Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im not sure I understand your question? If she’s there, and Medicaid is paying, what makes you think they’d stop? Your relative, at their age, also has Medicare

Medicare doesn’t pay for nursing homes.

So how do people pay for nursing homes? It's very expensive

The overwhelming majority pay with Medicaid.

Are you a US adult and just discovering this?!

This. Most elderly run out of money, have to sell their house, and end up bankrupt before starting Medicaid.

No offense, but that's the way it's supposed to work. Medicaid is there when you have no money. You're supposed to save for retirement, spend your money on retirement. And if you run out, Medicaid is there. So many people want to hoard their money or pass it on to the next generation, while having Medicaid pay for their care.

Really, the ideal would be for social programs including Medicaid to pay for more people to be cared for at home. It is dramatically cheaper than congregate care, raises quality of life, and is barely available in the US to people who cannot privately pay for it. This bill does nothing towards that end even though it also would have been a way--a much more humane way--of reducing costs.

How do you figure that it's cheaper? When we researched this for an elderly family member, assisted living cost $10k per month, while caregivers at home cost $30k per month.

Assisted living is not the same as having a dedicated caregiver 24/7, which is why the latter costs much more. In AL many residents share the services of a small number of home health aids, and maybe of a nursing assistant, with perhaps a single RN for an entire building at any given time. The residents are mostly on their own for most purposes, receiving intermittent help and attention throughout the day, but nowhere near continuously. For this reason some people supplement institutional AL employees with some number of privately hired personal aids who support only their individual family member for a certain number of hours each day.

24/7 care, whether in-home or in a nursing home setting is much more expensive because the staff to resident ratio is 1 to 1, or close to that, rather than 1 to 6, even up to 1 to 20.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay tuned. Overspending by the GOP will trigger automatic cuts in Medicare.

Government has been overspending for over a century.
Government will continue to overspend until it all crashes. Fiat currency be like it be.

Government hasn’t been overspending. It has been under taxing the rich.

The top 1% of earners paid 46% of federal income taxes in 2021, despite earning 15% of total income, according to the National Taxpayers Union.

The top 10% paid 75%, while the bottom 50% paid 2%.

The Joint Committee on Taxation confirms millionaires pay an average effective tax rate 3.5 times higher than most Americans.

What about billionaires with their fancy ways of extracting funds from their investments? It's not income so it's not taxed. They need to pay.

If we took all the billionaires’ money and funneled it towards Medicaid and Medicare, how long do you think it would last?

The top 5 percent of earners currently pay on average a 23 percent tax rate. If that was raised (through increases on various forms of income) to an average of 25 percent, the amount they would contribute would go from $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion a year, or about $100 billion a year. An average 2 percent tax increase. Its not going to save Medicaid and Medicare but its about how much they are planning to cut per year through the OBBB.

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that can even touch the problem. If the full $100 billion went towards Medicaid alone- and no where else - it won’t make a dent. Medicaid alone cost over $870 billion in 2023. Medicare cost $848 billion in 2023. Upping the tax rate on billionaires, while arbitrary, doesn’t cause me much heartburn. However, it won’t make any difference and we still have the same problem.

Well CUTTING the taxes on the rich doesn't help, and definitely hurts. And that's what Congress did. And republican member after member went on TV, went to town halls, went on record saying nothing would be cut except waste, fraud, and abuse. I didn't hear any of the ones that voted for it say that states would have to raise state income taxes to make up for less federal spending, that there might have to be cuts to other state spending to backfill Medicaid, that optional services and populations (like 18-21 year olds, or physical therapy and eyeglasses) might have to be cut, or that Medicaid providers would have to be paid less across the board.

Sure, I agree that cutting taxes that would support these programs isn’t helping the situation at all. But even if we wholesale took all the money from our billionaires and put it towards Medicaid and Medicare, all that money wouldn’t fund those programs beyond a couple of years and that’s optimistic. And we’re experiencing a shortfall as it is.

It’s easy to disagree with these changes and people will be harmed. But a tax increase won’t make even a dent in the problems here. The financial problems are so much bigger than throwing an extra billion at it.

