How will the “big bill” affect you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

Morally there is…you doth protest too much.

If we base our economic decisions on morals then we should be allowing open borders and reducing the QOL for hundreds of millions of Americans so that we can feed and house more people. The moral question is irrelevant unless we want to live in a third world country.

Americans voted and many (most?) do not want an expansive Medicaid program that instead of a provider of last resort, is a long term provider of health insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

[phone]

So it’s all just a fun little philosophical exercise for you? What a delight! All these working class Americans and their decision to live lavish lifestyles instead of making the practical choice and spending their money on IMPOSSIBLY almost whimsically high medical costs, right?

So glad you don’t have to make the decision to pay for insulin vs. groceries. According to your arguments, being poor is a character flaw, correct? You act like we’re not all (at least 99% of us) one catastrophic medical event away from poverty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is incorrect. Only disabled children whose disability meets the criteria will receive chip, and their parents can receive Medicaid until child is 18.
Think about it, if these individuals could work 80 hours - they’d already be doing so. The elderly in nursing homes or aging in place, the disabled or sick adults, the many people who are unpaid caregivers to elderly or disabled…..they simply cannot work 80 hours outside their responsibilities a month. Those who are seasonal workers cannot qualify, because it will not average out to 80 hours a month. What are they to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a fed retiree with retiree health. I was bracing for all the changes in the House bill, but I just looked over the soon to be signed bill this morning, and I don't think the SALT deduction will change my decision to use the standard deduction. So for me --no obvious personal financial effect.

The market will eventually respond to this, it can’t be in denial forever, then you’ll be screwed like everyone else. Have a nice day!

I’m not in the market, but okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

How many places can afford to have group homes for people with zero money? Not many.

It's either family members, friends or out on street for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

Who is going to pay for the nursing home fees? It falls on the family.
Filial responsibility law in most states. Has not been commonly enforced, but without Medicaid coverage this will become enforced more often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.

Maybe they'll choose less expensive housing, or a less expensive car, or a less expensive cell phone plan, or maybe not to have a number of children beyond what they can afford, just like any other financial decisions all of us make all the time. If someone doesn't want to reallocate their funds to prioritize health insurance, that's their choice. We're speaking here of people with income, not the disabled with no options but the government. People always have choices, they just frequently would like to have everything they want without sacrificing elsewhere. Many voters seem to not be interesting in subsidizing preferred lifestyles, and view government subsidies as the last resort for those who truly have no viable alternative. A shift in policy towards the latter from the former is what the voters asked for and seem to have received.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

Who is going to pay for the nursing home fees? It falls on the family.
Filial responsibility law in most states. Has not been commonly enforced, but without Medicaid coverage this will become enforced more often.

but this person will maintain coverage, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

Who is going to pay for the nursing home fees? It falls on the family.
Filial responsibility law in most states. Has not been commonly enforced, but without Medicaid coverage this will become enforced more often.

but this person will maintain coverage, right?

Maybe? But no.more providers in business to take it, is a strong possibility.

[Anonymous]

There will be more people living on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

Who is going to pay for the nursing home fees? It falls on the family.
Filial responsibility law in most states. Has not been commonly enforced, but without Medicaid coverage this will become enforced more often.

but this person will maintain coverage, right?

Maybe? But no.more providers in business to take it, is a strong possibility.

i read the medical provisions. why would the residential providers go out of business? for example, the streamlined enrollment/eligibility requirements are now gone, eligibility has to verified rather than just assumed, and medicaid won't cover abortion services (which doesn't close but definitely hurts income streams of planned parenthood clinics). but what provision is cutting the nursing home and residential home services or payments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My autistic sibling who can't work is on Medicaid and so I'm very worried about that.

How does this bill define disability and who has to work to receive $$? I work in a field that assists many disabled adults in group homes. Medicaid and SSi pays for a lot of this- aides, specialty medical items, and health care. No, they cannot go to work. Many are developmentally and cognitively impaired in so many ways. They are 21 to age 75. What will happen to them?

