Big Beautiful Bill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all those rural and small town voters in Texas, Missouri, Indiana and elsewhere will be reaping the whirlwind in the years ahead. 17 million of them are about to lose their health insurance. Rural hospitals will be closing. Their monthly energy bills will be skyrocketing. Alternative energy jobs are gone. I have no idea how small town America is going to make it through. Plus, while markets may be up, the value of the dollar has declined by 15 percent since Trump took office, which is far more impactful to rural America than those with a 401k account. For the farmers, their source of labor is gone. They are either getting deported or they're not crossing the border to begin with. Plus Republicans have wrecked their ag markets with their dumb trade wars. And obviously any rural voter that voted over the deficit has clearly been hoodwinked. Republicans just added another $3.3 trillion of debt.

These voters will be very reachable in 2028. We are here today because Democrats anointed a deeply unpopular 83 year old geriatric as their candidate. And followed up at the last minute with a deeply unpopular VP who couldn't even make it to the Iowa caucuses when she ran, much less win Iowa. This would be a very different America if Democrats actually had an open primary. We'll see what Democrats do this time. The path is cleared for them. But if they continue to roll with their corrupt and cynical old guard - like Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons - or embrace the wealthy dilettante progressives like Mamdani in NYC - they will still lose even in the face of idiocy of the GOP. This is the moment for Democrats. And I am not optimistic.

It all depends how you look at it.

Millions will lose Medicaid. Do the people that pay the bills for it via federal taxes and matching state taxes want to pay for health insurance for complete strangers? You seem to think they are OK with getting less in their pay check for one of your dreams, hopes and aspirations.

I'm not so sure. All you seem to care about is shifting burdens of others to the middle class for health care, education, climate initiatives to make you feel better and you basically have a robin hood view of the world. That's ALL that seems to drive you. Hint: your view isn't everyone's view.

So we back to everyone getting basic care at the emergency room covered by tox dollars by the taxpayers. That was so great and now it's great again!

100% and everyone who works in healthcare knows it. Most of us have been sounding the alarms about this and I know at least in my case, emailing my reps about it.

Medicaid for millions will go away and your private insurance costs WILL go up. Those with private insurance will pay more for their services to account for the services those without insurance will get.

Those who had Medicaid will still get free medical care. As long as they don't go to a private hospital, we have to treat them regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. Your insurance and procedure costs will go up slightly to account for the influx of uninsured patients we'll see.

And instead of those on Medicaid seeing their PCPs for ongoing health management, they'll ignore minor issues and let them build up until they are emergent issues that bring them to the ER. We'll start seeing an influx of people with minor ailments like strep, toothaches, and sprains that they would have gone to their PCP or Urgent Care for when they had Medicaid.

I would not be shocked to see 30-40% added to all medical procedure costs over the next few years once these people are kicked off Medicaid. Because if there's one thing that healthcare systems will NOT do is lose money.

Here's a simple example: A box of band-aids costs $1 for 10 band-aids. That's $0.10 each. But hospitals need to make a profit, duh!
You come into the ER with private insurance, so we charge you $0.50 to account for the 'work' of applying it for you and to account for the others who will come in without the ability to pay for that item or who come in with Medicaid, which has strict rules on how much we can charge for everything.
Like Medicaid Mary. Mary comes into the ER for a band-aid and her Medicaid specifies that we can only charge $0.12 for that band-aid. $0.02 is not a great profit for Big Healthcare, but because we already up charged the private insurance person by 400%, we're still making a nice profit for the day.

Now do that with every procedure, medicine, and item in the hospital and that's how they stay profitable. Your costs cover your service + the service of a few others that they know will not be able to pay or who they can't overcharge.

Or more hospitals will close, which means even if you do have private insurance you'll have to drive hours to get seen by a doctor. definitely a win all around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the moment, the Senate clearly doesn't have the votes. As far as I can tell, Paul, Tillis, Murkowski and maybe Collins are holding out? Or perhaps McConnell? Hard to say who the 4th is.

Have Murkowski and Collins ever held out on any vote? They just pretend to to fool their dumb constituents.

Susan Collins is the absolute worst. I do not understand how Mainers continually vote against their self interests. Maine has a n older population, the Medicaid cuts would be a problem to say the least.

