Big Beautiful Bill: Implications for Pain...

Started by drusso
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Taking another look at the tax bill: i dont think i really like it. it appears as though i wont benefit from the increased SALT limit. charitable deductions are essentially gone. i can no loner deduct tax preparation fees and financial planning fees, and there is this Pease limitation.

this bill really hits high income W-2 wage earners.

it keeps my tax bracket where it is, but the small portion of the tax that would have put my in a higher bracket is offset by the badness above.

not pleased. the uber rich get off scott-free. the semi-rich like us dont really get much help and in some cases may be worse off.

ducttape should be happy with it.


every post i have made suggesting taxing should be more fair is targeted specifically at the ultra rich, not the middle class that thinks they are ultra rich.

club, you are not anywhere close to the ultra rich group. you will never be in this group, barring winning the lottery or inheriting billions from a long lost relative.

===

no i am not happy with it.

i wont benefit from the tax changes like i did not benefit from the previous trump tax law. those making less than $1 million wont benefit.

i might have been happy paying more of my fair share of taxes if i had seen that the bill helped those who are worse off than i am, but it does the exact opposite.

this bill is not and was never for us, only the ultra rich.
 
IMG_2947.jpeg

IMG_2875.jpeg

Just coming back from a vacation to Redwood national park and Crater Lake national park. Boy that must really grind those capitalist gears. The US government spends about $5 billion a year on national parks. Instead we could just sell off all that land to private equity at tremendous profit and let them manage it so much more efficiently. Instead of just one old lodge at the top of crater lake rim, they could have 6 different resort hotels, a couple Starbucks, and a bunch of fast food places around the rim. And all that old growth redwood on the coast just sitting there going to waste? Imagine how much people would pay to have the last of the old growth redwoods to make siding for their houses! And right now people can just show up and walk among those trees for free. Your tax dollars being wasted!

1753372352458.png

Now there’s some real beauty! Look at that efficient distribution of market resources. Towering monuments to human accomplishment.
 
Last edited:
Taking another look at the tax bill: i dont think i really like it. it appears as though i wont benefit from the increased SALT limit. charitable deductions are essentially gone. i can no loner deduct tax preparation fees and financial planning fees, and there is this Pease limitation.

this bill really hits high income W-2 wage earners.

it keeps my tax bracket where it is, but the small portion of the tax that would have put my in a higher bracket is offset by the badness above.

not pleased. the uber rich get off scott-free. the semi-rich like us dont really get much help and in some cases may be worse off.

ducttape should be happy with it.
Yeah I said the exact same thing on here last week. Welcome to the forum. SALT changes likely don’t help us and my deductions to charity are cut. That’s why I said I’m going to start bunching

And duct is more interested in taxing the rich as long as it doesn’t include him. That’s the irony in his ideology. If he truly believed and practiced what he preached, he would double his tax payments as a gesture of paying his fair share believing that our “efficient and benevolent” government will use the money to cure all of society’s ills. He knows it’s all poppy cock though
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
View attachment 406989
View attachment 406990
Just coming back from a vacation to Redwood national park and Crater Lake national park. Boy that must really grind those capitalist gears. The US government spends about $5 billion a year on national parks. Instead we could just sell off all that land to private equity at tremendous profit and let them manage it so much more efficiently. Instead of just one old lodge at the top of crater lake rim, they could have 6 different resort hotels, a couple Starbucks, and a bunch of fast food places around the rim. And all that old growth redwood on the coast just sitting there going to waste? Imagine how much people would pay to have the last of the old growth redwoods to make siding for their houses! And right now people can just show up and walk among those trees for free. Your tax dollars being wasted!
looks like an Ewok should pop out from behind those ferns.
 
Yeah I said the exact same thing on here last week. Welcome to the forum. SALT changes likely don’t help us and my deductions to charity are cut. That’s why I said I’m going to start bunching

And duct is more interested in taxing the rich as long as it doesn’t include him. That’s the irony in his ideology. If he truly believed and practiced what he preached, he would double his tax payments as a gesture of paying his fair share believing that our “efficient and benevolent” government will use the money to cure all of society’s ills. He knows it’s all poppy cock though
the bunching is an interesting strategy, but it looks like it could get pretty complicated with the new charity and SALT rules. ill talk to the accountant about it.
 
looks like an Ewok should pop out from behind those ferns.
Redwood national park and surrounding lands are where the Endor scenes were filmed. If you’ve never been, it’s worth a trip. There’s nothing else like it in the world. The tallest tree in the world is somewhere in Redwood national park, but they keep the location a secret so tourists don’t trample it.
 
