION: Why did you vote for the continuing resolution budget bill that will cut Medicaid, SNAP food stamps, public housing, veterans’ benefits, etc. when you have so many hundreds of thousands in in this district that are depending on them? EDWARDS: With, with all due respect, I don't think you've read that bill because that bill didn't cut any of the things that you just suggested. A continuing resolution, a continue, yeah, I see some talking points back there, probably some political talking points that have been passed around. [CROWD GRUMBLING] A continuing resolution continues to spend the taxpayers' money at the same rate that it did in, in, in the previous [MIC CUTS OUT]. And so, this continuing resolution did nothing to cut those things that you're suggesting.” [Congressman Chuck Edwards Town Hall, 3/13/25] (video)
¶ June 2025: Edwards Signed A Letter Expressing Concern About The “Critical Need To Protect Medicaid”
June 2025: Edwards Signed A Letter That Expressed Concern About The “Critical Need To Protect Medicaid And The Hospitals That Serve Our Communities.” According to an opinion in the Charlotte Observer, "There’s also the 11th District, where 26% of the population is enrolled in Medicaid. Rep. Chuck Edwards, who represents that district, co-signed a letter to congressional leaders last month expressing concerns about the ‘critical need to protect Medicaid and the hospitals that serve our communities.’ The day before the House voted on the bill, Edwards said a meeting with the White House ‘didn’t sway my opinion.’ But the very next day, he voted for the bill anyway." [Opinion – Charlotte Observer, 7/8/25; Letter – Rep. David Valadao, 6/24/25]
¶ Before voting for the house version of the bill, edwards also claimed the bill didn’t go far enough
Edwards On The House Version Of The Big Beautiful Bill: “The Flaw Of This Bill Is That It Doesn’t Go Far Enough, Fast Enough, To Get Our Fiscal House In Order.” According to CBS 17, "Fiscal hawks on the House Budget Committee on Friday sunk a key vote to advance the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ that encompasses President Trump’s legislative agenda, marking a stunning setback for the legislation. The 16-21 vote throws up a hurdle for leaders hoping to send the bill to the Senate by Memorial Day — but are still haggling over last minute changes to appease not only the fiscal hawks but moderates seeking bigger blue-state tax breaks. Three North Carolina Republican congressmen sit on the House Budget committee, including Representative Chuck Edwards (R) from western North Carolina. Rep. Edwards spoke in favor of moving forward with the budget proposal. ‘This is not the Big Beautiful Bill that I had hoped for — but it does reign in mandatory spending, it restores program integrity, and finally begins, but only begins, to right size the federal bureaucracy,’ said Edwards. ‘Mr. Chairman, the flaw of this bill is that it doesn’t go far enough, fast enough, to get our fiscal house in order. But it does take some great strides. Let’s take these strides today, pass this bill and go to work next week in taking greater and bolder steps.’" [CBS 17, 5/16/25]
¶ Edwards voted to take health care from 17 million americans
¶ July 2025: Edwards Voted For The Final Version Of Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill
7/3/25: Edwards Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Bill’s Costs. In July 2025, Edwards voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to concur in the Senate amendment to the bill that would permanently extend nearly $4 trillion in expiring individual and business tax cuts, create several new tax breaks and fund border and immigration enforcement and air traffic control upgrades. It would cut Medicaid and other safety net programs to partly offset the cost. Among other provisions, it would raise the statutory debt ceiling by $5 trillion and appropriate more than $448 billion in mandatory funding for Trump administration priorities and other needs, including $153 billion for defense, $89 billion for immigration enforcement, and $89.5 billion for border control and security. It also would increase the state and local tax deduction cap to $40,000 annually for five years for households making up to $500,000 a year until 2030, when it would permanently revert to $10,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 218 to 214. [House Vote 190, 7/3/25; Congressional Quarterly, 7/3/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- HEADLINE: "At Least 17 Million Americans Would Lose Insurance Under Trump Plan" [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
- The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That 11.8 Million People Would Become Uninsured As A Result Of The Medicaid Cuts In Republicans’ Reconciliation Bill. According to the Washington Post, "The bill, which narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday and now heads back to the House, would effectively accomplish what Republicans have long failed to do: unwind many of the key components of the ACA, President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, which dramatically increased the number of Americans with access to health insurance. To start, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate version of the bill would result in 11.8 million more uninsured in 2034, mostly because of Medicaid cuts, compared with 10.9 million if the House version became law." [Washington Post, 7/1/25]
¶ May 2025: Edwards Voted For House Republicans’ Budget Bill, Which Would Kick Millions Of People Off Medicaid
