July 01, 2025 10:53 AM UTC

Gabe Evans Just Doesn't Get It

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

Throughout the debate and especially after voting for what polls say is the most unpopular major legislation in decades, America’s Most Vulnerable Freshman™ Rep. Gabe Evans has resolutely defended the bill’s cuts to Medicaid funding, which Evans duplicitously insists are not cuts at all–and only aimed at eliminating “wasteful” coverage handed out to undocumented immigrants and “able-bodied” twentysomething men who spend most of their days on the couch playing video games. When cornered, Evans will concede that there is some pain involved in the “We’re All Going To Die Act,” but not inflicted on anyone you do or statistically should care about.

But as longtime reporter John Ingold writes for the Colorado Sun today, Evans’ blanket assurances that no one who ‘matters’ will be harmed by the Republican budget proposal do not take into account the secondary effects of rolling back funding on medical providers who are already barely keeping the doors open:

“If you’re like one of my kiddos and you’re medically complex, if you’re a pregnant woman, if you’re kids, none of this stuff applies to you in terms of work requirements or any of the reforms in Medicaid,” U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, a Republican who represents a district that takes in slices of Adams, Weld and Larimer counties, said at a news conference in May. “In fact, it benefits you by preserving these resources.”

(Citing concerns for his child’s privacy, Evans has declined to elaborate on his son’s medical complexities, and Evans’ office declined to say whether he is covered by Medicaid.)

But many Colorado families with kids covered by Medicaid — and those who advocate for them — are worried that’s not what would happen.

They point to language in recent proposals that would reduce funding going to hospitals in Colorado, especially those that treat a high number of Medicaid patients. They mention rules that would require certain Medicaid recipients to have their eligibility checked twice as often, or that limit retroactive coverage of medical bills, and worry that they could be swept up into that by accident or design. [Pols emphasis]

The problem that Evans sidesteps while every provider and patient who would be affected pleads their case to media outlets across the state and nation is very simple: coverage reductions to any segment of Medicaid recipients is going to do damage that everyone who depends on Medicaid will feel, and even beyond to the privately insured. When the state is forced to make cuts to payment rates to providers or covered treatments, those impacts will affect all Medicaid patients. And if you have private insurance but rely on a health care provider with a high percentage of Medicaid patients, which is the norm in rural parts of the state, that provider could close if these cuts bust their already strained budgets. The work requirement provision in the bill is in reality a paperwork requirement intended to create a bureaucratic hurdle to receiving coverage, and will inevitably snare patients who need coverage. That’s the only way it saves money.

None of these effects are unknown. Republicans rushing to pass this legislation in order to please President Donald Trump are in a complete state of denial over the polling that overwhelmingly shows Americans do not support it. Evans, for his part, recently claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which has been warning that millions will lose their coverage is “staffed significantly by either known registered Democrats or Democrat donors,” and that’s why their forecasts should be ignored. Meanwhile, every responsible stakeholder in his district has pleaded with Evans to look at the facts to no avail.

At this point, Gabe Evans has made it clear that he will not be standing in the way of Trump’s treasured bill even though it contravenes his own stated priorities from protecting Medicaid to promoting renewable energy. As the damage from this legislation transitions from hypothetical to real life, Evans will be forced to own those consequences while seeking re-election in the state’s most closely divided congressional district.

The most charitable explanation is that Evans just doesn’t understand what he’s voting for. But we suspect he would take umbrage with that idea too.

If Evans really did understand what the stakeholders in his district are telling him and voted yes anyway, is that not worse?