Redwood national park and surrounding lands are where the Endor scenes were filmed. If you’ve never been, it’s worth a trip. There’s nothing else like it in the world. The tallest tree in the world is somewhere in Redwood national park, but they keep the location a secret so tourists don’t trample it.
ive been. it's cool.


also, scoop of chocolate scoop of vanilla on the star wars trivia.
 
Yeah I said the exact same thing on here last week. Welcome to the forum. SALT changes likely don’t help us and my deductions to charity are cut. That’s why I said I’m going to start bunching

And duct is more interested in taxing the rich as long as it doesn’t include him. That’s the irony in his ideology. If he truly believed and practiced what he preached, he would double his tax payments as a gesture of paying his fair share believing that our “efficient and benevolent” government will use the money to cure all of society’s ills. He knows it’s all poppy cock though
another ludicrous idea and logical fallacy.

doubling my tax payments does absolutely nothing to change the systemic problems involved with the underlying debt or go to improve the lot of those who are disadvantaged in our country.



i am not of the upper class. i am maybe of the upper middle class. same with you. these taxes ultimately hurt us, and those who are worse off than us.

you on the other hand should be more cognizant that the republicans and the big beautiful bill were written to hurt you not to benefit you, and that your support of these measures encourages further punitive measures against you.
 
Progressives need to let go of trying to control conservative states, that's the bottleneck in thinking here.

The funniest thing I've ever heard is liberals insisting that all safety net programs must be controlled in Washington because they care so much about protecting people in conservative states.

Give it a rest. Focus on making your own state a socialist paradise with complete income and wealth parity and fairness for all. And leave the rest of us out of it.
 
So drop Medicare, social security, and Medicaid and let the states handle it.

I'm sure that's real popular with conservative Republican voters.
 
So drop Medicare, social security, and Medicaid and let the states handle it.

I'm sure that's real popular with conservative Republican voters.
It depends. If SS can be fixed with some minor tweaks with solid bipartisan support, then great.

Otherwise shift all of them to states, where there will be different, innovative solutions specific to the populations affected.

Can you imagine if the EU tried to enact "single payer" over all member states like liberals are trying to do here?
 
So drop Medicare, social security, and Medicaid and let the states handle it.

I'm sure that's real popular with conservative Republican voters.
Spending needs to be cut. No way around it. We’re sending like drunken sailors. If you ran your house like our government runs the budget you’d be bankrupt yesterday. Cut cut cut
 
It depends. If SS can be fixed with some minor tweaks with solid bipartisan support, then great.

Otherwise shift all of them to states, where there will be different, innovative solutions specific to the populations affected.

Can you imagine if the EU tried to enact "single payer" over all member states like liberals are trying to do here?
Not sure what you have in mind to 'fix' social security.

But if you want SS and Medicare run by the states, it would be a complete mess. You will decimate job mobility. People will be tied to their state if their benefits are at stake. Then you have to figure how to keep people off of benefits who have moved to the state but haven't worked there.
 
Not sure what you have in mind to 'fix' social security.

But if you want SS and Medicare run by the states, it would be a complete mess. You will decimate job mobility. People will be tied to their state if their benefits are at stake. Then you have to figure how to keep people off of benefits who have moved to the state but haven't worked there.
It seems like SS would be pretty easy to fix. Either raise the age or raise the deposits or decrease the spending like ssdi. I don't think it's that hard and most ppl support SS.

So how will Medicare being state run DECIMATE job mobility? Does Medicaid do that?

I would be looking at something very gradual, where an alternative to Medicare is made available. Traditional Medicare is already being replaced by Advantage plans if you haven't noticed.
 
Last edited:
It seems like SS would be pretty easy to fix. Either raise the age or raise the deposits or decrease the spending like ssdi. I don't think it's that hard and most ppl support SS.

So how will Medicare being state run DECIMATE job mobility? Does Medicaid do that?

I would be looking at something very gradual, where an alternative to Medicare is made available. Traditional Medicare is already being replaced by Advantage plans if you haven't noticed.
Raising SS age is completely different than shifting it to the states. You implied in your previous posts states should be in charge of the safety net, not the federal government.

Federal government provides funding and minimum guidelines for Medicare and Medicaid. Shifting complete control to states means they fund on their own. So if I work in New Mexico, who's to say my state Medicare will pay for health insurance services in Texas? What if Texas chooses to abolish Medicare and I've already paid into a system in another state?
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Federal government provides funding and minimum guidelines for Medicare and Medicaid. Shifting complete control to states means they fund on their own. So if I work in New Mexico, who's to say my state Medicare will pay for health insurance services in Texas? What if Texas chooses to abolish Medicare and I've already paid into a system in another state?
The price to having exclusively state run healthcare systems will definitely be non uniformity across states.

People who travel frequently and rely on state healthcare will have to take this into consideration.