5/22/25: Edwards Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Included $3.8 Trillion In Tax Cuts Offset By $1.5 Trillion In Spending Reductions To Programs Like Medicaid And The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In May 2025, Edwards voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would provide for approximately $3.8 trillion in net tax cuts and $321 billion in military, border enforcement and judiciary spending, offset by $1.5 trillion in spending reductions, as instructed in the fiscal 2025 budget resolution (H Con Res 14). It would raise the statutory debt limit by $4 trillion and provide for increased spending on defense and border security, spending cuts on social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It also includes a mix of tax breaks for businesses and individuals; tax increases on universities and foundations; and a phase-down of clean energy tax credits. […] It would reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by requiring states to shoulder more of the cost, expand work requirements for SNAP, extend programs authorized under the 2018 farm bill, and prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from increasing the cost of the Thrifty Food Program. As amended, it would cap state and local tax deductions at $40,000 for households with incomes below $500,000.” The House passed the bill by a vote of 215 to 214. [House Vote 145, 5/22/25; Congressional Quarterly, 5/22/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Was Estimated To Increase The Uninsured Population By 8.6 Million By 2034. According to CNN, “The Medicaid and Affordable Care Act provisions in the package could result in 8.6 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to an early CBO estimate released by Democratic lawmakers. That number is expected to grow with the latest changes.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
- The House GOP Budget Bill Codified A Trump Administration Proposal That Restricted Access To The Affordable Care Act. According to CNN, “The bill also calls for codifying a Trump administration proposal that would make changes to the Affordable Care Act enrollment process, including shortening the open enrollment period and eliminating the ability of low-income Americans to sign up year-round.” [CNN, 5/28/25]
¶ February 2025: Edwards Voted For A Budget Resolution That Spelled Out Future Medicaid Cuts But He Claimed It Didn’t
2/25/25: Edwards Voted For The FY 2025 Budget Framework That Included $2 Trillion In Cuts, Raised The Statutory Debt Limit By $4 Trillion, And Required House Committees To Recommend Legislation That Would Implement Trump’s Agenda. In February 2025, Edwards voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the concurrent resolution that would recommend a budget for fiscal 2025 and budget levels through fiscal 2034. The resolution would assume minimum savings of $1.5 trillion over 10 years and 2.6 percent economic growth over the same period. It also would require the statutory debt limit to be raised by $4 trillion. It also would authorize the House Ways and Means Committee to increase deficits by $4.5 trillion over 10 years to extend the 2017 tax cuts and implement new tax cuts proposed by the White House. It also would provide instructions for the budget reconciliation process through which separate legislation could be considered and passed in the Senate via a simple majority vote. The measure would deliver instructions to 11 House committees to report legislation that would implement President Donald Trump’s agenda, such as expanding tax cuts and bolstering border security and immigration enforcement. The committees would be required to report their legislative recommendations to the House Budget Committee by March 27, 2025. It also would set a $2 trillion target for the spending cuts to be submitted to the House Budget Committee. The resolution also would stipulate that if the committees don't reach that target, the Ways and Means’ reconciliation instructions to increase the deficit by a maximum of $4.5 trillion would be decreased by the amount the other committees come in below the target. Similarly, it would stipulate that Ways and Means could increase the deficit above the $4.5 trillion level by the amount of savings the committees achieve above the $2 trillion target.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the resolution by a vote of 217 to 215. [House Vote 50, 2/25/25; Congressional Quarterly, 2/25/25; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 14]
- HEADLINE: “What Can House Republicans Cut Instead Of Medicaid? Not Much.” [New York Times, 2/25/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republican Budget Takes Away Health Care, Food Aid To Pay For Expanded Tax Cuts For Wealthy" [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/21/25]
- New York Times Reported The $880 Billion In Cuts Required By The Republican Budget Proposal Would Have To Come From Medicaid, Medicare, Or CHIP. According to the New York Times, "The budget resolution itself is silent on whether Congress cuts Medicaid, which provides health coverage to 72 million poor and disabled Americans. But it instructs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the program, to cut spending by $880 billion over the next decade. If the committee can’t save at least that much, the entire effort could be imperiled because of the special process Congress is using to avoid a Senate filibuster. Ten other committees have their own instructions to follow, though none have been assigned with cutting nearly as much. It’s not so simple as finding the cuts elsewhere. The special process, known as budget reconciliation, means Republicans will have to find all $880 billion from within the Energy and Commerce Committee’s jurisdiction. That leaves them with fewer options than one might think. […] If Republicans want to avoid major cuts to Medicaid, the largest pot of available money is in the other big government health insurance program: Medicare. […] Even if the committee cuts everything that’s not health care to $0, it will still be more than $600 billion short. The committee could also save around $200 billion by eliminating the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but that option has not been raised by the budget committee or anyone in House leadership. […] Even if all of these cuts, revenues and rule cancellations from outside health care can pass muster, the committee will still be left with hundreds of billions of dollars to cut to hit its goal. Mathematically, the budget committee’s instructions mean the committee would need to make major cuts to either Medicare, Medicaid or both." [New York Times, 2/25/25]