Anonymous wrote:I am not understanding the question. We don't know if they will cut long-term care medicaid to pay for nursing homes or not. If they did, not sure what their plan would be to care for all these people.

nothing. Push it on the kids or states

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im not sure I understand your question? If she’s there, and Medicaid is paying, what makes you think they’d stop? Your relative, at their age, also has Medicare

Medicare doesn’t pay for nursing homes.

So how do people pay for nursing homes? It's very expensive

The overwhelming majority pay with Medicaid.

Are you a US adult and just discovering this?!

This. Most elderly run out of money, have to sell their house, and end up bankrupt before starting Medicaid.

No offense, but that's the way it's supposed to work. Medicaid is there when you have no money. You're supposed to save for retirement, spend your money on retirement. And if you run out, Medicaid is there. So many people want to hoard their money or pass it on to the next generation, while having Medicaid pay for their care.

Really, the ideal would be for social programs including Medicaid to pay for more people to be cared for at home. It is dramatically cheaper than congregate care, raises quality of life, and is barely available in the US to people who cannot privately pay for it. This bill does nothing towards that end even though it also would have been a way--a much more humane way--of reducing costs.

How do you figure that it's cheaper? When we researched this for an elderly family member, assisted living cost $10k per month, while caregivers at home cost $30k per month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Im not sure I understand your question? If she’s there, and Medicaid is paying, what makes you think they’d stop? Your relative, at their age, also has Medicare

Medicare doesn’t pay for nursing homes.

So how do people pay for nursing homes? It's very expensive

The overwhelming majority pay with Medicaid.

Are you a US adult and just discovering this?!

This. Most elderly run out of money, have to sell their house, and end up bankrupt before starting Medicaid.

No offense, but that's the way it's supposed to work. Medicaid is there when you have no money. You're supposed to save for retirement, spend your money on retirement. And if you run out, Medicaid is there. So many people want to hoard their money or pass it on to the next generation, while having Medicaid pay for their care.

Really, the ideal would be for social programs including Medicaid to pay for more people to be cared for at home. It is dramatically cheaper than congregate care, raises quality of life, and is barely available in the US to people who cannot privately pay for it. This bill does nothing towards that end even though it also would have been a way--a much more humane way--of reducing costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stay tuned. Overspending by the GOP will trigger automatic cuts in Medicare.

Government has been overspending for over a century.
Government will continue to overspend until it all crashes. Fiat currency be like it be.

Government hasn’t been overspending. It has been under taxing the rich.

The top 1% of earners paid 46% of federal income taxes in 2021, despite earning 15% of total income, according to the National Taxpayers Union.

The top 10% paid 75%, while the bottom 50% paid 2%.

The Joint Committee on Taxation confirms millionaires pay an average effective tax rate 3.5 times higher than most Americans.

What about billionaires with their fancy ways of extracting funds from their investments? It's not income so it's not taxed. They need to pay.

If we took all the billionaires’ money and funneled it towards Medicaid and Medicare, how long do you think it would last?

The top 5 percent of earners currently pay on average a 23 percent tax rate. If that was raised (through increases on various forms of income) to an average of 25 percent, the amount they would contribute would go from $1.3 trillion to $1.4 trillion a year, or about $100 billion a year. An average 2 percent tax increase. Its not going to save Medicaid and Medicare but its about how much they are planning to cut per year through the OBBB.

I get what you’re saying but I don’t think that can even touch the problem. If the full $100 billion went towards Medicaid alone- and no where else - it won’t make a dent. Medicaid alone cost over $870 billion in 2023. Medicare cost $848 billion in 2023. Upping the tax rate on billionaires, while arbitrary, doesn’t cause me much heartburn. However, it won’t make any difference and we still have the same problem.

Well CUTTING the taxes on the rich doesn't help, and definitely hurts. And that's what Congress did. And republican member after member went on TV, went to town halls, went on record saying nothing would be cut except waste, fraud, and abuse. I didn't hear any of the ones that voted for it say that states would have to raise state income taxes to make up for less federal spending, that there might have to be cuts to other state spending to backfill Medicaid, that optional services and populations (like 18-21 year olds, or physical therapy and eyeglasses) might have to be cut, or that Medicaid providers would have to be paid less across the board.