I would absolutely expect that, as in the EU, reciprocity agreements will be made between states. An EU citizen can use any system when traveling. Some are waaay better than others. That nonuniformity is a price worth paying imo.

Is Medicaid valid across all states? I haven't heard an outcry about this.
 
The price to having exclusively state run healthcare systems will definitely be non uniformity across states.

People who travel frequently and rely on state healthcare will have to take this into consideration.

I would absolutely expect that, as in the EU, reciprocity agreements will be made between states. An EU citizen can use any system when traveling. Some are waaay better than others. That nonuniformity is a price worth paying imo.

Is Medicaid valid across all states? I haven't heard an outcry about this.
Essentially all EU countries have universal healthcare and reciprocity includes reimbursement. This law applies across the EU. Your analogy breaks down because you need an equivalent federally mandated law.

Your expectation that states would have reciprocity agreements means nothing. What if a state opts out of government funded healthcare?50 agreements for every state is a total mess and ripe for chaos.

This is like the flat tax argument, superficially sounds fine but when you look at details it is disconnected from reality.

Edit: in regards to Medicaid, again, it is federally funded. You can still apply to Medicaid in any state you move to (subject to changes) because of federal funding. That would not be the case if it was state funding.
 
Essentially all EU countries have universal healthcare and reciprocity includes reimbursement. This law applies across the EU. Your analogy breaks down because you need an equivalent federally mandated law.

Your expectation that states would have reciprocity agreements means nothing. What if a state opts out of government funded healthcare?50 agreements for every state is a total mess and ripe for chaos.

This is like the flat tax argument, superficially sounds fine but when you look at details it is disconnected from reality.

Edit: in regards to Medicaid, again, it is federally funded. You can still apply to Medicaid in any state you move to (subject to changes) because of federal funding. That would not be the case if it was state funding.
It's always "chaos" that liberals fear the most. Not tyranny, not corruption. It's always "chaos"...

What would naturally happen without any federal mandate, is states would form an organization and establish bylaws to govern reciprocity. There may be a few outliers who say they don't want to participate and TOTAL CHAOS would ensue!!!
 
It's always "chaos" that liberals fear the most. Not tyranny, not corruption. It's always "chaos"...

What would naturally happen without any federal mandate, is states would form an organization and establish bylaws to govern reciprocity. There may be a few outliers who say they don't want to participate and TOTAL CHAOS would ensue!!!

To rehash: you backtracked on the SS going to the states. Then you ignore the fact your EU healthcare analogy doesn't work because it is centrally planned, or your Medicaid example doesn't work because that is federally funded and mandated. Just like your prior low taxes Singapore analogy didn't line up as a centrally planned country. Or the flat tax rate fantasy.

Good policy requires one to look into specifics. Once you realize your ideas breakdown when looked at in any level of detail, you resort to thinly veiled ad hominem attack or nonsequiturs denigrating 'liberals.'
 
Not sure what you have in mind to 'fix' social security.

But if you want SS and Medicare run by the states, it would be a complete mess. You will decimate job mobility. People will be tied to their state if their benefits are at stake. Then you have to figure how to keep people off of benefits who have moved to the state but haven't worked there.
a proportion of patients that i have are "healthcare refugees" from Georgia, Alabama, and Florida.


i can tell you - of those patients that have moved south - exactly how many moved down to Florida or Georgia because of health care and it is number that is not greater than 1. i have several snowbirds who to my consternation refuse to find a pain doc down south even after their move.

===
is there state reciprocity at the present time with any element of healthcare?

fwiw, the interstate Medical licensure compact was only put in place in 2013. 40 states are included. interestingly states not included are mostly "blue" states (Va, SC, Ca, Or, NM, NY (both introduced this year), Ma)
 
To rehash: you backtracked on the SS going to the states. Then you ignore the fact your EU healthcare analogy doesn't work because it is centrally planned, or your Medicaid example doesn't work because that is federally funded and mandated. Just like your prior low taxes Singapore analogy didn't line up as a centrally planned country. Or the flat tax rate fantasy.

Good policy requires one to look into specifics. Once you realize your ideas breakdown when looked at in any level of detail, you resort to thinly veiled ad hominem attack or nonsequiturs denigrating 'liberals.'
you have learned about hyperalgesia what we have known for years. well stated.

but i would state that this is the case with nearly all libertarians. they live in the fantasy land of what "should" be rather than reality
 
im not sure about your intentions. the past experience on this forum......

you comment that the constitution stands for limited government and individual rights, which is true, but it does not explicitly stand for capitalism or laissez-faire economy or free market economy. you mention equal opportunity but neglect to note that slaves were considered 3/4 of people and women were not included at all.

logical fallacies need to be called out. looks like you would rather double down on them, essentially saying that i am not american or dont have american ideals so get out.
3/5ths?
 
