Sponsored by
Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]
ID: B001296
Follow the money
The bill
HR. 2753, 119th Congress — read as touching Hospitals & Health Systems.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
21 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Department of Agriculture" section, p. 332-334 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another exercise in legislative theater, courtesy of the esteemed members of Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
The "Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act of 2025" is a masterclass in Orwellian doublespeak. The title suggests that our benevolent lawmakers are protecting these vital programs from harm. In reality, they're just posturing for votes while quietly perpetuating the status quo.
Section 2, the meat of this bill, creates a point of order against reconciliation measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or SNAP. Sounds noble, right? Not quite. This provision is nothing more than a Potemkin village – a façade designed to conceal the true intentions of our elected officials.
The real purpose of this bill is to provide cover for Democrats who want to appear sympathetic to social welfare programs while actually doing nothing to address their underlying problems. It's a clever trick: create a symbolic barrier against benefit cuts, then quietly allow the programs to wither away through neglect and underfunding.
Now, let's examine the actual funding allocations. The bill doesn't specify any concrete numbers or budget increases for Medicaid or SNAP. Instead, it focuses on procedural hurdles that will supposedly prevent future cuts. This is like a doctor prescribing a placebo to a patient with a terminal illness – it might make them feel better in the short term, but it won't address the underlying disease.
Notable programs and agencies receiving funds? None mentioned explicitly in this bill. It's all about creating a narrative, not actually allocating resources where they're needed.
Increases or decreases from previous years? Who knows? The bill doesn't provide any concrete numbers or comparisons to previous budgets.
Riders or policy provisions attached to funding? Ah, now we get to the good stuff. This bill is likely to be used as a vehicle for other, more contentious policies. Think of it as a legislative Trojan horse – once it's passed, all sorts of unwanted "reforms" can be slipped in under the radar.
Fiscal impact and deficit implications? Don't make me laugh. This bill will do nothing to address the structural issues plaguing our social welfare programs or the national debt. It's just another exercise in kicking the can down the road while pretending to care about the most vulnerable members of society.
In conclusion, HR 2753 is a textbook example of legislative malpractice – a cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion while ignoring the real problems facing our country. It's a disease masquerading as a cure, and we're all just pawns in this game of political theater.
Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No committee contributions found
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 47 nodes and 21 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $77,800
Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 1 harmed.
Section 2(a) adds subsection (h) to Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, creating a point of order against reconciliation measures that reduce enrollment or benefits for individuals enrolled in Medicaid. This protects Medicaid funding, which benefits hospitals and health systems that rely on Medicaid reimbursements.
By protecting SNAP benefits, the bill may reduce financial distress among low-income households, potentially decreasing demand for for-profit education programs that often target economically vulnerable populations seeking rapid credentialing.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"The bill seeks to safeguard SNAP benefits from cuts, whereas Project 2025 advocates tightening SNAP through work requirements, eligibility reforms, and benefit reductions. Both address SNAP policy but pursue opposing objectives, resulting only in weak thematic overlap."
— 299 — Department of Agriculture largely hidden. There are means-tested food-support programs in the USDA (specially FNS), whereas most means-tested programs are at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All means-tested anti- poverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs. Reform SNAP. Ostensibly, SNAP sends money through electronic-bene- fit-transfer (EBT) cards to help “low-income” individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years.55 In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.56 The next Administration should: l Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.57 Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week.58 The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services.59 Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs.60 The Trump Administration bolstered USDA work expectations in the food stamp program. In February 2019, FNS issued a modest regulatory change that applied only to able-bodied individuals without dependents— beneficiaries aged 18 to 49, not elderly or disabled, who did not have children or other dependents in the home (ABAWD).61 The FNS rule changed when a state could receive a waiver from implementing the ABAWD work requirement. Under the new rule, in order to waive the work requirement, the state’s unemployment rate had to be above 6 percent for more than 24 months. The rule also defined “area” in such a way that states would be unable to combine non-contiguous counties in order to maximize their waivers.62 Of — 300 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the more than 40 million food stamp beneficiaries, the Trump rule would have applied only to 688,000 individuals in fiscal year 2021.63 The Trump reform was scheduled to go into effect, but a D.C. district court federal judge enjoined the rule.64 The USDA filed an appeal in late December 2020,65 but the Biden Administration withdrew from defending the challenge, and the rule was never implemented.66 Beyond the able-bodied work requirement, FNS should implement better regulation to clarify options for states to implement the general work requirement. This requirement is an option states can apply to work- capable beneficiaries aged 16 to 59. If beneficiaries’ work hours are below 30 hours a week, states can implement the general work requirements to oblige beneficiaries to register for work or participate in SNAP Employment and Training or workfare assigned by the state SNAP agency.67 Increased clarity for states would include items like states being required to offer employment and training spots for those that request them—not simply budgeting for every currently enrolled able-bodied adult. l Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad- based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. l Re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan. In a dramatic overreach, the Biden Administration unilaterally increased food stamp benefits by at least 23 percent in October 2021.72 Through an update to the Thrifty Food Plan, in which the USDA analyzes a basket of foods intended to provide a nutritious diet, the USDA increased food stamp outlays by between $250 billion and $300 billion over 10 years.73
AI Analysis:
"The bill seeks to protect Medicaid and SNAP benefits from cuts via reconciliation, while Project 2025 proposes restructuring Medicaid financing through block grants or per capita caps and reducing federal oversight, which could enable benefit reductions. The bill opposes the fiscal mechanisms Project 2025 advocates, resulting in weak alignment."
