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?

Well, to state it baldly, I’ve been paying taxes since I was 14 — including mandatory deductions for future healthcare and some degree of financial security. I’d much rather pay for healthcare than military parades and tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations. So, yes, if I’m going to pay half of my income — although it would take much less than that to do the job well — I’m fine with it being spent on healthcare.

Welp, I've been paying taxes also since I was 17 and I'm hearing more and more chatter about SS and Medicare being wiped out by overpromising in the next ten years.

So, while you want to keep paying, Bernie Madoff's Scheme did go broke and it was a math problem. How are you going to ensure it stays viable? Just take more and more from workers?

Don't terll me the rich, because that's always the relief valve you run to when you have no answers. Be realistic.

(or states pushing Medicaid Expansion)

Anonymous wrote:How are all those rural people on medicaid going to find jobs? There are no jobs there.

When pushing policy like M4A (Medicare for All), it there ever a realization that there are limited resources?

Where does that realization enter the equation?

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.

Anonymous wrote:How are all those rural people on medicaid going to find jobs? There are no jobs there.

Gosh darn! I guess they’ll have to suffer. Or build a Walmart. Or move to places with jobs — oh, wait! that’s kind of hard to do with the financial resources that would qualify someone for Medicaid. I’m sure the brilliant minds behind these big beautiful plans have it all figured out for the good of our citizens. (Raging sarcasm should be clear.)

I know a 63 year old woman whose life became derailed due to medical problems. She lived in a mobile home and had a couple of heart attacks and other problems and spent a couple of months in the hospital. She didn't have anyone to mow her patch of lawn and when she came home was physically not able to do it. The park imposed steep fines she couldn't pay and ended up evicting her. She did not have the means to move her trailer so they had it hauled away and got a judgment of a few thousand more against her for that. She had more hospitalizations--another couple of months where she had muscle tissue breaking down causing kidney failure was one. Shhas rheumatoid arthritis and a blown disk and uses a walker. She lived in her car last winter. She got 6 months of rent help (another federally-funded state program than is going away) but her rent is 2/3 of her SS disability income. Most of the rest goes to a storage unit for the belongings that don't fit in her tiny studio. She had applied for housing assistance but confirmation came while she was in the hospital and she missed it.

In connection with the trailer house debacle she ended up owing utilities of a few thousand for gas and electric. Now she can't even get utilities for where she lives because they want that paid back.

She made a bad decision 30 years ago, becoming a meth addict with her then husband. She spent a year in a state prison, got clean, clean ever since, but a felony record so few places would hire her--she got jobs paying $8/hr. Now they would probably do a diversion program and her record reduced to a misdemeanor at worst. But we can have a self-proclaimed drug user (yes, I know K is legal but ecstacy is not and I think he's also talked about mushrooms) using the Oval Office as his playpen (and I don't mean his kid) with no repercussions.

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?

Well, to state it baldly, I’ve been paying taxes since I was 14 — including mandatory deductions for future healthcare and some degree of financial security. I’d much rather pay for healthcare than military parades and tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations. So, yes, if I’m going to pay half of my income — although it would take much less than that to do the job well — I’m fine with it being spent on healthcare.

How are all those rural people on medicaid going to find jobs? There are no jobs there.

Not going away but definitely crippled. It starts by doubling the burden on states for recertifying MA recipients by increasing frequency, adds an additional requirement for states to go through databases, including FEDERAL databases, to look for deceased providers or ones that have been banned. The work reporting requirements will add a substantial burden to recipients AND agencies (note that 64% already work and many of the others are either medically unable to work or are caregivers, so it will be a lot of extra work with little to show for it).

There are several mechanisms to disrupt coverage. Under both CHIPs (where a premium is paid) and Medicaid, if you lose coverage for some reason (like missing paperwork)and need to re-enroll, they will go back 3 months if income eligible, that's cut to one month. Post-partum eligibility goes from a year to I think 90 days, maybe even just 60 (as it was in the mid 90s).

There are programs --not sure what the budget source is, might be medicaid dollars--to assist low income Medicare recipients (who are over the medicaid limits) with part B premium payments, drug costs, etc. The limits for them are not huge--around $10,000 in assets (Medicaid has a $2000 limit for an individual, unchanged in at least 30 years) nor are income limits. These programs will be gone period.

There are issues with autopay Medicare Advantage payments paid by Medicaid when people move to a different state (and get coverage in the new state) or become deceased. So they will be coming down hard on residency reporting requirements--putting the burden on recipients and states instead of figuring out some other method for a problem that is in the system, not the people getting benefits.

A big part of it will be driving people away through burdensome paperwork, narrower eligibility.

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?

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.

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.

To add: I wonder, now, if the work requirements that will accompany the ability to get Medicaid for working aged adults has been deliberately crafted to provide more part-time workers for corporations like Walmart?

Also, as the elderly lose nursing home care benefits, and other adults lose basic Medicaid benefits, nursing homes and even hospitals— often employment anchors for communities, especially smaller communities— will close. There will be political ramifications for this.

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.

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.

Earlier this week, a lawyer told me about the lookback period for Medicaid if my parent needs to apply for Medicaid one day. My parent won't need Medicaid, but this had me wondering if it would even be around for elderly people to apply for if they run out of money??