Essentially all EU countries have universal healthcare and reciprocity includes reimbursement. This law applies across the EU. Your analogy breaks down because you need an equivalent federally mandated law.

Your expectation that states would have reciprocity agreements means nothing. What if a state opts out of government funded healthcare?50 agreements for every state is a total mess and ripe for chaos.

This is like the flat tax argument, superficially sounds fine but when you look at details it is disconnected from reality.

Edit: in regards to Medicaid, again, it is federally funded. You can still apply to Medicaid in any state you move to (subject to changes) because of federal funding. That would not be the case if it was state funding.
Medicaid eligibility and benefits are wildly different state to state. This doesn’t crumble either side of this debate, but it is not currently readily transferable among states. Medicare is run by third party administrators regionally.

The majority of people can (but won’t) vote with their feet, and the most vulnerable are more likely to stay put in their state if origin.

I find it pretty absurd to think a single national payer would be inherently better and a state-based program is not feasible. The point of migration between states is valid and needs a framework to address, but oversight of interstate commerce is one of the fundamental roles of federal government, whereas providing healthcare to all is not.
 
Last edited:
Medicaid eligibility and benefits are wildly different state to state. This doesn’t crumble either side of this debate, but it is not currently readily transferable among states. Medicare is run by third party administrators regionally.

The majority of people can (but won’t) vote with their feet, and the most vulnerable are more likely to stay put in their state if origin.

I find it pretty absurd to think a single national payer would be inherently better and a state-based program is not feasible. The point of migration between states is valid and needs a framework to address, but oversight of interstate commerce is one of the fundamental roles of federal government, whereas providing healthcare to all is not.
Like playing chess with pigeons...
 
Medicaid eligibility and benefits are wildly different state to state. This doesn’t crumble either side of this debate, but it is not currently readily transferable among states. Medicare is run by third party administrators regionally.

The majority of people can (but won’t) vote with their feet, and the most vulnerable are more likely to stay put in their state if origin.

I find it pretty absurd to think a single national payer would be inherently better and a state-based program is not feasible. The point of migration between states is valid and needs a framework to address, but oversight of interstate commerce is one of the fundamental roles of federal government, whereas providing healthcare to all is not.

I did not advocate for a single payer.

The discussion was regarding moving the safety net from federal to full state control. The latter will be more chaotic. This includes SS, Medicare, Medicaid. I never said states should have no role. It needs guardrails at the federal level.

Medicare and the majority of Medicaid are still federally funded. If each state is funding their own completely, then Medicare California is going to have better benefits than Medicare Mississippi. So why would a Mississippi to California migrant be able to buy in to Medicare California? Will Mississippi and California have an agreement? What if they don't? What if Medicare California pays a lot better for doctors? If I paid into Medicare California for 20 years, I don't want to give that up if I have a job in Mississippi. Moving SS is essentially having state pensions.

For Medicaid at least half or more is federally funded and it provides a baseline of what is required with individual states having significant variability. Still, one can move from Mississippi to Colorado and apply for Medicaid (subject to different eligibility). If given full state control, some may move to drop it completely.
 
I don't think anyone has issues with safety nets for the needy. The problem is that our federal gov't has shown that they cannot efficiently and effectively be good stewards of our money. The waste, fraud and abuse of so many bloated programs within our government is jaw dropping and should make every tax paying citizen furious.

We should demand change and that is somewhat what happened with Trump winning the election. I agree though, unfortunately the BBB did not do enough to reign in costs but I guarantee expenditures would've increased more under Kamala. These potentially would have been offset by certain increased taxes. When Musk started to uncover the egregious amounts of waste w/in the government, the violent and lunatic far left started burning Tesla dealerships and keying privately own cars across our nation. It's mind boggling how dumb and depraved some people are
 
Last edited:
i like the "idea" of requiring work for medicaid. but i guess there is a a issue with reporting and how this will be tracked etc. sounds like another unfunded mandate. also, when these patients dont "qualify" by not working: then what? we still pay for them when they go to the ER or have cancer or have a heart attack.
There are abuses out there and people milking the system like in everything but most of the medicaid people that I see are working already. My wife is in Peds and that where it will really change. IMO it is hard to punish children in this situation but that is what is happening.

Actually a lot of these medicaid kids are in healthcare. I know a large practice in my area that offers health insurance but employees have to pay most of the costs for kids and family. Most put their kids on medicaid (they are all working). Businsesses have to do what they have to do and I am not saying otherwise but this is really going to affect a lot of people.
 
Hyperalgesia doesnt understand the concept of preventative care saving money for the government. Oh you denied them medicaid? Good, now deal with not being paid anything but still being forced to take care of patients.