¶ edwards claimed the republican reconciliation bill would make america prosperous
Edwards: “The House-Passed Reconciliation Bill Will Make Life Better For Every American.” [Twitter, @RepChuckEdwards, 6/18/25]
Edwards Claimed The Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Help Western North Carolina And Put American “Back On A Path Of Strength And Prosperity.” According to a press release from Rep. Chuck Edwards, "U.S. Congressman Chuck Edwards (NC-11) issued the following statement on his vote for the Senate-amended reconciliation bill: […] This bill will also instate pro-growth policies that will incentivize investments to generate revenue and grow our economy. As a lifelong businessman who is tired of Washington stifling economic growth, the importance of these policies cannot be overstated. ‘This bill strengthens Medicaid to its original intent: to serve pregnant women, children, folks with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable populations. Medicaid costs ran rampant under the last administration because the United States government failed to police waste, fraud, and abuse and allowed the American taxpayer to cover the health care costs of able-bodied, working-age adults who were not required to work. This bill establishes reasonable work requirements: just 80 hours of work or enrollment in a community service or education program per month for non-pregnant adults without dependents. ‘Under current law, only 7 percent of all Medicaid hospital spending reaches rural hospitals. Our rural hospitals are essential, and the care they provide for WNC communities is foundational to our region’s well-being. This bill will better support rural hospitals in WNC by creating a targeted $50 billion fund to offset the increased costs hospitals will take on from a lower provider tax reimbursement rate. This fund provides a tailored approach, rather than increasing general Medicaid spending, to improve and preserve care. ‘The message to me from the people of Western North Carolina was clear in the weeks leading up to this vote: the provisions included in this bill will pave the way for a stronger, more prosperous, and more resilient nation. Western North Carolina can’t succeed if we aren’t succeeding as a country, and this bill will put our nation back on a path of strength and prosperity.’" [Press Release – Rep. Chuck Edwards, 7/4/25]
¶ more than 46,000 north carolinians in edwards’ district could lose health coverage because of his votes
An Estimated 46,566 People In Edwards’ District On The Affordable Care Act And Medicaid Could Lose Coverage Due To Health Care Cuts In The Republican Budget Bill.
[Joint Economic Committee, Viewed 12/3/25]
143,500 North Carolinians In The 11th Congressional District Were Enrolled In Medicaid Or CHIP.
[Center for American Progress, 3/11/25]
¶ edwards claimed the republican reconciliation bill would not close rural hospitals
Edwards Claimed The Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Not Close Rural Hospitals. Rep. Chuck Edwards tweeted: "MYTH: The Senate-amended reconciliation bill will close rural hospitals. FACT: Under current law, only 7% of Medicaid hospital spending reaches rural communities. The reconciliation bill will better support rural hospitals nationwide and in WNC by creating a targeted $50 billion fund to offset the increased costs hospitals will take on from a lower provider tax reimbursement rate. This fund provides a tailored approach, rather than increasing general Medicaid spending, to improve care in rural communities. Further, the provider tax reductions will be phased in over a period of 8 years, giving states ample time to adjust to new provider tax rates. #MythBuster" [Twitter, @RepChuckEdwards, 7/9/25]
¶ The Rural Hospital Fund In The Republican Reconciliation Bill Was Not Nearly Enough To Cover The Medicaid Funding Losses
HEADLINE: "These 5 Hospitals Across NC Could Close With House Republicans’ Funding Cuts" [Charlotte Observer, 6/20/25]
HEADLINE: "Rural Health Transformation Program Won’t Make Up For Federal Budget Cuts, Experts Agree" [Daily Yonder, 10/11/25]
About A Dozen Hospitals Closed Before North Carolina Expanded Medicaid And The $50 Billion Rural Hospital Funding In The Republican Reconciliation Bill Was Not Nearly Enough To Make Up For The Medicaid Cuts. According to the New York Times, "As Martin County pauses efforts to reopen its hospital, rural hospitals elsewhere in the state are worried about their survival. In the two decades preceding Medicaid expansion, about a dozen hospitals closed in North Carolina. At the last minute, Congress provided $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals in the Trump law. But many hospital executives have said it would not be nearly enough to make up for the cuts to Medicaid and other health programs." [New York Times, 7/6/25]
- HEADLINE: "N.C. Requests $1 Billion From Federal Rural Health Fund, Says It Still Won't Be Enough" [Spectrum News, 12/9/25]
The Republican Reconciliation Was Projected To Result In A $50 Billion Loss In Medicaid Funding Over Ten Years For North Carolina. According to the Ashville Watchdog, "North Carolina’s rural hospitals will face $3.7 billion in Medicaid cuts and the state could be forced to end its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) following passage of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, according to a state General Assembly briefing document obtained by Asheville Watchdog. Altogether, the state will lose $49.9 billion in Medicaid funding over 10 years, with more than 70 percent of the loss coming from cuts to hospital expenditures, according to the document, which was assembled by subject matter experts and top NCDHHS officials. The document was presented online by four of those officials Wednesday to legislators and staff." [Ashville Watchdog, 7/10/25]
