¶ Valadao Repeatedly Voted To Cut Medicare Necessary For Seniors In The Valley
¶ 2026: Valadao Voted For the Republican Reconciliation Bill, Which Experts Estimated Would Trigger NEarly $500 Billion In Medicare Cuts
May 2025: Valadao 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, Valadao 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]
July 2025: Valadao Voted For The Senate FY 2025 Budget Reconciliation Bill That Extended $4 Trillion In Expiring Tax Cuts, Added New Tax Breaks, Appropriated $448 Million In Defense, Border, And Immigration Enforcement Funding, Increased The SALT Deduction To $40,000, And Cut Medicaid And Other Social Programs To Offset The Costs. In July 2025, Valadao 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]
¶ Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare
HEADLINE: "Trump And GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts To Medicare, CBO Says" [Washington Post, 5/21/25]
The Congressional Budget Office Estimated That The House Republican Reconciliation Bill Would Trigger Nearly $500 Billion In Cuts To Medicare. According to a letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to Rep. Brendan Boyle, "Today the Congressional Budget Office transmitted an estimate of the budgetary effects of the 2025 reconciliation bill, as ordered reported by the House Committee on the Budget on May 18, 2025. 1 CBO has not yet completed estimates of the effects of interactions among the titles of the legislation. This letter responds to your questions concerning the sequestration (the cancellation of budgetary resources) in accordance with the Statutory Pay‑As‑You‑Go Act of 2010 (S-PAYGO) that would occur if an enacted bill raised deficits by $2.3 trillion over 10 years. Under S-PAYGO, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to maintain 5- and 10-year scorecards that it updates with the estimated cumulative changes in revenues and outlays generated by newly enacted legislation. […] The 4 percent maximum reduction in Medicare spending would apply to sequestration orders for years after 2026. If OMB ordered a sequestration of $230 billion for each year through 2034, the ordered reductions in Medicare spending would increase to about $75 billion in 2034 and would total roughly $490 billion over the 2027–2034 period." [Letter to Rep. Brendan Boyle – Congressional Budget Office, 5/20/25]
¶ 2014: Valadao Voted To Raise The medicare Retirement Age Which Would Have Significantly Raise Premiums For All Seniors
2014: Valadao Voted To Raise The Medicare Retirement Age From 65 To 67, As Part Of Rep. Paul Ryan’s Budget Proposal; The Increase Would Be Phased In Starting In 2024 And Completing In 2035. In April 2014, Valadao voted for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2015 to 2024. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Starting in 2024, the Ryan budget would raise Medicare’s eligibility age — now 65 — by two months per year until it reaches age 67 in 2035.” The House adopted the budget resolution by a vote of 219 to 205, but the Senate did not. [House Vote 177, 4/10/14; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 96]
- Because Ryan’s Plan Would Also Repeal The ACA, Seniors Aged 65 And 66 Without Employer Coverage Would Face High Premium Costs Due To Their Age – Or Might Be Unable To Obtain Any Insurance Due To A Pre-Existing Condition. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “At the same time, the plan would repeal health reform’s coverage provisions. Consequently, 65- and 66-year-olds would have neither Medicare nor access to health insurance exchanges in which they could buy coverage at an affordable price and receive subsidies to help them secure coverage if their incomes are low. This change would drive 65- and 66-year-olds who don’t have employer-sponsored coverage into an individual insurance market that would be poorly regulated (since the Ryan plan repeals the Affordable Care Act’s insurance reforms) and would charge older individuals extremely high premiums. People of limited means would be affected most harshly because they would not be able to afford private coverage. In addition, 65- and 66-year-olds with a pre-existing medical condition often would not be able to purchase coverage at any price. As a result, many 65- and 66-year-olds would find themselves uninsured.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
- Loss Of Relatively Healthy 65- And 66-Year Olds From Medicare Would Raise Premiums For Remaining Medicare Beneficiaries. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “All remaining Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than Medicare beneficiaries overall, would leave Medicare beneficiaries costlier to cover, on average.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/8/14]
¶ 2013: Valadao Voted To Support Means Testing Medicare, Which Would have Increased Premiums And Prescription Drug Prices For Seniors
2013: Valadao Voted For Means Testing Medicare As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Valadao voted for means testing Medicare, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “his budget also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors, similar to the President’s proposal in his fiscal year 2013 budget.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