Its amusingly sad that the same conservatives who praise the name of the Lord will try at every opportunity to screw over the hungry and the sick even more..
Amen brother...

The Christian faith teaches us to Love each other and especially the sick and hungry, there is no qualifications.
I am not an expert on Islam, but I have a family member who has converted, and one of the central tenets of their faith is that they must help the sick and less fortunate...no qualifications.

I know even less about Judiasm but I believe there is a similar tenet in their faith.

I have nothing else to say.
 
I also don't understand the no taxes on tips. The vast majority of the workers who depend on tips dont pay federal income tax anyway (they get a tax refund). So the net effect is that person A who receives a $1500 tax refund now has more money during the year but now gets a $750 tax refund. The net net is zero. Am I missing somthing?
 
There are abuses out there and people milking the system like in everything but most of the medicaid people that I see are working already. My wife is in Peds and that where it will really change. IMO it is hard to punish children in this situation but that is what is happening.

Actually a lot of these medicaid kids are in healthcare. I know a large practice in my area that offers health insurance but employees have to pay most of the costs for kids and family. Most put their kids on medicaid (they are all working). Businsesses have to do what they have to do and I am not saying otherwise but this is really going to affect a lot of people.
Mille you seem to know a lot about the specific provisions in the new bill. Can you elaborate on what specific changes to medicaid you believe are unfair to the marginalized.

And I'm not quite understanding what's going on in your example above. Businesses employ individuals and provide them healthcare but the employees only obtain coverage for themselves and/or their spouse and not their children b/c the premiums are too high? How exactly do those children then qualify for medicaid? To me that seems like a misuse of our government safety net and not what medicaid was intended for. Also, how would the new legislation affect these individuals since they are already working?

Actually I just did some reading and for children to qualify for medicaid, the income limit is 216% of the FPL which is a family income of $5,786/month or $70k per year. That's a broad safety net we're funding considering that's about the median household income in America. And again not sure how the new legislation would change this
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I also don't understand the no taxes on tips. The vast majority of the workers who depend on tips dont pay federal income tax anyway (they get a tax refund). So the net effect is that person A who receives a $1500 tax refund now has more money during the year but now gets a $750 tax refund. The net net is zero. Am I missing somthing?
I think there are plenty of workers who are doing second jobs for tips and will appreciate not paying taxes on them. When you tip your waitress or delivery person, they get it all. It's not a bad thing imo, although not great for the deficit. I would have dumped it in favor of deficit reduction but it was a campaign promise so...

The other point you make about Medicaid, the policy supposedly kicks in in 2 years. Who knows how it will play out?

We've been told of imminent catastrophe for anything to do with Trump, from the Handmaid's Tale, to rampant inflation and unemployment, to recession, collapse of the dollar, and the end of democracy itself.

If we've learned anything, it should be that Trump triggers massive speculative hysteria and that no one really knows how policy will play out in the real world.
 
Last edited:
I think there are plenty of workers who are doing second jobs for tips and will appreciate not paying taxes on them. When you tip your waitress or delivery person, they get it all. It's not a bad thing imo, although not great for the deficit. I would have dumped it in favor of deficit reduction but it was a campaign promise so...

The other point you make about Medicaid, the policy supposedly kicks in in 2 years. Who knows how it will play out?

We've been told of imminent catastrophe for anything to do with Trump, from the Handmaid's Tale, to rampant inflation and unemployment, to recession, collapse of the dollar, and the end of democracy itself.

If we've learned anything, it should be that Trump triggers massive speculative hysteria and that no one really knows how policy will play out in the real world.
Examples

I am a working class person. I make $5000 in tips and $35000 in wages. I report everything and pay my taxes. $1500 in federal income taxes has been withheld (fo this example we will say $250 on tips and $1250 on wages). Because of my status, I get all of this back as a refund (most people in my category pay no taxes as me).

Now there is no tax on tips. Sounds great. My tips are tax free and I dont pay the $250 and now $1250 is withhold. I get all of this back as a refund and receive $1250 instead of $1500

So the net net is the same by the end of the year. The vast majority of people getting tips fall in to this category.

That is what I am saying....
 
Examples

I am a working class person. I make $5000 in tips and $35000 in wages. I report everything and pay my taxes. $1500 in federal income taxes has been withheld (fo this example we will say $250 on tips and $1250 on wages). Because of my status, I get all of this back as a refund (most people in my category pay no taxes as me).

Now there is no tax on tips. Sounds great. My tips are tax free and I dont pay the $250 and now $1250 is withhold. I get all of this back as a refund and receive $1250 instead of $1500

So the net net is the same by the end of the year. The vast majority of people getting tips fall in to this category.