¶ Edwards’ Vote Could Also Threaten North Carolina’s Medicaid Expansion, Which Has Helped More Than 600,000 North Carolinians Gain Access To Health Insurance
¶ the republican reconciliation bill could trigger a north carolina law that would discontinue medicaid expansion if the state was forced to pick up more costs
North Carolina Had A Trigger Law That Would Discontinue Medicaid Expansion If The State Was Forced To Pick Up Any Costs. According to North Carolina Health News, "Jay Ludlam, deputy secretary for NC Medicaid, explained that two key provisions of the version of the One Big Beautiful Bill that already passed the U.S. House — a work requirement for enrollees and a freeze on provider taxes — would jeopardize the North Carolina expansion program by creating an unfunded mandate for the state. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost for beneficiaries of Medicaid expansion. Hospitals cover the remaining 10 percent of the state’s expansion costs through a special tax assessment. The General Assembly’s passage of expansion was contingent on that payment arrangement staying in place. State lawmakers designed the Access to Healthcare Options Act with a ‘trigger’ that discontinues Medicaid expansion if the state is forced to pick up any costs." [North Carolina Health News, 6/27/25]
- New Medicaid Requirements In The Republican Reconciliation Bill Could Require North Carolina To Invest In New Systems And Hire Additional Workers While Hamstringing Its Ability To Generate Revenue To Pay For The New System. According to North Carolina Health News, "The work requirement approved by the U.S. House and now up for consideration in the U.S. Senate would require states to verify that able-bodied Medicaid beneficiaries like Redfearn are working, volunteering or attending school for at least 80 hours a month. Ludlam said North Carolina would need to invest in new systems and hire additional workers to implement the requirement. But the state’s ability to generate revenue to pay for those systems and staff would be limited by the U.S. House’s proposed freeze on provider taxes that’s included in their version of the One Big Beautiful Bill. North Carolina uses the taxes — presently set at 6 percent of providers’ net revenue from patients — to draw down federal matching funds for Medicaid. The federal government reimburses North Carolina for about two-thirds of every Medicaid dollar the state spends on the program. The work verification effort would likely cost millions, if not tens of millions, of dollars to get started and to operate. If the state ends up spending money to check the work status of expansion beneficiaries, that could violate the condition placed on expansion by the General Assembly." [North Carolina Health News, 6/27/25]
- The Final Republican Reconciliation Bill Reduced The Maximum Amount That States That Had Expanded Medicaid Could Claim From Provider Taxes To 3.5 Percent From The Previous Six Percent.
[New York Times, 7/1/25]
- Opponents Of Restricting Provider Tax Authority Said It Would Create State Financing Gaps, Which Could Result In Higher State Taxes, Reductions In Coverage, And Fewer Benefits. According to KFF, "Opponents of such restrictions note that provider taxes are permissible under current law and help fund Medicaid; and restricting provider taxes will create financing gaps for states that could result in higher state taxes, reductions in Medicaid eligibility, lower provider payment rates, and fewer covered benefits. Both proponents and opponents of new restrictions agree that the limited data about provider taxes makes it difficult to assess states’ reliance on them as a funding source and to understand how they affect net payments to providers." [KFF, 3/26/25]
- KFF Said States Have Used Provider Tax Revenues To Fund Medicaid “Base” Rates And Supplemental Payments, Avoid Benefit Cuts, Expand Medicaid Benefits, And To Finance ACA Medicaid Expansion. According to KFF, "Medicaid provider taxes are defined as those for which at least 85% of the tax burden falls on health care items or services or entities that provide or pay for health care items or services (see Social Security Act, Section 1903(w)(3)(A)). States use provider tax revenues to fund Medicaid ‘base’ rates and supplemental payments, to avoid Medicaid benefit cuts, and to expand Medicaid benefits. Some states have used revenue from provider taxes to finance the ACA Medicaid expansion. Beyond helping finance the state share of Medicaid, permissible tax arrangements may have potential financial benefits for providers who are subject to the tax and serve a high volume of Medicaid patients." [KFF, 3/26/25]
¶ in two years, edwards switched from calling medicaid expansion a “budget boondoggle” to “fiscally irresponsible” if it didn’t occur
¶ 2020: Edwards Opposed Expanding Medicaid In North Carolina, Claiming It Would Be A “Budget Boondoggle”
2020: Edwards Opposed Medicaid Expansion In North Carolina. According to an op-ed written by Chuck Edwards in the Citizen Times, "It’s a fallacy to believe that solving the state’s health care crisis can be done by expanding Medicaid. Instead of accepting a fraught system, North Carolina needs to improve its current Medicaid programs and extend care to those who need it the most." [Chuck Edwards Op-Ed – Citizen Times, 2/16/20]