+1 There’s a 20% sequester of Medicare too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, all those rural and small town voters in Texas, Missouri, Indiana and elsewhere will be reaping the whirlwind in the years ahead. 17 million of them are about to lose their health insurance. Rural hospitals will be closing. Their monthly energy bills will be skyrocketing. Alternative energy jobs are gone. I have no idea how small town America is going to make it through. Plus, while markets may be up, the value of the dollar has declined by 15 percent since Trump took office, which is far more impactful to rural America than those with a 401k account. For the farmers, their source of labor is gone. They are either getting deported or they're not crossing the border to begin with. Plus Republicans have wrecked their ag markets with their dumb trade wars. And obviously any rural voter that voted over the deficit has clearly been hoodwinked. Republicans just added another $3.3 trillion of debt.

These voters will be very reachable in 2028. We are here today because Democrats anointed a deeply unpopular 83 year old geriatric as their candidate. And followed up at the last minute with a deeply unpopular VP who couldn't even make it to the Iowa caucuses when she ran, much less win Iowa. This would be a very different America if Democrats actually had an open primary. We'll see what Democrats do this time. The path is cleared for them. But if they continue to roll with their corrupt and cynical old guard - like Pelosi, Schumer, the Clintons - or embrace the wealthy dilettante progressives like Mamdani in NYC - they will still lose even in the face of idiocy of the GOP. This is the moment for Democrats. And I am not optimistic.

It all depends how you look at it.

Millions will lose Medicaid. Do the people that pay the bills for it via federal taxes and matching state taxes want to pay for health insurance for complete strangers? You seem to think they are OK with getting less in their pay check for one of your dreams, hopes and aspirations.

I'm not so sure. All you seem to care about is shifting burdens of others to the middle class for health care, education, climate initiatives to make you feel better and you basically have a robin hood view of the world. That's ALL that seems to drive you. Hint: your view isn't everyone's view.

So we back to everyone getting basic care at the emergency room covered by tox dollars by the taxpayers. That was so great and now it's great again!

100% and everyone who works in healthcare knows it. Most of us have been sounding the alarms about this and I know at least in my case, emailing my reps about it.

Medicaid for millions will go away and your private insurance costs WILL go up. Those with private insurance will pay more for their services to account for the services those without insurance will get.

Those who had Medicaid will still get free medical care. As long as they don't go to a private hospital, we have to treat them regardless of insurance status or ability to pay. Your insurance and procedure costs will go up slightly to account for the influx of uninsured patients we'll see.

And instead of those on Medicaid seeing their PCPs for ongoing health management, they'll ignore minor issues and let them build up until they are emergent issues that bring them to the ER. We'll start seeing an influx of people with minor ailments like strep, toothaches, and sprains that they would have gone to their PCP or Urgent Care for when they had Medicaid.

I would not be shocked to see 30-40% added to all medical procedure costs over the next few years once these people are kicked off Medicaid. Because if there's one thing that healthcare systems will NOT do is lose money.

Here's a simple example: A box of band-aids costs $1 for 10 band-aids. That's $0.10 each. But hospitals need to make a profit, duh!
You come into the ER with private insurance, so we charge you $0.50 to account for the 'work' of applying it for you and to account for the others who will come in without the ability to pay for that item or who come in with Medicaid, which has strict rules on how much we can charge for everything.
Like Medicaid Mary. Mary comes into the ER for a band-aid and her Medicaid specifies that we can only charge $0.12 for that band-aid. $0.02 is not a great profit for Big Healthcare, but because we already up charged the private insurance person by 400%, we're still making a nice profit for the day.

Now do that with every procedure, medicine, and item in the hospital and that's how they stay profitable. Your costs cover your service + the service of a few others that they know will not be able to pay or who they can't overcharge.

Or more hospitals will close, which means even if you do have private insurance you'll have to drive hours to get seen by a doctor. definitely a win all around.

Don't forget that the risk pool for Obamacare will likely shrink as people forgo insurance, which would raise those premiums as well. All the small business, S-corp individual proprietors etc. will have to fork out more. The bond market hasn't freaked out yet -- that's another shoe waiting to drop.

[Anonymous]

Explain SALT for DC residents making 180k year. Asking for a friend.

What about capital gains tax for selling 2nd home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now all those people will go to the ER. And if they are admitted and don’t have a family
member to pick them up once discharged? They get to stay at the hospital indefinitely on our dime! (Happens way too often at my sister’s hospital in a major city).

They will be deported upon release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the moment, the Senate clearly doesn't have the votes. As far as I can tell, Paul, Tillis, Murkowski and maybe Collins are holding out? Or perhaps McConnell? Hard to say who the 4th is.

Have Murkowski and Collins ever held out on any vote? They just pretend to to fool their dumb constituents.