That is what I am saying....
When I worked as a waiter, more than half the wage was in tips. Just double checking with chatGPT, it says currently the wage for servers is about 58% tips. I would expect with the new regulation that ratio to increase a lot. But assuming it remains the same, using your example of total income of 40k, with 58% of income coming from tips, that's an annual income of 23,200 in tips not being taxed with an annual savings of about $4600.
 
Mille you seem to know a lot about the specific provisions in the new bill. Can you elaborate on what specific changes to medicaid you believe are unfair to the marginalized.

And I'm not quite understanding what's going on your example above. Businesses employ individuals and provide them healthcare but the employees only obtain coverage for themselves and/or their spouse and not their children b/c the premiums are too high? How exactly do those children then qualify for medicaid? To me that seems like a misuse of our government safety net and not what medicaid was intended for. Also, how would the new legislation affect these individuals since they are already working?

Actually I just did some reading and for children to qualify for medicaid, the income limit is 216% of the FPL which is a family income of $5,786/month or $70k per year. That's a broad safety net we're funding considering that's about the median household income in America. And again not sure how the new legislation would change this
The issues are too numerous to list especially concerning rural hospitals. But the affect on children and families is of a huge magnitude. The CBO is non-partisan and gives generally good information. This is what they have said.
  • Pregnancy and postpartum coverage: Medicaid pays for more than 40% of U.S. births.
  • Newborn Babies. When their births are financed by Medicaid, newborns have automatic and continuous coverage for one year. For the 12% of births covered by Medicaid that are preterm, Medicaid pays for life-saving services from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). For all eligible babies, pediatric primary care and other needed services are covered.
  • Young Children. Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covers more than 40% of the nation’s young children under age 6, including three quarters of young, low-income children (those in families below 200% of the federal poverty level). Under Medicaid’s child health benefit, EPSDT, these children and others gain access to well-child visits, acute care, and interventions to prevent disabilities.
  • Parents and caregivers, including child care providers. By raising income eligibility to cover low-income adults under Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion allowed more adults to have health coverage for the first time. This extended Medicaid to many low-income parents and others who care for their children. In 2023, nearly 30% of child care workers were covered by Medicaid—a critical support for working parents and the small businesses that employ them

To fund larger tax cuts, the bill avoided extending current subsidies that help make ACA marketplace insurance plans affordable. Those subsidies will expire at the end of 2025, leading to premiums that double for many people, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cause more than 4 million more people to become uninsured. Along with the Medicaid cuts, and other provisions making it harder for people to enroll in ACA plans even when eligible, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total number of uninsured will rise by 17 million people by 2034.

Research shows that Medicaid coverage of pregnant mothers and young children has a long lasting, lifelong positive impact on health, education, and earnings outcomes. So Medicaid cuts, as the saying goes, are “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

It is hard to overstate the critical role Medicaid plays for mothers and young children, covering essential services and supports and boosting family economic security. CCF fact sheets detail the ways Medicaid supports women, moms and newborns and young children.

Research indicates that paperwork requirements such as those in the bill—particularly for Medicaid—don’t increase employment rates and often increase overhead costs. A group of researchers evaluated the first year of paperwork reporting requirements in Arkansas and found that there was a significant loss of Medicaid coverage in the initial six months among eligible people and no significant change in employment. Georgia also implemented a trial program, called Pathways, that included paperwork requirements, and state caseworkers found the monthly verification of employment overly burdensome. To date, taxpayers have spent more than $86 million on Pathways only to have 6,500 participants enrolled in the first 18 months of the program—75 percent fewer enrollees than the state had estimated would participate in year one.


In a nutshell this is going to be catastrophic and it will affect every one of us eventually as hospitals close and insurance costs increase.
 
When I worked as a waiter, more than half the wage was in tips. Just double checking with chatGPT, it says currently the wage for servers is about 58% tips. I would expect with the new regulation that ratio to increase a lot. But assuming it remains the same, using your example of total income of 40k, with 58% of income coming from tips, that's an annual income of 23,200 in tips not being taxed with an annual savings of about $4600.
What I am trying to tell you is that it doesnt matter what tax is withheld or not withheld, almost all of these people will pay $0 in federal income taxes but the time all is settled. If you are paying $0, giving you no tax on tips does not help you.

You may not be aware but 30-40% of all Americans pay zero in federal income tax. Many that receive a lot of tips are in this group. How do you think that paying no tax on tips benefits you if you pay no tax anyway?

In my own office most of my employees are working moms and many are single. Not one of them pays a single dollar in federal taxes. Yes they get it withheld but they get it back at tax time. Only person other than me that pays any tax is my nurse practitioner.

Again I ask how does reducing any taxes in this group help them if they are paying zero. If you gave them a tax credit like the child tax credit then yes that would help their bottom line. But tax reductions do nothing for anyone in this group. They aren't paying anything to begin with.
 
