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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will threaten to stop Medicare, Medicaid and SS payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

Interesting. You don’t think they want a collapse, then establish crypto as the new dollar?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will threaten to stop Medicare, Medicaid and SS payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

Interesting. You don’t think they want a collapse, then establish crypto as the new dollar?

No, they are focused on having unlimited taxpayer money to carry out their goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You think there is ZERO chance in the roll back of SS, Medicaid, and Medicare? What is your provenance of this confidence?

Medicaid is DEFINITELY going to be rolled back.

Here's a good explanation of what different buzz words will really mean:


https://pnhp.org/news/critiquing-project-2025-medicaid/

As for understanding Project 2025’s Medicaid policy agenda, let me cut to the chase. The proposed changes, despite being couched in bureaucratic buzzwords, have a straightforward and nefarious intent: Reduce health insurance coverage for the poor, by restricting both eligibility and benefits. And, equally worrisome, use Medicaid to suppress access to abortion.

Here’s the translation of Project 2025 policy jargon:

A “balanced or blended match rate” means less federal money (currently the majority of Medicaid funding), imposing a larger financial toll on states and thus lowering overall funding. “Block grants” and “caps” means fixed funding, regardless of the size of eligible populations and their medical needs, and slow or no growth over time. “End state financing loopholes”, “reform payments”, and (again) “replace enhanced match rate” all mean: lower federal contributions. All this compromises providing care, see analyses here, here, and here.

“Improve Medicaid eligibility standards to protect those in need” means: cover only the very poorest and sickest, leaving out many who currently qualify and who, in today’s fragile health insurance environment, desperately need Medicaid.

“Incentivize personal responsibility” means – impose often onerous preconditions on getting Medicaid benefits. The example, “implement work requirements” — which don’t work.

“Allow private insurance” means abandoning the Medicaid public structure in favor of private insurance, which results in widespread under-insurance – especially dangerous for the poor.

“Eliminate … benefit requirements” means, well, removing requirements for specific medical services, thereby increasing risk.

“Redesign … long-term care” means – undercut the mainstay of long-term care funding for the poor and middle class.

Layered onto this broad reduction in medical benefits is a full-bore attack on abortion services. I don’t think I need to translate the language excerpted above, which is atypically clear and direct. More on this topic in an upcoming post.

What’s amazing about Project 2025 is the ability to rhetorically cast dangerous policies as being about efficiency, generosity to the sickest, and personal virtue. In contrast, we know that true efficiency and generosity are available in true universal health insurance – single payer. The security of excellent health care access will go a long way toward increasing societal virtue.

* As I’ve written previously, I very much look forward to the day when the phrase “health insurance for the poor” no longer has meaning. Meantime … we must maintain the program that provides for the medical needs of the economically vulnerable.

https://healthjusticemonitor.org…

[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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

Wish an enterprising local reporter would uncover how many Republican electeds have their parents/relatives in nursing homes under Medicaid LTC. Can’t imagine it is a small number as the annual salary for a senator/rep is $174K and the national median cost is $9733/month for a private room or $8669/month for a semi-private. That’s $116,796/year and $104,028/year, respectively. Can’t imagine they can swing either on that salary….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

Wish an enterprising local reporter would uncover how many Republican electeds have their parents/relatives in nursing homes under Medicaid LTC. Can’t imagine it is a small number as the annual salary for a senator/rep is $174K and the national median cost is $9733/month for a private room or $8669/month for a semi-private. That’s $116,796/year and $104,028/year, respectively. Can’t imagine they can swing either on that salary….

I highly doubt you will find many MoC whose parents are using Medicaid LTC. They are more likely to have parents who saved and invested, possibly have pensions. Their parents don’t need money from them, they are paying from their own savings and pensions. Medicaid LTC is for the very poor; it is very unlikely that elderly parents of MoC would be eligible for Medicaid LTC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will threaten to stop Medicare, Medicaid and SS payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

Interesting. You don’t think they want a collapse, then establish crypto as the new dollar?

They are going to do both

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

Wish an enterprising local reporter would uncover how many Republican electeds have their parents/relatives in nursing homes under Medicaid LTC. Can’t imagine it is a small number as the annual salary for a senator/rep is $174K and the national median cost is $9733/month for a private room or $8669/month for a semi-private. That’s $116,796/year and $104,028/year, respectively. Can’t imagine they can swing either on that salary….