- Edwards Claimed Expanding Medicaid In North Carolina Would Result In A “Budget Boondoggle.” According to an op-ed written by Chuck Edwards in the Citizen Times, "Many North Carolinians believe that Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion is a deal too good to pass up. Most of them are not taking the time to look beyond the partisan talking points. Why wouldn’t North Carolina want to offer ‘free’ health insurance to more than half a million residents and only pay for 10 percent of the cost, since the feds promise to cover the rest of the tab? Such a significant policy change for such a complex program cannot be viewed so simply. There are severe fiscal and human costs associated with Medicaid expansion that deserve a closer examination. […] According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Inspector General’s Office, 25% of Medicaid expansion enrollees in California and New York were likely ineligible. Couple that with New York’s Medicaid program being $3 billion over budget, and you’ve got a recipe for a budget boondoggle." [Chuck Edwards Op-Ed – Citizen Times, 2/16/20]
¶ 2022: Just Two Years Later, Edwards Argued It Would Be “Fiscally Irresponsible” Not To Expand Medicaid In North Carolina
2022: Edwards Claimed It Would Be “Fiscally Irresponsible” Not To Expand Medicaid In North Carolina. According to the Hendersonville Lightning, "A $1.5 billion ‘cash injection’ into the state treasury plus almost $5 billion a year in Medicaid payments makes it ‘fiscally irresponsible’ to continue to resist Medicaid expansion, state Sen. Chuck Edwards in explaining why he joined other Senate Republicans in changing his position on the subject. ‘Due to the promise from our federal government for billions more in Medicaid payments, it is now fiscally irresponsible for NC to not consider the benefits,’ he wrote in his weekly newsletter. ‘For the last six years, I've heard from constituents on both sides of this issue and until now I've resisted the deal Washington, D.C., has offered states to expand.’" [Hendersonville Lightning, 6/5/22]
As Part Of His New Argument For Medicaid Expansion In North Carolina, Edwards Lamented That All Legal And Legislative Attempts To Overturn The Affordable Care Act Had Been Exhausted. According to the Hendersonville Lightning, "Here is Edwards's entire statement: ‘The Affordable Care Act has caused healthcare prices to sky-rocket making them unaffordable to many. A recent healthcare study across all 50 states and the District of Columbia ranked North Carolina 47th overall for cost, access, and outcomes. With high prices, poor access, and inefficient outcomes, it has become very evident that the time to act is now. ‘Since the beginning, Republican members of the General Assembly - including myself - have been opposed to Medicaid expansion because, unless enacted alongside additional reforms, Medicaid expansion is terrible federal policy. So I'm sure you're wondering, why now? The reality is: The Affordable Care Act is not going away. All legal and legislative attempts to overturn it have been exhausted. The federal government continues to offer up ‘sweeteners’ to states that haven't expanded Medicaid under the ACA and, with an additional 5 percent federal cost-share for NC's traditional Medicaid enrollees upon expansion, it has become good state fiscal policy." [Hendersonville Lightning, 6/5/22]
¶ more than 650,000 north carolinians were able to obtain health insurance because of medicaid expansion
As Of April 2025, 650,000 North Carolinians Were Covered By Medicaid Expansion. According to a Governor Josh Stein press release, “Governor Josh Stein announced that as of today, 650,000 newly eligible North Carolinians have gained access to affordable health care through Medicaid expansion, including veterans and workers in child care, construction, hospitality, home health care and other industries essential to the state. ‘Medicaid expansion shows what is possible when our state’s leaders come together in a bipartisan effort to serve North Carolinians,’ said Governor Josh Stein. ’North Carolina’s Medicaid program is innovative and fiscally responsible. It delivers for taxpayers, helps keep people healthy, supports businesses and workforce and drives access to health care in rural communities. Medicaid strengthens North Carolina, and we need to protect it from damaging federal cuts.’” [Press Release – Governor Josh Stein, 4/9/25]
¶ Edwards Voted To Let Tax Credits That Help North Carolinians Afford Health Insurance Expire
¶ 2022: edwards lamented that all legal and legislative attempts to repeal the affordable care act had been exhausted
2022: As Part Of His New Argument For Medicaid Expansion In North Carolina, Edwards Lamented That All Legal And Legislative Attempts To Overturn The Affordable Care Act Had Been Exhausted. According to the Hendersonville Lightning, "Here is Edwards's entire statement: ‘The Affordable Care Act has caused healthcare prices to sky-rocket making them unaffordable to many. A recent healthcare study across all 50 states and the District of Columbia ranked North Carolina 47th overall for cost, access, and outcomes. With high prices, poor access, and inefficient outcomes, it has become very evident that the time to act is now. ‘Since the beginning, Republican members of the General Assembly - including myself - have been opposed to Medicaid expansion because, unless enacted alongside additional reforms, Medicaid expansion is terrible federal policy. So I'm sure you're wondering, why now? The reality is: The Affordable Care Act is not going away. All legal and legislative attempts to overturn it have been exhausted. The federal government continues to offer up ‘sweeteners’ to states that haven't expanded Medicaid under the ACA and, with an additional 5 percent federal cost-share for NC's traditional Medicaid enrollees upon expansion, it has become good state fiscal policy." [Hendersonville Lightning, 6/5/22]
¶ Edwards Voted Three Times Against Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Three Years
