How will the “big bill” affect you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

How much do you make? The original subsidies from when the law passed will continue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

..at the expense of the very poor

The poor don't pay income taxes. In 2024, the top 50% of all taxpayers paid 98% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% paid the remainder. The tax burden on the poor is not going up; their government subsidies paid for by the top 50% of all taxpayers may or may not be reduced or eliminated, depending on specific circumstances.

The PP didn’t mean “the poor are paying more”, they said “at the expense of the poor”. The tax cuts help the rich and the benefit cuts hurt the poor. And sure, the top half pay 98% of the taxes but they also collect 90% of the income and hold 90% of the wealth.

[Anonymous]

Loving the Trump tax cut extension and SALT deduction increase. Very excited to hear about increased funding for ICE, so we can return more unlawful immigrants to their home nations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loving the Trump tax cut extension and SALT deduction increase. Very excited to hear about increased funding for ICE, so we can return more unlawful immigrants to their home nations.

You know this expires in 2030 right? Also $500k income cap blows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

..at the expense of the very poor

The poor don't pay income taxes. In 2024, the top 50% of all taxpayers paid 98% of all federal individual income taxes. The bottom 50% paid the remainder. The tax burden on the poor is not going up; their government subsidies paid for by the top 50% of all taxpayers may or may not be reduced or eliminated, depending on specific circumstances.

The PP didn’t mean “the poor are paying more”, they said “at the expense of the poor”. The tax cuts help the rich and the benefit cuts hurt the poor. And sure, the top half pay 98% of the taxes but they also collect 90% of the income and hold 90% of the wealth.

And poor receive all their government benefits without paying for any of it because they pay no taxes. Seems like it balances out.

[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.

^what MAGA really thinks of the working class

MAGA is the working class as much as the other political party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a nurse at a hospital. I think it’s going to be a mess. At least I’m not in a rural area. Between research being decimated, grants cut, Medicaid cut, caps on loans (which will lead to less medical school students), Mr. Worm brain in charge of the nation’s health….Im just not optimistic.

No, medical school students will just be wealthier, which is what they want- to limit access to highly paid fields like medicine to only the wealthiest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

Yeah there’s a lot of garbage in this bill but it remains to be seen what will come of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

This reeks of "if you don't have enough money just go get a job that pays more"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

“ According to the AAMC, the median four-year cost of public medical schools is $268,476 for resident students, while students at private medical schools pay a median of $363,836.”
Medical schools are not going to become 50% less expensive. The student body will be drawn from wealthier families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

How? Schools are getting less funding and grants. The point isn’t to make it more affordable, it’s to make something reserved only for the wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Likely to lose coverage under the ACA because our subsidies will be eliminated and we can't afford the premiums. Too much income to get Medicaid, which will be decimated as well in our state.

Basically we will have no health coverage.

What does "can't afford the premiums" mean? You spend too much elsewhere and don't want to spend less so that you can reallocate money to health insurance? You don't want a less expensive insurance plan?

I suspect you have the money to pay for health care, but you don't want to cut back on other spending in order to do so. That's nobody's choice but yours.

Based on this post, I suspect that you are a dumbass who is disrespected by most of the people in your life, but you are too dumb to even know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD was planning to go to medical school but would need to take out loans- which med students have always had to do- and now doesn’t know whether she will be able to go. I feel like that’s a real shame because she’s smart but doesn’t have 200-300,000 dollars laying around to pay for it! The new bill caps federal student loans at $150k. She doesn’t have loans from undergraduate but can’t pay for medical school without loans. It’s something she and her peers are really worried about.

Schools will lower the price to match the loan ceiling. That’s the whole point of this. Tuition prices were out of control.

How? Schools are getting less funding and grants. The point isn’t to make it more affordable, it’s to make something reserved only for the wealthy.

Because if they’re getting less in funding and grants, they have to earn money through tuition. There are too many schools and not enough wealthy students to support them all.