Your thoughts on likelihood of rolling back SS, Medicaid, Medicare after first week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zero chance. And social security won’t be taxed.

You don't know anything obviously

Wishful thinking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial I'd like to make ss optional so I can stop paying and cash out

"cash out"? It's a pay as you go system-- the most you can do is destroy the social safety net for seniors by ending social security but you are never getting your contributions back.

Don't be a tool and let the right wing propaganda tell you the money isn't there for social security-- it's only not there if they steal it for other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy.

but the money isn't actually anywhere. It's an IOU from the feds. Your payments into the system are spent by Congress immediately. Your payments aren't sitting anywhere compounding or earning interest.

[Anonymous]

Most of Fox News audience is on SS and Medicare. Won't they be shocked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial I'd like to make ss optional so I can stop paying and cash out

"cash out"? It's a pay as you go system-- the most you can do is destroy the social safety net for seniors by ending social security but you are never getting your contributions back.

Don't be a tool and let the right wing propaganda tell you the money isn't there for social security-- it's only not there if they steal it for other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy.

but the money isn't actually anywhere. It's an IOU from the feds. Your payments into the system are spent by Congress immediately. Your payments aren't sitting anywhere compounding or earning interest.

All the money the government collects is then redistributed by the government. That's how taxation works.

People need to stop thinking about Social Security like some sort of savings account. It's welfare for the elderly (and a few other groups)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Medicaid for illegal immigrants like in CA should never have happened. They also cover in home support services regardless of immigration status. This is a huge money pit and attracts even more illegal immigrants to the state. Might be good for companies but bad for regular taxpayers.

But that is paid for with state dollars only, not federal money. If there is a debate to be had over it, it should be a debate within California over how state tax money is used. It doesn’t have anything to do with the federal government.

Medicaid is not fully state funded! It's at least 50% federally funded by law. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federal-matching-rate-and-multiplier/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Medicaid for illegal immigrants like in CA should never have happened. They also cover in home support services regardless of immigration status. This is a huge money pit and attracts even more illegal immigrants to the state. Might be good for companies but bad for regular taxpayers.

But that is paid for with state dollars only, not federal money. If there is a debate to be had over it, it should be a debate within California over how state tax money is used. It doesn’t have anything to do with the federal government.

Medicaid is not fully state funded! It's at least 50% federally funded by law. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federal-matching-rate-and-multiplier/

The previous comment was a response to the poster who objected to California covering undocumented immigrants in its Medicaid program. By law federal money cannot be used for that, so it is state-only dollars that are used to cover that population in California.

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/state-health-coverage-for-immigrants-and-implications-for-health-coverage-and-care/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Medicaid for illegal immigrants like in CA should never have happened. They also cover in home support services regardless of immigration status. This is a huge money pit and attracts even more illegal immigrants to the state. Might be good for companies but bad for regular taxpayers.

But that is paid for with state dollars only, not federal money. If there is a debate to be had over it, it should be a debate within California over how state tax money is used. It doesn’t have anything to do with the federal government.

Yes, you are right, I stand corrected.
How about SSI for elderly immigrant parents of well off software engineers? Parents haven’t worked a day in this country.

[Anonymous]

3rd rails. They mess with these they lose all support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial I'd like to make ss optional so I can stop paying and cash out

"cash out"? It's a pay as you go system-- the most you can do is destroy the social safety net for seniors by ending social security but you are never getting your contributions back.

Don't be a tool and let the right wing propaganda tell you the money isn't there for social security-- it's only not there if they steal it for other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy.

but the money isn't actually anywhere. It's an IOU from the feds. Your payments into the system are spent by Congress immediately. Your payments aren't sitting anywhere compounding or earning interest.

All the money the government collects is then redistributed by the government. That's how taxation works.

People need to stop thinking about Social Security like some sort of savings account. It's welfare for the elderly (and a few other groups)

No. If that were the case, we'd means test it. Which we should be doing. I don't get why my mother and stepfather are driving around in a jag and collecting SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a millennial I'd like to make ss optional so I can stop paying and cash out

"cash out"? It's a pay as you go system-- the most you can do is destroy the social safety net for seniors by ending social security but you are never getting your contributions back.

Don't be a tool and let the right wing propaganda tell you the money isn't there for social security-- it's only not there if they steal it for other things, like tax cuts for the wealthy.

but the money isn't actually anywhere. It's an IOU from the feds. Your payments into the system are spent by Congress immediately. Your payments aren't sitting anywhere compounding or earning interest.

All the money the government collects is then redistributed by the government. That's how taxation works.

People need to stop thinking about Social Security like some sort of savings account. It's welfare for the elderly (and a few other groups)

No. If that were the case, we'd means test it. Which we should be doing. I don't get why my mother and stepfather are driving around in a jag and collecting SS.

First, it absolutely is welfare for the elderly. You may think it's run worse than AFDC, but it's still welfare.

Second, means testing always costs more than it saves. Taxing SS as income would be fine. Especially if the current income tax system didn't favor the rich.

[Anonymous]

I think the GOP is definitely going to try it. It's all part of the Project 2025 plan they are following.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ideas they are considering are linked in this article (there's a PDF list): https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2025/01/20/house-budget-committee-circulates-new-detailed-list-of-budget-reconciliation-options-including-draconian-medicaid-cuts-within-house-republican-caucus/

There needs to be Social Security reform of some kind and the potential changes get more and more painful the longer you wait. That's not a Trump-specific issue at all. The money is not being stolen. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/

Raise the cap and that will make it solvent. Stop forcing people in demanding manual labor jobs to work longer and longer, if they are able to manage to find a job at their age.

I don't think that alone will make it solvent. If they stop paying a couple 1.5 times the amount on a claim in which only 1 time was paid into the system, in addition to raising the cap, you might make it solvent. There is no reason a spouse who did not pay into the fund should receive half the spouse's social security while the spouse is also receiving their full social security pay out.

[Anonymous]

Why are we talking about ss? The social contract has been you pay into it and you get out what you put in.. who cares if your parents are driving a jaguar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plans discussed are to stop reimbursing Medicaid expenses for states, so there will still be Medicaid but it will look different. Each state may do it differently to stay within budget. Work requirements, other hoops to jump through. They claim they don’t touch Medicare or SS. I suspect they will try to clean up SSD, kicking people more off as they started to in the past few years.

This is not an option being discussed. The options on the table are (1) restrict eligibility (or push states to do so through less generous reimbursement for certain groups), (2) cap the amount of federal $ provided to each state for Medicaid (aka block grants), and/or (3) add hoops that make it harder for people to enroll, like work requirements

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly Medicaid for illegal immigrants like in CA should never have happened. They also cover in home support services regardless of immigration status. This is a huge money pit and attracts even more illegal immigrants to the state. Might be good for companies but bad for regular taxpayers.

But that is paid for with state dollars only, not federal money. If there is a debate to be had over it, it should be a debate within California over how state tax money is used. It doesn’t have anything to do with the federal government.

Yes, you are right, I stand corrected.
How about SSI for elderly immigrant parents of well off software engineers? Parents haven’t worked a day in this country.

No, they should not get it.