1/8/26: Edwards Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits For Three Years. In January 2026, Edwards voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill, as amended, that would extend for three years, through the end of calendar year 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. It would allow taxpayers whose household income exceeds 400 percent of the federal poverty line to receive tax credits for three more years. The measure would retroactively take effect Jan. 1, 2026.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 230 to 196. [House Vote 11, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
- 17 Republicans Voted For Passage Of The “Clean” Extension, Following A Procedural Vote The Day Before That Had Support From Nine Republicans. According to Politico, “Seventeen Republicans joined Democrats in passing legislation Thursday that would revive enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years, rebuffing opposition from GOP leadership. The 230-196 vote follows a procedural vote Wednesday to advance the bill, where nine Republicans joined Democrats in favor of moving forward.” [Politico, 1/8/26]\
- Speaker Johnson Called The Bill “Really Bad Policy” And Said He Wished That Not Everyone Had A Vote. According to Politico, “Johnson’s office, in a last-ditch effort Thursday morning to undermine the effort, blasted out a memo accusing ‘Democrats [of] want[ing] to expand a COVID subsidy system already flagged for massive fraud and abuse, with absolutely zero reforms.’ After the vote Thursday evening, Johnson said in an interview of the Republicans who defected, ‘I think it’s a really bad policy, and I wish they hadn’t, but everybody had a vote.’” [Politico, 1/8/26]
1/8/26: Edwards Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credits. In January 2026, Edwards voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “adoption of the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the bill (HR 1834). It would consider as adopted the McGovern, D-Mass., substitute amendment that would extend, through 2028, the enhanced tax credits to subsidize premiums for health insurance purchased on the Affordable Health Care Act health insurance markets. The rule would direct the clerk to transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed HR 1834 no later than one calendar day after passage.” The vote was on the adoption of the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 224 to 202. [House Vote 10, 1/8/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/8/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
1/7/26: Edwards Effectively Voted Against Extending The Affordable Care Act Tax Credit. In January 2026, Edwards voted against, according to Congressional Quarterly, the “motion to discharge from the House Rules Committee the rule (H Res 780) providing for consideration of the anticipated ACA tax credit extension vehicle (HR 1834).” The vote was on the motion to discharge the rule. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 221 to 205. [House Vote 4, 1/7/26; Congressional Quarterly, 1/7/26; Congressional Actions, H.Res. 780; Congressional Actions. H.R. 1834]
¶ Edwards Did Not Sign Discharge Petitions Aimed At Extending Premium ACA Tax Credits
Edwards Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition Led By House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 10, 11/12/25]
- House Minority Leader Jeffries’ Discharge Petition Sought To Extend ACA Premium Tax Credits For Three Years. According to Politico Pulse, "House Democrats could move as soon as tomorrow to force a vote on extending the expired Obamacare subsidies for three years, Meredith Lee Hill reports. This measure follows last month’s major setback for Speaker Mike Johnson, when four House Republicans broke from the party to support a discharge petition backed by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to hold a vote." [Politico Pulse, 1/6/26]
Edwards Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition Led By Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 12, 12/10/25]
- December 2025: Fitzpatrick Filed A Discharge Petition Aimed At Extending ACA Premium Tax Credits For Two Years. According to a press release from Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, "Today, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) released the following statement after filing a discharge petition to bring his Bipartisan Health Insurance Affordability Act directly to the House floor for a vote, ensuring Congress takes action to prevent devastating health insurance premium increases when current protections expire at the end of the year: ‘Congress cannot sit idle while American families face a preventable crisis. Our job is to protect the people we serve, and that responsibility demands immediate action. […] Key Provisions of the Bipartisan Health Insurance Affordability Act The legislation advances five reforms designed to protect affordability, strengthen accountability, and ensure taxpayer value: Prevents premium spikes: Extends enhanced premium tax credits through 2027, to protect families from abrupt monthly cost increases. Restores Consumer Control: Stops unauthorized plan and subsidy changes by requiring consent and prompt notification before any modifications take effect. Shines Light on Middlemen: Ends hidden spread pricing, severs PBM profits from drug prices, and requires full rebate pass-through to ensure savings reach patients. Gives Families New Tools to Manage Costs: Expands access to Health Savings Accounts and simplifies premium payments to reduce disruptions in coverage. Smart Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars: Modernizes eligibility and introduces a reasonable minimum contribution to protect long-term affordability and responsible stewardship of federal dollars." [Press Release – Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, 12/10/25]
Allen Was Not One Of The Republican Signers On A Discharge Petition Led By Rep. Josh Gottheimer.
[Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Discharge Petition No. 13, 12/10/25]
- December 2025: Gottheimer Filed A Discharge Petition Aimed At Extending ACA Premium Stax Credits For Two Years. According to a press release from Rep. Josh Gottheimer, "Today, December 11, 2025, U.S. Congressman Josh Gottheimer (NJ-5) released the following statement: ‘In less than three weeks, unless Congress acts now, Affordable Care Act tax credits will expire, and health insurance premiums will shoot up 175% — or $20,000 a year — for families in Jersey. This week, Congresswoman Jen Kiggans and I, with 36 of our Democratic and Republican colleagues, introduced new bipartisan legislation that includes a two-year extension of health insurance premium tax cuts for American families. It’s a commonsense proposal that will keep costs down and prevent families’ premiums from skyrocketing in January. But, the Speaker of the House is refusing to bring our legislation to the floor for a vote. So, our bipartisan group just launched a discharge petition to force an immediate vote in the House. We must get this done now. We must find common ground and lower health insurance premiums. Time is running out for families.’" [Press Release – Rep. Josh Gottheimer, 12/11/25]
¶ Edwards voted for a bill that would weaken protections for people with pre-existing conditions and failed to address premium spikes
¶ December 2025: Edwards Voted For The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act
2025: Edwards Voted For The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act That Allowed The ACA Tax Credits To Expire. In December 2025, Edwards voted for, according to Congressional Quarterly, “the bill that would expand the ability of small businesses to establish association health plans and bars states from preventing small businesses from obtaining stop-loss insurance for self-funded health insurance plans. It would codify and expand rules governing employer-funded health reimbursement arrangements and would allow employees in such arrangements to pay Affordable Care Act health insurance premiums through salary reductions. It would provide funding for ACA policy cost sharing reduction payments that reduce deductibles and copayments. It would prohibit plans from providing abortion-related care. It also would require pharmacy benefit managers to provide transparency regarding prescription drug costs and the drug rebates they receive.” The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 216 to 211. [House Vote 349, 12/17/25; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/25; Congressional Actions, H.R. 6703]
¶ The Lower Health Care Premiums For All Americans Act Did Nothing To Address The Expiration Of ACA Enhanced Premium Tax Credits And Would Weaken Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Failed To Prevent Imminent Premium Spikes For More Than 20 Million People Who Relied On ACA Marketplace Plans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "The health bill House Republicans are preparing to bring to the floor this week not only fails to prevent imminent premium spikes for more than 20 million people in marketplace plans, but would raise costs even higher for many marketplace enrollees and weaken pre-existing condition protections for individuals and small businesses." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Republicans Pass Health Care Plan Without Re-Upping Insurance Subsidies" [Politico, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Bill Without Subsidies" [Axios, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Care Bill Without Obamacare Subsidy Extension" [The Hill, 12/17/25]
- HEADLINE: "House Passes GOP Health Care Bill Without ACA Extension" [CBS News, 12/17/25]
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Expand Association Health Plans, Which Would Result In Higher Underlying Premiums For Individuals And Small Businesses That Remained In ACA-Regulated Markets. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "It would expand association health plans (AHPs), a type of health plan that trade associations, professional groups, and other organizations may offer their members, to cover self-employed individuals and small businesses as if they were large employers. By allowing more people to enroll in coverage not subject to ACA standards and consumer protections, this would segment insurance risk pools: individuals who are younger and healthier, or small businesses with younger or healthier employees, could get plans with lower premiums because they would be priced separately from ACA-compliant coverage and wouldn’t have to meet ACA standards such as having to cover a set of essential health benefits. As a result, individuals and small businesses remaining in ACA-regulated markets would see higher underlying premiums." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