- Medicare Part B And Part D Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $42.00 To $230.80 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Ryan budget would raise Medicare’s income-related premiums. Currently, most Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums for Parts B and D (which cover physician services and prescription drugs, respectively) that represent about one-quarter of program costs. The standard Part B premium is $104.90 a month in 2013, but beneficiaries with incomes above $85,000 (twice that amount for couples) must pay an extra amount that ranges from $42.00 to $230.80 a month.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- Medicare Prescription Drug Premiums Would Have Increased For Some Seniors By $11.60 To $66.60 Per Month. According to the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities, “High-income beneficiaries also must pay more for their Medicare prescription drug benefit, with the same income thresholds as for the income-related Part B premium. The additional premium amounts for the drug benefit range from $11.60 to $66.60 a month.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
¶ 2013: Valadao Voted To Replace Medicare With A Premium Support Plan, Which Would have Required Seniors To Pay More Or receive Fewer Benefits Over Time
2013: Valadao Voted For Replacing Medicare With A Premium Support Plan As Part Of The FY 2014 Ryan Budget. In March 2013, Valadao voted for replacing Medicare with a premium support plan, as part of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2014 to 2023 According to the House Budget Committee, “Beginning in 2024, for those workers born in 1959 or later, Medicare would offer them a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service option on a new Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or to offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.” The resolution passed the House by a vote of 221 to 207, but died in the Senate. [House Vote 88, 3/21/13; House Budget Committee, 3/12/13; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
- CBPP: Ryan’s Medicare Policies in FY 2014 Budget “Essentially The Same As Those In Last Year’s Ryan Budget.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “The Medicare proposals in the 2014 budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) are essentially the same as those in last year’s Ryan budget.” [CBPP, 3/15/13]
- A Similar Provision in Ryan’s FY 2013 Budget Created A Medicare Exchange Where Beneficiaries Could Choose From Private Insurance Or A Fee For Service Model. According to CRS, “Individuals who become eligible (based either on age or disability) for Medicare beginning in 2023 would be given the option of enrolling in a private insurance plan or a traditional fee-for-service option through a newly established Medicare exchange. These plans would be required to offer standard benefits that are at least actuarially equivalent to traditional fee-for-service benefits, and to accept all people eligible for Medicare who apply regardless of age or health status. [CRS, 3/29/12]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Benchmarked Premium Support Amount To The Second Lowest Premium On The Medicare Exchange. According to the House Budget Committee, “The benchmark plan would be either the second-least-expensive private plan or fee-for-service Medicare, whichever cost less. If a senior chose a more expensive plan than the benchmark, he or she would pay the difference between the subsidy and the monthly premium. And if a senior chose a plan less expensive than the benchmark, he or she would receive a rebate for the difference. Medicare would offer higher payments depending on the patient’s health history and the cost of living. And it would require private plans to cover at least the actuarial equivalent of the benefit package offered by the fee-for-service option.” [House Budget Committee, 3/13]
- Ryan’s Budget Would Have Resulted In Increased Out-Of-Pocket Premiums For Seniors If The Cost Of Insurance Rose Quicker Than GDP Growth Plus 0.5 Percent. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
- If So, Seniors Would Have To Pay More Or Receive Less Benefits With Each Passing Year. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Since under the Ryan budget, Medicare would no longer make payments to health care providers such as doctors and hospitals, the only way to keep Medicare cost growth within the target of GDP growth plus one-half percentage point would be to limit the annual increase in the amount of the premium-support vouchers. As a result, the vouchers would purchase less coverage with each passing year, pushing more costs on to beneficiaries. Over time, seniors would have to pay more to keep the health plans and the doctors they like, or they would get fewer benefits.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/15/13]
¶ 2012: Valadao Campaigned On Reforming Medicare To Solve The Debt
2012: Valadao Started His Time In Office By Running On Cutting Social Security And Medicare Spending To Limit The Debt. According to a candidate questionnaire David Valadao completed for Hanford Sentinel, “QUESTION: How do you propose to deal with the mounting federal deficit? What specific cuts or new taxes do you support? VALADAO: The government should never spend more money than it takes in. We cannot saddle future generations with insurmountable debt. Entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare need to be reformed and set on a path of sustainability. If elected, I would make our growing federal deficit a priority and join with other like-minded legislators to address this important issue.” [David Valadao Candidate Questionnaire – Hanford Sentinel, 4/28/12]
¶ Nearly 7 Million Californians Were Enrolled In Medicare As Of 2024
Nearly 7 Million Californians Were Enrolled In Medicare As Of 2024.
[KFF, Total Number of Medicare Beneficiaries by Type of Coverage, viewed 6/29/26]