Is Medicaid basically going away if BBB is approved by Senate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. It’s hard to imagine that they will cut services for children— who really can’t go to work to prove their value, at least as things stand now; implement work requirements for most adults; yet maintain nursing home payments for seniors as part of Medicaid. I assume these people, um, have a plan for that, since many seniors not in nursing homes are being cared for by family members — who have to leave their jobs and their employer provided health plans, to go on Medicaid in order to provide eldercare. All of this is so the wealthy can have tax breaks — financed by cutting health care for kids, the elderly,and those who care for them.

So many adults who are on Medicaid are either providing childcare, eldercare, or both, or have lower paying jobs where their limited pay and often limited hours qualify them for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, while the companies like Walmart that employ them get tax breaks funded by working people.

I don’t know why that would be hard to imagine, they’ve been speed running killing children via Doge since day one. That’s a feature and not a bug to the people running things.

That’s my point, perhaps clumsily stated. They cut resources for children, so, of course they will be cutting resources for older adults.
I’m sure there are young, rich, DOGE guys noting how many vaccines for children could be paid for with the savings from each day of nursing home care for an elderly person— then cutting both sets of services since RFK Jr and Dr Oz said to.

Hmmmm. Let's see now.

70+ percent of the federal budget is entitlements (mandatory spending).

We're borrowing or creating out of thin air 50 cents of every dollar the U.S. government spends.

We have low/high inflation, depending who you talk to, because we're diluting the dollar's worth by doing that, since it's value is based on scarcity, as every currency is.

We're spending $17 Billion a day to keep the fed.gov party going and inflation on the national debt is now more than defense spending.



Should we go to a model where everyone pays half their income to the health care industry and the government does nothing other than pay for health care?

70% is not on entitlements.

MAGAs cannot make the argument that budget cutting of $800m on Medicaid is necessary at the same time they are spending $5 trillion on tax cut for rich people.

I guess you aren't a numbers person.

It costs $17 BILLION PER DAY to run the federal government. That's $17 BILLION, 365 days per year.

You're whining about $800 MILLION in cuts?

because those 800 million in cuts are material to the people receiving those cuts, to the point that they may not be able to survive any longer

The point is you are like Pavlov's dog: ANY CUTS to anything are too much. Better wake up.

If this whole damn thing collapses, no one will have anything. Then talk to me about survival.

Young people are already moving overseas when they see what's coming. They don't want to be stuck for life footing a ponzi scheme. Honestly, why bother working anymore when half the country skates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. It’s hard to imagine that they will cut services for children— who really can’t go to work to prove their value, at least as things stand now; implement work requirements for most adults; yet maintain nursing home payments for seniors as part of Medicaid. I assume these people, um, have a plan for that, since many seniors not in nursing homes are being cared for by family members — who have to leave their jobs and their employer provided health plans, to go on Medicaid in order to provide eldercare. All of this is so the wealthy can have tax breaks — financed by cutting health care for kids, the elderly,and those who care for them.

So many adults who are on Medicaid are either providing childcare, eldercare, or both, or have lower paying jobs where their limited pay and often limited hours qualify them for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, while the companies like Walmart that employ them get tax breaks funded by working people.

I don’t know why that would be hard to imagine, they’ve been speed running killing children via Doge since day one. That’s a feature and not a bug to the people running things.

That’s my point, perhaps clumsily stated. They cut resources for children, so, of course they will be cutting resources for older adults.
I’m sure there are young, rich, DOGE guys noting how many vaccines for children could be paid for with the savings from each day of nursing home care for an elderly person— then cutting both sets of services since RFK Jr and Dr Oz said to.

Hmmmm. Let's see now.

70+ percent of the federal budget is entitlements (mandatory spending).

We're borrowing or creating out of thin air 50 cents of every dollar the U.S. government spends.

We have low/high inflation, depending who you talk to, because we're diluting the dollar's worth by doing that, since it's value is based on scarcity, as every currency is.

We're spending $17 Billion a day to keep the fed.gov party going and inflation on the national debt is now more than defense spending.



Should we go to a model where everyone pays half their income to the health care industry and the government does nothing other than pay for health care?

