How will the “big bill” affect you?

[Anonymous]

https://www.kff.org/tracking-the-medicaid-provisions-in-the-2025-budget-bill/

this is a great tracker. i think the main disruption may come to hospital EDs that had lots of medicaid-covered migrant care. i also dislike the removal of the ltc facility staffing ratios. these are more important imo than the work requirement.

[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 that disabled person is not moving losing their coverage.

[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.

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.

But, you are going to be spending more, except instead of helping Americans get healthcare, this morally bankrupt admin just doubled the payments to private providers than the rate set in Jan.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-releases-final-medicare-payment-rates-2026-2025-04-07/

And we also have a criminal fraud investigation against United Health, yet we’ll be paying them more than double.
https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payers/wsj-feds-investigating-unitedhealth-criminal-medicare-fraud


But, sure, Americans who are strapped are the bad guys.

Morally wrong.

[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.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Consider that the cuts to Medicaid will lead to increased healthcare costs and/or lack of healthcare facilities for everyone. Do you want to live in a country with a class of people who don’t get healthcare? It’s disgusting.

Reverting to a work requirement of 20 hours per week for healthy non pregnamt adults is not an unreasonable burden.

Except the vast majority on Medicaid programs are kids, elderly and disabled---people who cannot work.

Also, where are these 20 hour a week jobs? They aren't in every state. I know people who have been looking for months and not found something.

Also the requirement to constantly reapply will bog everything down is massive papework.

It will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

My kid just got a 20-hour a week job yesterday as a cashier. He applied to three places, interviewed at two, and got a job - all within biking distance of our house- with zero work experience and with a 16 year old male’s executive function capabilities.

I’m not saying that all the people who need to meet these requirements will have the same experience but it’s not an impossible thing.

I agree that the requirement to constantly reapply will be a crapshow of amazing proportions.

You live in such a bubble. My kid got a part time job this summer at a restaurant after great effort. She applied to over 100 positions, 99% of which never responded. She tried walking into places in person and was told “apply online.” So right away there you have to have access to a computer and internet, which you understand, many poor people do not have. You could do these applications on the phone but it’s very difficult and time consuming; every application requires creating a profile with login and password etc. When she got interviews, they were all auto generated emails that said “here are the times we can see you and if you can’t make one of these, we can’t reschedule.” No human to call or follow up with.

Once receiving the job, she finds her schedule varies wildly. The permanent workers complain because they want more shifts but the employer won’t give them because then they’d have to pay benefits, but then they can’t take another part time job because of the unpredictability of the shifts.

Also, in a six hour shift where she is on her feet moving, cleaning and carrying things constantly she gets no breaks at all; not even to go to the bathroom. Yes, Virginia law has no requirements for food or bathroom breaks, even for an 8 hour shift. Not all people who are allegedly “able bodied” could handle this day in day out. It’s like you’ve never met anyone with diabetic neuropathy, or plantar fasciitis, or Crohn’s, or uncontrolled asthma — you think the world is made up of people like your college age son?

Here’s an experiment. Take your kids bike away for a month, put him in a pair of $15 canvas shoes from Target, give him enough bus fare for 2 days and $20 for groceries tell him he has to feed himself and see how he does. He’ll have a huge leg up with no rent payments. Go ahead, I dare you.

Cute, but here's the problem with your challenge, PP. These part time, minimum wage jobs are not and are never intended to be permanent jobs on which one can support a family. You are SUPPOSED to educate yourself, acquire skills and move up in the world. Oh, and not make poor choices that lead to too much responsibility before one is financially able to support.

You are delusional if you believe there is a vast pool of labor out there just ready willing and able to work a dinky part time job for a little pin money. Like you ACTUALLY believe there are enough teens, students, and I dunno, bored SAHMs who are free from the hours of 7 to 4 and late nights and weekends to staff every restaurant, retail store, and hotel — just for starters— in this country? You are ridiculous and have no credibility in this debate, because you live in a fantasy land.

[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.

Can’t squeeze blood from a stone. You think most people would stick grandma in a Medicaid funded home if they could pay for private care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

Screw off you have no idea what you are talking about
Read the dam bill and project 2O25
This Bill will crush the economy people are going to die and costs for every thing will go up!
Did you not see when many of the so called tax cuts expire fi4 everyone but billionaires?.

[Anonymous]

Ok Republicans start lining up your white boys to skip school work in the fields warehouses and factories for pennies. With no health insurance no benefits no injury protection while cost of health insurance sky rockets and oh yes those pre existing conditions won’t be covered any more . Trump wants your daughters to bread at age 10 and you pay for the maternity costs project 2025 it’s written in ink

But billionaires keep their tax breaks while yours expire in 2027 and 2028

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

Screw off you have no idea what you are talking about
Read the dam bill and project 2O25
This Bill will crush the economy people are going to die and costs for every thing will go up!
Did you not see when many of the so called tax cuts expire fi4 everyone but billionaires?.

I'm not a billionaire and will benefit from the tax cuts becoming permanent, as will many other taxpayers and voters.