The issues are too numerous to list especially concerning rural hospitals. But the affect on children and families is of a huge magnitude. The CBO is non-partisan and gives generally good information. This is what they have said.
  • Pregnancy and postpartum coverage: Medicaid pays for more than 40% of U.S. births.
  • Newborn Babies. When their births are financed by Medicaid, newborns have automatic and continuous coverage for one year. For the 12% of births covered by Medicaid that are preterm, Medicaid pays for life-saving services from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). For all eligible babies, pediatric primary care and other needed services are covered.
  • Young Children. Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covers more than 40% of the nation’s young children under age 6, including three quarters of young, low-income children (those in families below 200% of the federal poverty level). Under Medicaid’s child health benefit, EPSDT, these children and others gain access to well-child visits, acute care, and interventions to prevent disabilities.
  • Parents and caregivers, including child care providers. By raising income eligibility to cover low-income adults under Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion allowed more adults to have health coverage for the first time. This extended Medicaid to many low-income parents and others who care for their children. In 2023, nearly 30% of child care workers were covered by Medicaid—a critical support for working parents and the small businesses that employ them

All of these sound like things that may disincentivize people from having kids they can’t afford. Seeing a Medicaid single mom coming in to have her 5th kid was always so frustrating. Unfortunately, the reality is that those types of people are not rational decision makers and will continue to make irrational decisions (reproducing irresponsibly with no regard for the financial consequences).
 
All of these sound like things that may disincentivize people from having kids they can’t afford. Seeing a Medicaid single mom coming in to have her 5th kid was always so frustrating. Unfortunately, the reality is that those types of people are not rational decision makers and will continue to make irrational decisions (reproducing irresponsibly with no regard for the financial consequences).
you aren't describing most people on Medicaid.....

You say that some people are having children they cant afford but it is okay to give a tax cut that we cant afford, right? I say that because multiple trillions were added to the debt ceiling to do it. Cant you see that all of this is hyperbole to really mask the increase debt.
 
Among the many excellent provisions in the BBB are that it maintains the lower tax rate for ALL income brackets. So it's great that lower and middle income earners get to keep a significantly larger portion of their income than they would have if democrats had achieved their massive tax hike. That's in addition to "no tax on tips", which almost exclusively benefits low wage earners.

The other thing that's great about the bill is the maintenance of the high standard deduction, which makes filing taxes for most people much simpler.

As for the rescissions package, it's fabulous that it cuts out the cancer that is NPR and PBS from our government. The future plans for Medicaid will be deferred and may never happen. If they do happen, it will probably result in states assuming a larger role in their populations' healthcare - a welcome development.
 
Among the many excellent provisions in the BBB are that it maintains the lower tax rate for ALL income brackets. So it's great that lower and middle income earners get to keep a significantly larger portion of their income than they would have if democrats had achieved their massive tax hike. That's in addition to "no tax on tips", which almost exclusively benefits low wage earners.

The other thing that's great about the bill is the maintenance of the high standard deduction, which makes filing taxes for most people much simpler.

As for the rescissions package, it's fabulous that it cuts out the cancer that is NPR and PBS from our government. The future plans for Medicaid will be deferred and may never happen. If they do happen, it will probably result in states assuming a larger role in their populations' healthcare - a welcome development.
pbs kids is great, certainly not cancer, great free tv/movies etc
 
I did not advocate for a single payer.

The discussion was regarding moving the safety net from federal to full state control. The latter will be more chaotic. This includes SS, Medicare, Medicaid. I never said states should have no role. It needs guardrails at the federal level.

Medicare and the majority of Medicaid are still federally funded. If each state is funding their own completely, then Medicare California is going to have better benefits than Medicare Mississippi. So why would a Mississippi to California migrant be able to buy in to Medicare California? Will Mississippi and California have an agreement? What if they don't? What if Medicare California pays a lot better for doctors? If I paid into Medicare California for 20 years, I don't want to give that up if I have a job in Mississippi. Moving SS is essentially having state pensions.

For Medicaid at least half or more is federally funded and it provides a baseline of what is required with individual states having significant variability. Still, one can move from Mississippi to Colorado and apply for Medicaid (subject to different eligibility). If given full state control, some may move to drop it completely.
We're closer to being on a similar page. Agree the fed needs to establish some guardrails and framework for interstate issues. I still think a more local entity would create a "marketplace of ideas" and administer more efficiently and with more accountability than a federal program.
 
Among the many excellent provisions in the BBB are that it maintains the lower tax rate for ALL income brackets. So it's great that lower and middle income earners get to keep a significantly larger portion of their income than they would have if democrats had achieved their massive tax hike. That's in addition to "no tax on tips", which almost exclusively benefits low wage earners.