70% is not on entitlements.

MAGAs cannot make the argument that budget cutting of $800m on Medicaid is necessary at the same time they are spending $5 trillion on tax cut for rich people.

I guess you aren't a numbers person.

It costs $17 BILLION PER DAY to run the federal government. That's $17 BILLION, 365 days per year.

You're whining about $800 MILLION in cuts?

Cool. Why is this bill giving trillions in tax cuts to the rich and adding to the defense budget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. It’s hard to imagine that they will cut services for children— who really can’t go to work to prove their value, at least as things stand now; implement work requirements for most adults; yet maintain nursing home payments for seniors as part of Medicaid. I assume these people, um, have a plan for that, since many seniors not in nursing homes are being cared for by family members — who have to leave their jobs and their employer provided health plans, to go on Medicaid in order to provide eldercare. All of this is so the wealthy can have tax breaks — financed by cutting health care for kids, the elderly,and those who care for them.

So many adults who are on Medicaid are either providing childcare, eldercare, or both, or have lower paying jobs where their limited pay and often limited hours qualify them for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, while the companies like Walmart that employ them get tax breaks funded by working people.

I don’t know why that would be hard to imagine, they’ve been speed running killing children via Doge since day one. That’s a feature and not a bug to the people running things.

That’s my point, perhaps clumsily stated. They cut resources for children, so, of course they will be cutting resources for older adults.
I’m sure there are young, rich, DOGE guys noting how many vaccines for children could be paid for with the savings from each day of nursing home care for an elderly person— then cutting both sets of services since RFK Jr and Dr Oz said to.

Hmmmm. Let's see now.

70+ percent of the federal budget is entitlements (mandatory spending).

We're borrowing or creating out of thin air 50 cents of every dollar the U.S. government spends.

We have low/high inflation, depending who you talk to, because we're diluting the dollar's worth by doing that, since it's value is based on scarcity, as every currency is.

We're spending $17 Billion a day to keep the fed.gov party going and inflation on the national debt is now more than defense spending.



Should we go to a model where everyone pays half their income to the health care industry and the government does nothing other than pay for health care?

70% is not on entitlements.

MAGAs cannot make the argument that budget cutting of $800m on Medicaid is necessary at the same time they are spending $5 trillion on tax cut for rich people.

I guess you aren't a numbers person.

It costs $17 BILLION PER DAY to run the federal government. That's $17 BILLION, 365 days per year.

You're whining about $800 MILLION in cuts?

Cool. Why is this bill giving trillions in tax cuts to the rich and adding to the defense budget?

Revenue always goes up. Taxes go up and down

Government never spends less ever. It's time for government to sacrifice and get off a century of auto increase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. It’s hard to imagine that they will cut services for children— who really can’t go to work to prove their value, at least as things stand now; implement work requirements for most adults; yet maintain nursing home payments for seniors as part of Medicaid. I assume these people, um, have a plan for that, since many seniors not in nursing homes are being cared for by family members — who have to leave their jobs and their employer provided health plans, to go on Medicaid in order to provide eldercare. All of this is so the wealthy can have tax breaks — financed by cutting health care for kids, the elderly,and those who care for them.

So many adults who are on Medicaid are either providing childcare, eldercare, or both, or have lower paying jobs where their limited pay and often limited hours qualify them for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, while the companies like Walmart that employ them get tax breaks funded by working people.

I don’t know why that would be hard to imagine, they’ve been speed running killing children via Doge since day one. That’s a feature and not a bug to the people running things.

That’s my point, perhaps clumsily stated. They cut resources for children, so, of course they will be cutting resources for older adults.
I’m sure there are young, rich, DOGE guys noting how many vaccines for children could be paid for with the savings from each day of nursing home care for an elderly person— then cutting both sets of services since RFK Jr and Dr Oz said to.

Hmmmm. Let's see now.

70+ percent of the federal budget is entitlements (mandatory spending).

We're borrowing or creating out of thin air 50 cents of every dollar the U.S. government spends.

We have low/high inflation, depending who you talk to, because we're diluting the dollar's worth by doing that, since it's value is based on scarcity, as every currency is.