I highly doubt you will find many MoC whose parents are using Medicaid LTC. They are more likely to have parents who saved and invested, possibly have pensions. Their parents don’t need money from them, they are paying from their own savings and pensions. Medicaid LTC is for the very poor; it is very unlikely that elderly parents of MoC would be eligible for Medicaid LTC.

Wrong. Most assisted living retirement places nursing homes etc all push you to put your family on Medicaid. It is huge in MOCO. They burn down the savings before entering these places and then Medicaid kicks in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will threaten to stop Medicare, Medicaid and SS payments if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling.

Interesting. You don’t think they want a collapse, then establish crypto as the new dollar?

They are going to do both

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You think there is ZERO chance in the roll back of SS, Medicaid, and Medicare? What is your provenance of this confidence?

Medicaid is DEFINITELY going to be rolled back.

Here's a good explanation of what different buzz words will really mean:


https://pnhp.org/news/critiquing-project-2025-medicaid/

As for understanding Project 2025’s Medicaid policy agenda, let me cut to the chase. The proposed changes, despite being couched in bureaucratic buzzwords, have a straightforward and nefarious intent: Reduce health insurance coverage for the poor, by restricting both eligibility and benefits. And, equally worrisome, use Medicaid to suppress access to abortion.

Here’s the translation of Project 2025 policy jargon:

A “balanced or blended match rate” means less federal money (currently the majority of Medicaid funding), imposing a larger financial toll on states and thus lowering overall funding. “Block grants” and “caps” means fixed funding, regardless of the size of eligible populations and their medical needs, and slow or no growth over time. “End state financing loopholes”, “reform payments”, and (again) “replace enhanced match rate” all mean: lower federal contributions. All this compromises providing care, see analyses here, here, and here.

“Improve Medicaid eligibility standards to protect those in need” means: cover only the very poorest and sickest, leaving out many who currently qualify and who, in today’s fragile health insurance environment, desperately need Medicaid.

“Incentivize personal responsibility” means – impose often onerous preconditions on getting Medicaid benefits. The example, “implement work requirements” — which don’t work.

“Allow private insurance” means abandoning the Medicaid public structure in favor of private insurance, which results in widespread under-insurance – especially dangerous for the poor.

“Eliminate … benefit requirements” means, well, removing requirements for specific medical services, thereby increasing risk.

“Redesign … long-term care” means – undercut the mainstay of long-term care funding for the poor and middle class.

Layered onto this broad reduction in medical benefits is a full-bore attack on abortion services. I don’t think I need to translate the language excerpted above, which is atypically clear and direct. More on this topic in an upcoming post.

What’s amazing about Project 2025 is the ability to rhetorically cast dangerous policies as being about efficiency, generosity to the sickest, and personal virtue. In contrast, we know that true efficiency and generosity are available in true universal health insurance – single payer. The security of excellent health care access will go a long way toward increasing societal virtue.

* As I’ve written previously, I very much look forward to the day when the phrase “health insurance for the poor” no longer has meaning. Meantime … we must maintain the program that provides for the medical needs of the economically vulnerable.

https://healthjusticemonitor.org…

Well done!

Maga is so unbelievably dumb

Musk is after blood it will be even worse than this .

For example “ men making all heath decisions for the family” and “ men Head of households “

Not all of Project 2025 has been released, given musk is in charge it will be more horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

Wish an enterprising local reporter would uncover how many Republican electeds have their parents/relatives in nursing homes under Medicaid LTC. Can’t imagine it is a small number as the annual salary for a senator/rep is $174K and the national median cost is $9733/month for a private room or $8669/month for a semi-private. That’s $116,796/year and $104,028/year, respectively. Can’t imagine they can swing either on that salary….

I highly doubt you will find many MoC whose parents are using Medicaid LTC. They are more likely to have parents who saved and invested, possibly have pensions. Their parents don’t need money from them, they are paying from their own savings and pensions. Medicaid LTC is for the very poor; it is very unlikely that elderly parents of MoC would be eligible for Medicaid LTC.

Wrong. Most assisted living retirement places nursing homes etc all push you to put your family on Medicaid. It is huge in MOCO. They burn down the savings before entering these places and then Medicaid kicks in.

That could be just the people you’ve come in contact with- unless you work at one of these facilities?

In my extended family’s experience, in which most of the elderly had been very working class/blue collar, the expenses were paid by the elderly individual. A lot of the over 75 crowd were very frugal and saved every extra penny, so were able to pay for their own care when it was needed.

My own parents never made very much- in fact, I and my siblings all qualified for Pell Grants. But they saved a lot, especially after the kids grew up and left home. They were able to completely pay for their own care.