— 465 — Department of Health and Human Services 1. Make Medicare Advantage the default enrollment option. 2. Give beneficiaries direct control of how they spend Medicare dollars. 3. Remove burdensome policies that micromanage MA plans. 4. Replace the complex formula-based payment model with a competitive bidding model. 5. Reconfigure the current risk adjustment model. 6. Remove restrictions on key benefits and services, including those related to prescription drugs, hospice care, and medical savings account plans.26 Legacy Medicare Reform. Legislation reforming legacy (non-MA) Medicare should: l Base payments on the health status of the patient or intensity of the service rather than where the patient happens to receive that service. l Replace the bureaucrat-driven fee-for-service system with value- based payments to empower patients to find the care that best serves their needs. l Codify price transparency regulations. l Restructure 340B drug subsidies27 toward beneficiaries rather than hospitals. l Repeal harmful health policies enacted under the Obama and Biden Administrations such as the Medicare Shared Savings Program28 and Inflation Reduction Act.29 Medicare Part D Reform. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) created a drug price negotiation program in Medicare that replaced the existing private-sector negotiations in Part D with government price controls for prescription drugs. These government price controls will limit access to medications and reduce patient access to new medication. This “negotiation” program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued. Other reforms should include eliminating the coverage gap in Part D, reducing the government share in — 466 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the catastrophic tier, and requiring manufacturers to bear a larger share. Until the IRA is repealed, an Administration that is required to implement it must do so in a way that is prudent with its authority, minimizing the harmful effects of the law’s policies and avoiding even worse unintended consequences.30 Medicaid. Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state. The program is failing some of the most vulnerable patients; is a prime target for waste, fraud, and abuse; and is consuming more of state and federal budgets. The dramatic increase in Medicaid expenditures is due in large part to the ACA (Obamacare), which mandates that states must expand their Medicaid eligibility standards to include all individuals at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), and the public health emergency, which has prohibited states from performing basic eligibility reviews. The overlap of available benefits among the various health agencies has led to a complex, confusing system that is nearly impossible to navigate—even for recipients. Recipients are often faced with a “welfare cliff” of benefit losses as they earn above a certain amount, which is contrary to the fundamental purpose of empowering individuals to achieve economic independence. Benefits increasingly involve nonmedical services such as air conditioning and housing, many of which are already handled by departments other than HHS. Improper payments within Medicaid are higher than those of any other federal program. These payments are evidence of the inappropriateness of Medicaid’s expansion, which, stemming largely from public health emergency maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements and the Affordable Care Act, has crowded out the primary targets of these programs: those who are most in need. True health care reform cannot be accomplished in a bureaucratic silo or only through Medicaid and health safety net programs. Reform of the tax code is also essential to genuine, effective reform of our health care system. All components of the health care system should be part of the reform efforts, and it is imperative that the system be modified to assist states with their current programs. Therefore, the next Administration should: l Reform financing. Allow states to have a more flexible, accountable, predictable, transparent, and efficient financing mechanism to deliver medical services. This system should include a more balanced or blended match rate, block grants, aggregate caps, or per capita caps. Any financial system should be designed to encourage and incentivize innovation and the efficient delivery of health care services. Federal and state financial participation in the Medicaid program should be rational, predictable, and reasonable. It should also incentivize states to save money and improve the quality of health care.
AI Analysis:
"The bill aims to protect SNAP and Medicaid benefits from cuts, whereas Project 2025 seeks to reform SNAP by imposing stricter work requirements and moving its oversight to HHS—objectives that are largely opposed. Both texts, however, discuss SNAP as a means-tested federal nutrition program."
— 299 — Department of Agriculture largely hidden. There are means-tested food-support programs in the USDA (specially FNS), whereas most means-tested programs are at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). All means-tested anti- poverty programs should be overseen by one department—specifically HHS, which handles most welfare programs. Reform SNAP. Ostensibly, SNAP sends money through electronic-bene- fit-transfer (EBT) cards to help “low-income” individuals buy food. It is the largest of the federal nutrition programs. Food stamps are designed to be supplemented by other forms of income—whether through paid employment or nonprofit support. SNAP serves 41.1 million individuals—an increase of 4.3 million people during the Biden years.55 In 2020, the food stamp program cost $79.1 billion. That number continued to rise—by 2022, outlays hit $119.5 billion.56 The next Administration should: l Re-implement work requirements. The statutory language covering food stamps allows states to waive work requirements that otherwise apply to work-capable individuals—that is, adult beneficiaries between the ages 18 and 50 who are not disabled and do not have any children or other dependents in the home.57 Even in a strong economy, work expectations are fairly limited: Individuals who are work-capable and without dependents are required to work or prepare for work for 20 hours per week.58 The work requirements are then implemented unless the state requests a waiver from the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Services.59 Waivers from statutory work requirements can be approved in two instances: an unemployment rate of more than 10 percent or a lack of sufficient jobs.60 The Trump Administration bolstered USDA work expectations in the food stamp program. In February 2019, FNS issued a modest regulatory change that applied only to able-bodied individuals without dependents— beneficiaries aged 18 to 49, not elderly or disabled, who did not have children or other dependents in the home (ABAWD).61 The FNS rule changed when a state could receive a waiver from implementing the ABAWD work requirement. Under the new rule, in order to waive the work requirement, the state’s unemployment rate had to be above 6 percent for more than 24 months. The rule also defined “area” in such a way that states would be unable to combine non-contiguous counties in order to maximize their waivers.62 Of
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.