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

[Anonymous]

About half the people on medicare and medicaid are MAGA. Leopards eating faces and all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About half the people on medicare and medicaid are MAGA. Leopards eating faces and all.

Perfect. Maybe they will vote differently in the future.

[Anonymous]

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.

There are already work requirements. It is a red herring.
There is also no proof of any fraud at the individual level. It is a red herring.

If it's a red herring, then why are worried about it being "restated" (according to you) as a requirement?

Because the GOP has proven not to be trustworthy in their public statements as they have been gaslighting us for decades.

This made me lol. As if the Dems are trustworthy in their public statements. Frankly, I think both sides are filled with people who lie to make whatever point suits their needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Do you have links to prove that? Or are these just convenient talking points to further your agenda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Do you have links to prove that? Or are these just convenient talking points to further your agenda?

Np. What links do you need? What the PP said is right in the bill:
Medicaid: Approximately $600 billion in cuts over 10 years, potentially leading to 10.9 million people losing health coverage.

SNAP (Food Assistance): An estimated $230 billion reduction, which could impact low-income families' ability to afford groceries.

Child Tax Credit: Modifications may exclude up to 20 million children from receiving the full credit, particularly affecting low-income families.

As for who benefits, there's the extension of Trump's TCJA tax cuts, there's greater estate tax exemptions, there's SALT and so on which primarily benefited the wealthy and higher income earners while doing little for the working class.

Doesn't take "links to prove it" - just takes reading what's in BBB and some common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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%

Do you have links to prove that? Or are these just convenient talking points to further your agenda?

Np. What links do you need? What the PP said is right in the bill:
Medicaid: Approximately $600 billion in cuts over 10 years, potentially leading to 10.9 million people losing health coverage.

SNAP (Food Assistance): An estimated $230 billion reduction, which could impact low-income families' ability to afford groceries.

Child Tax Credit: Modifications may exclude up to 20 million children from receiving the full credit, particularly affecting low-income families.

As for who benefits, there's the extension of Trump's TCJA tax cuts, there's greater estate tax exemptions, there's SALT and so on which primarily benefited the wealthy and higher income earners while doing little for the working class.

Doesn't take "links to prove it" - just takes reading what's in BBB and some common sense.

Let's not forget that Trump's tariffs are a defects tax on consumers, like a sales tax, which are regressive and have greater impact on poorer people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About half the people on medicare and medicaid are MAGA. Leopards eating faces and all.

43% of those on Medicaid are white. Going off the assumption that a large majority of those come from the top 10 states with the highest number of citizens on Medicaid, yes, it's safe to say a vast majority will be MAGA since 7 of the 10 are red states.

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/data-and-systems/downloads/macbis/2020-race-etncity-data-brf.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About half the people on medicare and medicaid are MAGA. Leopards eating faces and all.

Can't happen to a bunch of nicer people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The PP (or you, if it's you) said that they wanted medicaid for children to be income-tested meaning that disabled kids of wealthy parents shouldn't qualify for medicaid. I meant that that scenario will only work if we tackle private insurance reform so that insurances are required to cover more. My relatives are well-off, but if they had to cover the remaining balance of one hospital stay that their private insurance didn't cover, they'd quickly be wiped out. And then what would happen? The entire family could theoretically qualify for medicaid.

Their kid's last hospital stay was 23 days and totaled $1.8mil. Their private insurance covered most, but there was still a 6-figure amount leftover that medicaid then covered so that the amount they needed to pay out of pocket was not even a few thousand.

The key to most things re: healthcare is insurance reform, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The PP (or you, if it's you) said that they wanted medicaid for children to be income-tested meaning that disabled kids of wealthy parents shouldn't qualify for medicaid. I meant that that scenario will only work if we tackle private insurance reform so that insurances are required to cover more. My relatives are well-off, but if they had to cover the remaining balance of one hospital stay that their private insurance didn't cover, they'd quickly be wiped out. And then what would happen? The entire family could theoretically qualify for medicaid.

Their kid's last hospital stay was 23 days and totaled $1.8mil. Their private insurance covered most, but there was still a 6-figure amount leftover that medicaid then covered so that the amount they needed to pay out of pocket was not even a few thousand.

The key to most things re: healthcare is insurance reform, IMO.

By law, private insurance is required to have out of pocket maximums per year, both in network and out of network.

If I get cancer, I have to pay whatever insurance won’t pay. Medicaid doesn’t just step in just because I’d be “wiped out.”

It’s a dumb loophole created by the ADA lobby- the same one that gave us chair throwers we can’t force out of the classroom.

[Anonymous]

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.

Elder care is a paid job, even if provided by a family member for eligible seniors. I would think this should count for job hours minimum qualification. Childcare? It’s confusing, because technically single moms would have to work unless they are supported by ex-husband or parents , and SAHMs would be assumed to get healthcare through their husbands. I think we likely don’t know what it takes to qualify for Medicaid now and it’s difficult to imagine what happens later

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The PP (or you, if it's you) said that they wanted medicaid for children to be income-tested meaning that disabled kids of wealthy parents shouldn't qualify for medicaid. I meant that that scenario will only work if we tackle private insurance reform so that insurances are required to cover more. My relatives are well-off, but if they had to cover the remaining balance of one hospital stay that their private insurance didn't cover, they'd quickly be wiped out. And then what would happen? The entire family could theoretically qualify for medicaid.

Their kid's last hospital stay was 23 days and totaled $1.8mil. Their private insurance covered most, but there was still a 6-figure amount leftover that medicaid then covered so that the amount they needed to pay out of pocket was not even a few thousand.

The key to most things re: healthcare is insurance reform, IMO.

Thanks for the explanation. (I’m not the “income-tested” PP. ) Genuine question: I get that in this case their private insurance didn’t cover everything. Is there private insurance that would? Perhaps with higher premiums or deductibles?
I think it’s now a mistake to link insurance options with employment — and the plans that a particular employer might pick, especially if there are plans out there that might serve particular family circumstances better — if they had a credit that they could use instead of being restricted to specific plans.

I get that tying health insurance to employers was originally a benefit for mostly white, mostly white collar men — that then got extended more broadly. I agree that all of this needs to be reformed.

[Anonymous]

Isn't something like 60% of elderly in nursing homes covered by medicaid? Will the nursing homes put everyone on the street? Or will everything else be cut but the nursing homes remain stable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About half the people on medicare and medicaid are MAGA. Leopards eating faces and all.

Perfect. Maybe they will vote differently in the future.

No they won’t. Look at West Virginia. There will never be a Touch Stove moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't something like 60% of elderly in nursing homes covered by medicaid? Will the nursing homes put everyone on the street? Or will everything else be cut but the nursing homes remain stable.

This will get rolled out over time. Nursing home will close and women will be forced to take care of the elderly. Just the way MAGA wants.

I say, Democrats should insist the cuts happen immediately. No waiting till after the mid-terms.