We're spending $17 Billion a day to keep the fed.gov party going and inflation on the national debt is now more than defense spending.



Should we go to a model where everyone pays half their income to the health care industry and the government does nothing other than pay for health care?

70% is not on entitlements.

MAGAs cannot make the argument that budget cutting of $800m on Medicaid is necessary at the same time they are spending $5 trillion on tax cut for rich people.

I guess you aren't a numbers person.

It costs $17 BILLION PER DAY to run the federal government. That's $17 BILLION, 365 days per year.

You're whining about $800 MILLION in cuts?

Cool. Why is this bill giving trillions in tax cuts to the rich and adding to the defense budget?

Revenue always goes up. Taxes go up and down

Government never spends less ever. It's time for government to sacrifice and get off a century of auto increase

This doesn't even make sense. How does revenue go up when you cut taxes? Did that happen with the 2017 tax cuts?

And no, it's not the government sacrificing, it's the working people, the elderly and the children.

[Anonymous]

No, the elderly won’t be able to use Medicaid if they run out of money. They won’t meet the work requirements. They will have to be cared for in the family home. The people who truly need it won’t qualify, because they can’t work due to disability or illness or whatever. Those who can find a job for 80 hrs a month won’t qualify because they aren’t going to adjust the income limit every year like they should.

[Anonymous]

I’d rather just pay more taxes frankly

[Anonymous]

And guess what happens when Medicaid goes away? Crime will go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather just pay more taxes frankly

There's nothing stopping you from giving more money to the government. But why should you get to say that OTHER people should pay more taxes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Probably. It’s hard to imagine that they will cut services for children— who really can’t go to work to prove their value, at least as things stand now; implement work requirements for most adults; yet maintain nursing home payments for seniors as part of Medicaid. I assume these people, um, have a plan for that, since many seniors not in nursing homes are being cared for by family members — who have to leave their jobs and their employer provided health plans, to go on Medicaid in order to provide eldercare. All of this is so the wealthy can have tax breaks — financed by cutting health care for kids, the elderly,and those who care for them.

So many adults who are on Medicaid are either providing childcare, eldercare, or both, or have lower paying jobs where their limited pay and often limited hours qualify them for Medicaid, SNAP, and other benefits, while the companies like Walmart that employ them get tax breaks funded by working people.

I don’t know why that would be hard to imagine, they’ve been speed running killing children via Doge since day one. That’s a feature and not a bug to the people running things.

That’s my point, perhaps clumsily stated. They cut resources for children, so, of course they will be cutting resources for older adults.
I’m sure there are young, rich, DOGE guys noting how many vaccines for children could be paid for with the savings from each day of nursing home care for an elderly person— then cutting both sets of services since RFK Jr and Dr Oz said to.

Hmmmm. Let's see now.

70+ percent of the federal budget is entitlements (mandatory spending).

We're borrowing or creating out of thin air 50 cents of every dollar the U.S. government spends.

We have low/high inflation, depending who you talk to, because we're diluting the dollar's worth by doing that, since it's value is based on scarcity, as every currency is.

We're spending $17 Billion a day to keep the fed.gov party going and inflation on the national debt is now more than defense spending.



Should we go to a model where everyone pays half their income to the health care industry and the government does nothing other than pay for health care?

70% is not on entitlements.

MAGAs cannot make the argument that budget cutting of $800m on Medicaid is necessary at the same time they are spending $5 trillion on tax cut for rich people.

I guess you aren't a numbers person.

It costs $17 BILLION PER DAY to run the federal government. That's $17 BILLION, 365 days per year.

You're whining about $800 MILLION in cuts?

because those 800 million in cuts are material to the people receiving those cuts, to the point that they may not be able to survive any longer

The point is you are like Pavlov's dog: ANY CUTS to anything are too much. Better wake up.

If this whole damn thing collapses, no one will have anything. Then talk to me about survival.

Young people are already moving overseas when they see what's coming. They don't want to be stuck for life footing a ponzi scheme. Honestly, why bother working anymore when half the country skates?