In fact, it would have been difficult to use up all their savings to qualify for Medicaid. And they would have been too embarrassed to take Medicaid, anyway. Same story for the elderly parents of many of my cousins.

My parents always said that the best gift they could give their kids was to be able to pay for their own care in old age, and they were right. And this was a very common belief among their working class/blue collar peers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The only reason SS has lasted this long is that everyone gets some. The minute we start means testing, people will start thinking of SS like Medicaid. And you know how highly Republicans think of Medicaid.

Wish an enterprising local reporter would uncover how many Republican electeds have their parents/relatives in nursing homes under Medicaid LTC. Can’t imagine it is a small number as the annual salary for a senator/rep is $174K and the national median cost is $9733/month for a private room or $8669/month for a semi-private. That’s $116,796/year and $104,028/year, respectively. Can’t imagine they can swing either on that salary….

I highly doubt you will find many MoC whose parents are using Medicaid LTC. They are more likely to have parents who saved and invested, possibly have pensions. Their parents don’t need money from them, they are paying from their own savings and pensions. Medicaid LTC is for the very poor; it is very unlikely that elderly parents of MoC would be eligible for Medicaid LTC.

Wrong. Most assisted living retirement places nursing homes etc all push you to put your family on Medicaid. It is huge in MOCO. They burn down the savings before entering these places and then Medicaid kicks in.

That could be just the people you’ve come in contact with- unless you work at one of these facilities?

In my extended family’s experience, in which most of the elderly had been very working class/blue collar, the expenses were paid by the elderly individual. A lot of the over 75 crowd were very frugal and saved every extra penny, so were able to pay for their own care when it was needed.

My own parents never made very much- in fact, I and my siblings all qualified for Pell Grants. But they saved a lot, especially after the kids grew up and left home. They were able to completely pay for their own care.

In fact, it would have been difficult to use up all their savings to qualify for Medicaid. And they would have been too embarrassed to take Medicaid, anyway. Same story for the elderly parents of many of my cousins.

My parents always said that the best gift they could give their kids was to be able to pay for their own care in old age, and they were right. And this was a very common belief among their working class/blue collar peers.

You do not take into consideration many factors here, including luck. Our blue collar parents also believed similarly. In fact, this belief caused my father a great deal of anxiety in his last years. They had five kids: one with a graduate degree, two with bachelor’s, one with an associate’s, and the fifth with a syndrome that did not allow them to live independently or earn a living wage for the duration of their middle age life. While our parents were frugal, they were never able to set aside the sufficient amount of money to pay for LTC, partially because of having one child at home for 55 years. Both of our parents qualified for Medicaid LTC. Of course that meant no assets for intergenerational transfer, something that would have greatly assisted two of our siblings who have been steadily employed but are not well off by any measure due to working in nonprofit jobs.

My parents would not have wanted to take Medicaid LTC but that was the only option. The only sibling living in the area was single, worked FT, and was always at risk of being laid off in their industry. I live 4+ hours away by plane, have the most assets of any of us, and paying for my parents LTC would have meant no college for our kids and a severe hit on our retirement funds. And we also still had the care of one of our siblings.

My parents did not have union jobs, so no pension, no LTC insurance benefit, etc. The folks I know who were able to live similarly to your parents had better paying blue collar jobs - pension, good health care, etc. All that helped with savings, etc. The ones who did not have those kinds of jobs nearly all have had to use Medicaid LTC when they were no longer able to live at home/on own.

PP, perhaps what you witnessed was not necessarily some higher virtue, but your parents living in an era when they were able to make those kinds of savings for their later years and also didn’t have life time financial obligations with their children or other family members. You even admit that your parents were able to save more when all the children left home.

[Anonymous]

42% of long term care in America is paid for by Medicad. Also 40% of American births. If anyone is foolish enough to believe that American families can afford to lose that coverage it’s because they are too dumb to understand how unaffordable health care is in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:42% of long term care in America is paid for by Medicad. Also 40% of American births. If anyone is foolish enough to believe that American families can afford to lose that coverage it’s because they are too dumb to understand how unaffordable health care is in this country.

I think what ppl usually forget is that many if not most of those who qualify for Medicaid LTC are immigrants who arrived via family reunification with their kids and haven’t worked here and therefore don’t have savings or income. It’s effectively spent on people who didn’t contribute and whose kids can afford paying for their care but they are not obligated so they don’t.

[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.

Do you have a cite for this?

For what exactly? You can google “IHSS eligibility and migration status in California” for example.
Or do you think it’s not a money pit?