The prices of goods and services is impacted by infinite variables, tax policies are merely one.

As for people dropping like flies because of changes to tax and social welfare policies, maybe so:

https://babylonbee.com/news/report-trump-bill-will-cause-175-billion-people-to-lose-medicaid-and-die

Or maybe it's a hysterical gross exaggeration reflecting a resistance to encouraging more self-sufficiency and less government welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You really don’t have a clue, so you. Choose a less expensive car? Shut your sanctimonious piehole — when I worked for Legal Services I had elderly clients who wouldn’t eat for 2 days so they could afford the bus fare to our office for a consultation after being denied Socisl Security disability. You have no idea how poor people in this country live. Most of my clients worked hard their whole lives until their bodies gave out from physical labor. Do you know what 40 years on your feet waiting tables does to your legs? I do, because I’ve seen my clients’ swollen varicose veins and watched them hobble into my office. A lifetime of no or little healthcare takes its toll too. I can’t even talk about the client i had who was in constant agony from his infected teeth but couldn’t afford to see a dentist.

You really need to get out of you privileged bubble and have some empathy.

People who are poor are poor for a reason. Sometimes it's bad luck, more often it's bad life choices, starting with their approach to their education, having children they can't afford, a failure to prioritize retirement savings over current spending throughout their lives, and other choices. The government provides a floor level of income and medical care for the truly indigent; others are expected to allocate their resources to their priority needs. If someone is denied Social Security disability benefits, it's because they are not disabled as defined not by them in their self-interest but by the government, and such decisions are not merely capricious even if you think otherwise. An appeal is always possible for wrongly decided cases.

The question is how much lifestyle support should be provided by the government versus by the individual through their own efforts. A "right" to being subsidized by the government is being examined more carefully and granted more sparingly, but is not being eliminated for all people under all circumstances. Pointing to the truly indigent who cannot support themselves is a red herring, the legislative changes occurring are reducing or eliminating benefits for the edge cases who are able to manage on their own without subsidies, even though such people will have to adjust their spending priorities to compensate for the absence of government largesse.

Screw off you have no idea what you are talking about
Read the dam bill and project 2O25
This Bill will crush the economy people are going to die and costs for every thing will go up!
Did you not see when many of the so called tax cuts expire fi4 everyone but billionaires?.

I'm not a billionaire and will benefit from the tax cuts becoming permanent, as will many other taxpayers and voters.

The prices of goods and services is impacted by infinite variables, tax policies are merely one.

As for people dropping like flies because of changes to tax and social welfare policies, maybe so:

https://babylonbee.com/news/report-trump-bill-will-cause-175-billion-people-to-lose-medicaid-and-die

Or maybe it's a hysterical gross exaggeration reflecting a resistance to encouraging more self-sufficiency and less government welfare.

DP.. "hysterical gross exaggeration " - how many is a "hysterical gross exaggeration "? If 10 children die, is that nbd? It was worth the tax cuts for the rich?

You are one of those people who think that "nothing negative will happen to me because I made good life choices."

No. Life doesn't work that way. If you get into a bad car accident, your insurance may pay for the recovery, but if you can no longer work, you will lose pretty much everything.

I got hit by a car, but luckily, I was able to recover and go back to work, but my body is no longer the same. I have residual health issues, and I have to work for the insurance. The issues aren't bad enough to go on disability, and nor would I want to because you get so little on disability.

BTW, I made good life choices and saved a lot. But, I know that it could vanish easily if one of my family members or I get really sick.

"There but for the grace of God go I". Truly disgusting and scary how Rs have completely lost any empathy.

-former R

[Anonymous]

Right on, PP. So many people believe in the Just World Fallacy and don't think anything bad will happen to them because they've made good choices. I'm here to tell you that things don't always work out that way. I've seen family members suffer through no fault of their own. How we treat our vulnerable reflects on us all and I think having a strong social safety net is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony of the “big bill” is I think it is morally reprehensible but I stand to benefit from it, mostly with the increase of the SALT tax (Between property tax and state tax I currently pay around $30K). I feel horrible that I’m slightly happy that my tax bill will go down as I’m facing job loss thanks to this admin knowing the how behind it and how much others stand to lose. So, how will the bill affect you?

If you think longer-term, you and those you love will not benefit from the lack of public funding for cancer and other health research. If you, your child, or other loved one get a disease, you won't have the latest and greatest info.

Sounds like regional hospitals will close eventually, too. That could hurt you or your family members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony of the “big bill” is I think it is morally reprehensible but I stand to benefit from it, mostly with the increase of the SALT tax (Between property tax and state tax I currently pay around $30K). I feel horrible that I’m slightly happy that my tax bill will go down as I’m facing job loss thanks to this admin knowing the how behind it and how much others stand to lose. So, how will the bill affect you?

While you might have more money, health-related businesses we all use will have to close due to lack of Medicare/Medicaid.

Plus, people will die without healthcare.

[Anonymous]

I don't really know I'm hoping for less taxes though.