Strategic cuts are fine. A scalpel is fine. What is happening here is imploding a program that have prevented the poorest in our country from being totally destitute. And the cuts are happening so billionaires can have more billions. It isn't actually saving any money, it is just allocating it to the .02%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the elderly won’t be able to use Medicaid if they run out of money. They won’t meet the work requirements. They will have to be cared for in the family home. The people who truly need it won’t qualify, because they can’t work due to disability or illness or whatever. Those who can find a job for 80 hrs a month won’t qualify because they aren’t going to adjust the income limit every year like they should.

And being “cared for in the family home” means having available family members to provide and facilitate such care — which means they won’t be working to meet the requirements for their own health care.

It really is a problem for a wide array of non-rich people to have healthcare policy made by people whose own healthcare is subsidized by tax dollars.

Many elderly people don’t have a “family home” or even available “family” — with all of the resources that can go along with that. I guess the plan is to just die in the streets?

[Anonymous]

Country can't afford anything but defense, debt service SS and Medicare. The rest needs slashing. We are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d rather just pay more taxes frankly

I’d rather pay less in taxes, and have the “Great Again” corporations return to the tax levels of yesteryear— when high taxes meant that corporations invested more in job creation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Medicaid returned to its original intent: low-income elderly, catastrophically ill adults, disabled adults, chronically ill & disabled children, and the children of low-income adults.

Medicaid should not be for my neighbor with anxiety. How is there no WFH job that she can do? BFFR.

If you are able-bodied, you should be required to work to get Medicaid. End of story.

Your neighbor is the except...report her if you feel that strongly about it.

DP here. We all know stories like this. I also want parents of disabled children under 26 to be income-tested. I know several wealthy families with disabled minor children on Medicaid. It should be need-based. We make way less than many of these - why am I subsidizing them?

For this one you'd need to tackle private insurance. I have a relative with a medically fragile child who must have 24-hour supervision because he has a trach-vent. Their private insurance won't cover that, so he has medicaid, which does cover the 24-hour nursing. They are relatively well off financially because his dad is in big law, but even with their money, just one of his short hospital stays can total up to a half million.

Here's a mom on TikTok who also has a medically fragile kid on a trach-vent who explains why medicaid for the kids of wealthy parents is necessary.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjb1SLSS/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They want Medicaid returned to its original intent: low-income elderly, catastrophically ill adults, disabled adults, chronically ill & disabled children, and the children of low-income adults.

Medicaid should not be for my neighbor with anxiety. How is there no WFH job that she can do? BFFR.

If you are able-bodied, you should be required to work to get Medicaid. End of story.

Your neighbor is the except...report her if you feel that strongly about it.

DP here. We all know stories like this. I also want parents of disabled children under 26 to be income-tested. I know several wealthy families with disabled minor children on Medicaid. It should be need-based. We make way less than many of these - why am I subsidizing them?

For this one you'd need to tackle private insurance. I have a relative with a medically fragile child who must have 24-hour supervision because he has a trach-vent. Their private insurance won't cover that, so he has medicaid, which does cover the 24-hour nursing. They are relatively well off financially because his dad is in big law, but even with their money, just one of his short hospital stays can total up to a half million.

Here's a mom on TikTok who also has a medically fragile kid on a trach-vent who explains why medicaid for the kids of wealthy parents is necessary.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTjb1SLSS/

It’s “necessary” because our country as represented by politicians decided that every life has value, and that we as a country would support that. Is that really where we are now though? DOGE, Miller, RFK Jr, and Trump are spending OUR tax dollars on what THEY value. I’m really worried about what will happen to the medically fragile of all ages once the Medicaid-dependent hospitals start to close, especially in rural areas.

I’m not sure what your point is about tackling private insurance. Are you imagining that profit-focused corporations will somehow decide to add new, expensively and chronically I’ll patients to their coverage lists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Country can't afford anything but defense, debt service SS and Medicare. The rest needs slashing. We are

Or, don't have a trillion dollar defense budget and have the billionaires pay at the same tax rates as regular people, and not all the loopholes and deductions that get them out of taxes or significant taxes.