Nearest living relative will be forced to care for them.

this is the definition of someone not able to work – why are you saying family would have to care for them as opposed to the group homes?

Who is going to pay for the nursing home fees? It falls on the family.
Filial responsibility law in most states. Has not been commonly enforced, but without Medicaid coverage this will become enforced more often.

but this person will maintain coverage, right?

Maybe? But no.more providers in business to take it, is a strong possibility.

i read the medical provisions. why would the residential providers go out of business? for example, the streamlined enrollment/eligibility requirements are now gone, eligibility has to verified rather than just assumed, and medicaid won't cover abortion services (which doesn't close but definitely hurts income streams of planned parenthood clinics). but what provision is cutting the nursing home and residential home services or payments?

^ the percentage of medicaid recipients who are able bodied but not working and not exempt from the requirements is actually really small. which means the tracking will cost more than the savings. this means it's a dumb policy, but it also means it should not result in large reductions of recipients (or large reductions in medicaid income stream)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be an assumption here that all relatively poor people will lose health care coverage and will therefore die. That's an exaggeration.

The cuts to Medicaid involve implementing/increasing work requirements in order to qualify, for populations which are capable of working. Stricter eligibility checks will be implemented, which are hard to argue with. Medicaid is not disappearing, although some (not all, as seems to be the premise of many people here) people may lose eligibility, benefits may be reduced, and reimbursement rates to health care providers will be reduced (not eliminated).

People with qualified disabilities will not lose coverage.

As with all types of expenses, people need to set their own priorities. Some people who now can and do spend more for housing, cars, or other expenses because their healthcare is fully subsidized may need to spend less on other things and more on their healthcare. Those kinds of budgeting choices are made by people at all income levels. Subsidizing one type of expense incentivizes people to spend their money on other things.

The arguments against reducing healthcare subsidies really amount to an argument for government support for a certain level of lifestyle, allowing people to spend their money on other things instead of on their medical expenses. The question is the extent to which the government should support people who have enough money to pay for their own healthcare/health insurance, but instead want to spend their money on other things, even if that requires a relatively low standard of living. That is, what standard of living which should be subsidized by the government? That's a legitimate question, which the voters have answered.

There is no necessarily right/wrong answer. Countries with heavily subsidized healthcare have generally lower standards of living. In the U.S., we have a generally higher standard of living, which is not the same as saying some people don't have have low incomes and commensurate lifestyles while many people have higher incomes and lifestyles. Flatter societies exist, but in this country we have traditionally preferred to allow people the opportunity to rise up without being held back by heavy taxation, even if not everyone is able/willing/motivated to achieve that. High levels of taxation suppress spending by individuals and allow for higher spending by governments. Many people apparently prefer to spend their own money rather than have the government spend it for them.

This is easy to argue with. What do you think happens to all the people who lose coverage? Do you think they will try to seek treatment in an ER? Who will bear the cost of that treatment? Do you think you might? Because the answer is yes. This idiocy will be costing *you* more money. Which lowers *your* standard of living. Same thing for all the rest of us.

Maybe they'll choose less expensive housing, or a less expensive car, or a less expensive cell phone plan, or maybe not to have a number of children beyond what they can afford, just like any other financial decisions all of us make all the time. If someone doesn't want to reallocate their funds to prioritize health insurance, that's their choice. We're speaking here of people with income, not the disabled with no options but the government. People always have choices, they just frequently would like to have everything they want without sacrificing elsewhere. Many voters seem to not be interesting in subsidizing preferred lifestyles, and view government subsidies as the last resort for those who truly have no viable alternative. A shift in policy towards the latter from the former is what the voters asked for and seem to have received.

Only a person who has experienced privilege all of their life would write something so nonsensical. Most of the people will be affected don't have the luxury of simply reallocating their funds to prioritize health insurance. Poverty restricts the choices people can make. Like they can't buy cheaper food because there is only one grocery store near them; to travel farther will take away money away from money they need to spend to commute to work; giving up their car means that they need to be near public transportation, which is usually near more expensive housing; increased time commuting means more daycare coverage is needed, which is also unaffordable, etc., etc.