Susan Collins is the absolute worst. I do not understand how Mainers continually vote against their self interests. Maine has a n older population, the Medicaid cuts would be a problem to say the least.

+1 There’s a 20% sequester of Medicare too.

They are on Medicare not Medicaid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain SALT for DC residents making 180k year. Asking for a friend.

What about capital gains tax for selling 2nd home?

Most DC resident will pay somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 (closer to 10) in SALT every year, so instead of the standard deduction, they will be able to deducts both their property tax and their D-40 state income tax each year, if it comes to over $27,000, then they itemize it and take that instead of the standard 27,000 deduction.

[Anonymous]

Another way this bill will hurt poor families- cuts to Pell grants

https://time.com/7299237/budget-could-cut-pell-grants/#t8o6dantfl7dz8itnhobajppv2q5pnl5g

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now all those people will go to the ER. And if they are admitted and don’t have a family
member to pick them up once discharged? They get to stay at the hospital indefinitely on our dime! (Happens way too often at my sister’s hospital in a major city).

They will be deported upon release.

US citizens being deported

[Anonymous]

Murkoswki said she changed her vote to No after the voting ended!

This pea-brained, craven, coward of a Senator doesn't understand the primary requirement of her job, or wants everyone to think she doesn't.

https://www.newsweek.com/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-lisa-murkowski-vote-2093246

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain SALT for DC residents making 180k year. Asking for a friend.

What about capital gains tax for selling 2nd home?

Most DC resident will pay somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000 (closer to 10) in SALT every year, so instead of the standard deduction, they will be able to deducts both their property tax and their D-40 state income tax each year, if it comes to over $27,000, then they itemize it and take that instead of the standard 27,000 deduction.

Yep. A lot of people in rural districts losing Medicaid and snap so I can get more SALT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Murkoswki said she changed her vote to No after the voting ended!

This pea-brained, craven, coward of a Senator doesn't understand the primary requirement of her job, or wants everyone to think she doesn't.

https://www.newsweek.com/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-lisa-murkowski-vote-2093246

That's not what she said (or did) and that's not what the Newsweek article says.

Actually, I can see her logic. The House Republicans have sworn up and down that they won't pass the Senate bill, they will work on it more. Which is what she wants. But if she had voted No, then the House wouldn't be able to work on it more and everyone, every Republican, would be stuck with nothing. In that light, her "reluctant Yes" makes sense. Depending upon what the House does.

[Anonymous]

https://www.newsweek.com/insanity-democrats-call-out-republican-snap-cuts-proposal-2092892

This is crazy. States with high payment errors for snap will get to delay the new cost sharing requirements! This was to bail out Alaska and now it applies to more states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkoswki said she changed her vote to No after the voting ended!

This pea-brained, craven, coward of a Senator doesn't understand the primary requirement of her job, or wants everyone to think she doesn't.

https://www.newsweek.com/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-lisa-murkowski-vote-2093246

That's not what she said (or did) and that's not what the Newsweek article says.

Actually, I can see her logic. The House Republicans have sworn up and down that they won't pass the Senate bill, they will work on it more. Which is what she wants. But if she had voted No, then the House wouldn't be able to work on it more and everyone, every Republican, would be stuck with nothing. In that light, her "reluctant Yes" makes sense. Depending upon what the House does.

The House is going to vote yes because House Republicans are more afraid of Trump than they are their own constituents (or Elon). Sad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Murkoswki said she changed her vote to No after the voting ended!

This pea-brained, craven, coward of a Senator doesn't understand the primary requirement of her job, or wants everyone to think she doesn't.

https://www.newsweek.com/big-beautiful-bill-donald-trump-lisa-murkowski-vote-2093246

That's not what she said (or did) and that's not what the Newsweek article says.

Actually, I can see her logic. The House Republicans have sworn up and down that they won't pass the Senate bill, they will work on it more. Which is what she wants. But if she had voted No, then the House wouldn't be able to work on it more and everyone, every Republican, would be stuck with nothing. In that light, her "reluctant Yes" makes sense. Depending upon what the House does.

The House is going to vote yes because House Republicans are more afraid of Trump than they are their own constituents (or Elon). Sad!

Maybe. But rather than pass it tomorrow, they may work on it more which would then lead to conference or sending a new bill to the Senate. There are major divisions in the House between the fiscal hawks and the moderates. And the Senate bill is worse than the House bill, for both sides, rather than better for either.

Trump is pushing the July 4 deadline but it's completely artificial. Delaying another few weeks would be fine.