The other thing that's great about the bill is the maintenance of the high standard deduction, which makes filing taxes for most people much simpler.

As for the rescissions package, it's fabulous that it cuts out the cancer that is NPR and PBS from our government. The future plans for Medicaid will be deferred and may never happen. If they do happen, it will probably result in states assuming a larger role in their populations' healthcare - a welcome development.
I get it concerning PBS

It teaches values like empathy, kindness, sharing, love, taking care of each other, accepting people who are different.

So you begin to see the problem.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I get it concerning PBS

It teaches values like empathy, kindness, sharing, love, taking care of each other, accepting people who are different.

So you begin to see the problem.
You’re not far. This would be more accurate

It taught values like empathy, kindness, sharing, love, taking care of each other, accepting people who are different.

Now it’s extremely left leaning and political which 1/2 the country voted against
 
The issues are too numerous to list especially concerning rural hospitals. But the affect on children and families is of a huge magnitude. The CBO is non-partisan and gives generally good information. This is what they have said.
  • Pregnancy and postpartum coverage: Medicaid pays for more than 40% of U.S. births.
  • Newborn Babies. When their births are financed by Medicaid, newborns have automatic and continuous coverage for one year. For the 12% of births covered by Medicaid that are preterm, Medicaid pays for life-saving services from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). For all eligible babies, pediatric primary care and other needed services are covered.
  • Young Children. Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), covers more than 40% of the nation’s young children under age 6, including three quarters of young, low-income children (those in families below 200% of the federal poverty level). Under Medicaid’s child health benefit, EPSDT, these children and others gain access to well-child visits, acute care, and interventions to prevent disabilities.
  • Parents and caregivers, including child care providers. By raising income eligibility to cover low-income adults under Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion allowed more adults to have health coverage for the first time. This extended Medicaid to many low-income parents and others who care for their children. In 2023, nearly 30% of child care workers were covered by Medicaid—a critical support for working parents and the small businesses that employ them

To fund larger tax cuts, the bill avoided extending current subsidies that help make ACA marketplace insurance plans affordable. Those subsidies will expire at the end of 2025, leading to premiums that double for many people, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cause more than 4 million more people to become uninsured. Along with the Medicaid cuts, and other provisions making it harder for people to enroll in ACA plans even when eligible, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the total number of uninsured will rise by 17 million people by 2034.

Research shows that Medicaid coverage of pregnant mothers and young children has a long lasting, lifelong positive impact on health, education, and earnings outcomes. So Medicaid cuts, as the saying goes, are “penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

It is hard to overstate the critical role Medicaid plays for mothers and young children, covering essential services and supports and boosting family economic security. CCF fact sheets detail the ways Medicaid supports women, moms and newborns and young children.

Research indicates that paperwork requirements such as those in the bill—particularly for Medicaid—don’t increase employment rates and often increase overhead costs. A group of researchers evaluated the first year of paperwork reporting requirements in Arkansas and found that there was a significant loss of Medicaid coverage in the initial six months among eligible people and no significant change in employment. Georgia also implemented a trial program, called Pathways, that included paperwork requirements, and state caseworkers found the monthly verification of employment overly burdensome. To date, taxpayers have spent more than $86 million on Pathways only to have 6,500 participants enrolled in the first 18 months of the program—75 percent fewer enrollees than the state had estimated would participate in year one.


In a nutshell this is going to be catastrophic and it will affect every one of us eventually as hospitals close and insurance costs increase.
Again I’m not sure how enforcing work requirements for able bodied individuals is a bad thing. It’s astonishing that Medicaid pays for 40% of all births. Again the inclusion criteria are far too broad. That’s an excellent way to bankrupt a country and it seems to be working. I believe in giving a hand up, not a hand out.

Plus work is actually beneficial for those that are not truly disabled. Work provides numerous benefits, including financial stability, improved mental and physical health, a sense of purpose, and opportunities for social interaction. It also contributes to personal growth, skill development, and a stronger sense of community.




 
I get it concerning PBS

It teaches values like empathy, kindness, sharing, love, taking care of each other, accepting people who are different.

So you begin to see the problem.
PBS is mostly supported by donations anyway. If they just shut down the adult propaganda department, they'll have plenty of money left to continue brainwashing the children.
 
You’re not far. This would be more accurate

It taught values like empathy, kindness, sharing, love, taking care of each other, accepting people who are different.

Now it’s extremely left leaning and political which 1/2 the country voted against
i guess left leaning means empathy and kindness, and right leaning means, racist
ironically im right leaning and conservative (despite overt racism due to my skin color towards me), but believe that values like empathy and kindness transcend any political spectrum, however as recent policies have shown, our country is losing its way and treating humans like animals and the world as a whole is returning to caging people just like the good 'ol days