The December 2025 Republican Health Care Bill Would Likely Lead To Higher Premiums For Older And Sicker Small Groups And Self-Employed People, Thereby Undermining Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "In addition, the bill would undermine protections for people with pre-existing conditions. While it would bar AHPs from rejecting individuals or charging them more based on certain health factors, it would give them greater ability to base a small group’s or self-employed person’s costs on their health risk compared to individual or small-group coverage. This would likely lead to higher premiums for older and sicker small groups and self-employed individuals, making such arrangements more attractive to healthier individuals and groups." [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 12/16/25]
¶ North Carolinians faced dramatic premium increases as a result of the expiration of critical health care tax credits
HEADLINE: "NC Approves ACA Premium Hikes Up To 36%, Leaving Many To Face ‘Sticker Shock’" [News & Observer, 10/29/25]
- North Carolina Insurance Commissioner Said Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Was Partially To Blame For Premium Increases. According to North Carolina Health News, "State Insurance Commissioner Mike Causey approved a nearly 30% average rate hike for ACA plans purchased through the federal marketplace, healthcare.gov. Causey said the increases were necessary due to rising healthcare costs and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law July." [North Carolina Health News, 1/1/26]
2026: North Carolina Saw A 22 Percent Drop In The Number Of People Who Enrolled In ACA Exchange Plans, The Largest Enrollment Drop In The United States. According to NC Local, "Just 761,457 people enrolled in health coverage under the ACA in North Carolina for 2026, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The decline is about 22%, or 214,000 fewer enrollments, than in 2025, the largest drop in the country. Last year, more than 975,000 North Carolina residents, about 9% of the state’s total population, enrolled in coverage under the ACA. Nationally, less than 23 million people enrolled in health coverage under the ACA for 2026, according to CMS data. In 2025, more than 24 million enrolled." [NC Local, 2/16/26]
HEADLINE: "'God Forbid Something Happens': North Carolina Residents Face 2026 Health Insurance Increases" [Daily Tar Heel, 12/2/25]
HEADLINE: "NC Residents Face Steep Health Insurance Hikes During Open Enrollment" [ABC 13 News, 11/4/25]
¶ Edwards’ Inaction Created A Dramatic “Subsidy Cliff”
The Expiration Of Enhanced ACA Premium Tax Credits Created A “Subsidy Cliff” Whereby If Households Earned Even $1 More Than A Specific Income Threshold They Could Lose All Eligibility For Assistance. According to CNBC, "For the first time in years, many Americans enrolled in a health insurance plan via the Affordable Care Act marketplace will need to keep a careful accounting of their annual income — or risk a hefty federal tax bill. Enhanced ACA subsidies lapsed at the end of 2025, leaving millions of households on the hook for higher insurance premiums. The lapse also reintroduced the so-called subsidy cliff, whereby households that earn even $1 more than a specific income threshold will lose all eligibility for subsidies, also known as premium tax credits. That income cutoff, which varies by family size, is $62,600 for a single person, $84,600 for a two-person household and $128,600 for a family of four in 2026, for example." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
- More Than Two Million Americans Had Incomes Near A “Subsidy Cliff.” According to CNBC, "More than 2 million people enrolled in an ACA marketplace plan have an income near the subsidy cliff. ACA enrollees also tend to have relatively volatile incomes, making it hard to predict their annual earnings, experts said." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
Households That Went Over The Income Limit Would Have To Pay Back Any Federal Assistance They Received For Premiums, Which Could Cost Thousands Of Dollars, When They Filed Their Taxes. According to CNBC, "Households over the limit would have to pay back any federal subsidies they received for premiums — potentially worth thousands of dollars — when they file taxes next year for 2026." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill Exacerbated The Problem By Stripping Away Guardrails Capping The Amount Of Excess Subsidies Households Are Required To Repay. According to CNBC, "The potential financial impact is exacerbated by a multitrillion-dollar legislative package known as the ‘big beautiful bill’ that Republicans passed over the summer, which stripped away guardrails capping the amount of excess subsidies households must repay, experts said." [CNBC, 1/6/26]
¶ 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance
Approximately 22 Million Americans Relied On ACA Premium Tax Credits To Afford Health Insurance. According to CNBC, "About 22 million Americans received premium subsidies, also known as premium tax credits, in 2025. Households can opt to receive the tax credit in one of two ways: As a lump sum during tax season or as an advanced payment. Under the latter option, by far the most popular, the federal government issues the tax credit directly to a consumer’s insurer, which then lowers the consumer’s out-of-pocket premium. Consumers receive those advanced ACA subsidies based on an estimated annual income they provide when signing up for insurance. They must reconcile those subsidies during tax season and repay any excess tax credits to the IRS." [CNBC, 1/6/26]