U.S. Budget - OBBB | Medicare Part D premiums set to rise

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 47K
  • Politics 
The key problem is increasing wealth and income inequality over the last 45 years. The pie is growing but much too disproportinally in favor of the wealthy. Tax cuts like those from Reagan, both Bushes and Trump 1 have been skewed to give most to upper income people and that has a compounding wealthy effet on inequality. Giving tax breals tp large corps doot creat jobs nor bnoost most worker salaries: the tax cuts go to stock buybacks adn dividends whjch mostly benefit the wealthy,

Middle/working class incomes have been stagnant for 45 years pwion to above and offshoring starting back in the 1980s.

Quit doing multi-trillinon tax breaks for wealthy and large corps and inseated use that money for:
1) infrastructure
2) funding child care which would also make it possible for families to have more kids if they wish
3) Restart the child tax crecit for low and worklng class families which Biden and Romnety did
4) Fortive more student loans
5) Make twp uears of technical/vopcational college free univeraly
6) make the ACA health care more affordable for middle class by raising the benefit limits

Tax breasks for rich==bad. they are doing fine
invest as above
 
Faucette said:
He is so FOS. No money has come in yet, just says what people want to hear
Click to expand...
And yet half the country still believes him. And that's why we are where we are today. If he told them the sky was green they'd really believe it, or convince themselves that it's the truth. If he says it or they hear it from Fox or Newsmax or some other right-wing source then it is taken as the gospel truth.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

I know some simply won't believe it, but I do think if Republicans go through with cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid they are going to face a backlash in 2026. Trumpers may not vote Democratic, but they can stay home, and I think a good many will. They did in 2018 and Democrats gained 40 House seats. Republicans don't seem to do nearly as well without Dear Leader at the top of the ticket to get them out to vote.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I know some simply won't believe it, but I do think if Republicans go through with cuts to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid they are going to face a backlash in 2026. Trumpers may not vote Democratic, but they can stay home, and I think a good many will. They did in 2018 and Democrats gained 40 House seats. Republicans don't seem to do nearly as well without Dear Leader at the top of the ticket to get them out to vote.
Click to expand...
A couple Rs I know have already reached out to Tillis and their House reps saying they better make sure there are no cuts to SS/Medicare or they will not be voting for any Rs 2026. It's more the Medicare for us olds.
 
grimes70 said:
A couple Rs I know have already reached out to Tillis and their House reps saying they better make sure there are no cuts to SS/Medicare or they will not be voting for any Rs 2026. It's more the Medicare for us olds.
Click to expand...
I've read that something like 40% of all retired people have nothing beyond their SS to live on, and my guess is a much larger percentage need SS for a fully funded retirement. But no doubt Medicare is at least as important, given the costs of doing without it.
 


“When President Trump locked a group of House Republicans into the Cabinet Room at the White House earlier this month with the directive to emerge with a GOP plan that would help fund his top priorities, he also cautioned the roughly dozen lawmakers about making cuts to Medicaid.

Trump made clear he was OK with putting work requirements in place, but he warned against spending cuts that impact the quality of healthcare, recalled Rep. Don Bacon (R., Neb.).

But just after Trump left the room, Bacon said, one budget hawk remarked: “We could get $2.5 trillion if we cut Medicaid.” Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican, shot back: “Did you hear what the president just said?”

House Republicans are deeply divided on Medicaid, split between spending hard-liners who want big savings and pragmatists who warn against angering voters. The fight threatens to derail their effort to assemble Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” funding border security, energy policy and tax cuts. Republicans currently have a thin 218-to-215 majority, meaning more than one or two defections could sink the package. …”
 
Continued

“… House Freedom Caucus members and other budget hawks successfully pressed for an amendment that directly ties $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to the party’s tax-cut effort. Under that provision, the more the GOP pulls from Medicaid and other programs, the more financial room Republicans have for extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and new provisions such as ending taxes on tips.

… Scalise, according to people familiar with the White House meeting, said that anything above $1.5 trillion in overall cuts would require running those changes by Trump. Scalise was also clear: The party couldn’t put anything in the bill the president opposed.

The federal government spends about $600 billion annually on Medicaid. States help fund and manage the program, which provides health insurance for roughly 72 million people, or about one in five Americans, including children and people with low incomes or disabilities.

Republicans have a long list of options on how they could cut Medicaid. Work requirements would save, by some estimates, $120 billion over 10 years. But the GOP will likely need more trims than that. Some potential changes, such as altering the funding formula to allow the federal government to contribute less to wealthier states, could hurt states such as California and New York, which lean Democratic but also have vulnerable Republican lawmakers.

… Republicans aren’t allowed to touch Social Security in the fast-track legislative process they are using, and Trump has said he opposes reducing Medicare benefits, leaving Medicaid as one of the remaining ways to significantly shrink spending. Within a 24-hour period, Trump stated that Medicaid shouldn’t be touched but also posted on X that he backs the House-led package that is likely to rely on cuts to Medicaid to meet its targets. …”
 
nycfan said:
Continued

“… House Freedom Caucus members and other budget hawks successfully pressed for an amendment that directly ties $2 trillion in spending reductions over 10 years to the party’s tax-cut effort. Under that provision, the more the GOP pulls from Medicaid and other programs, the more financial room Republicans have for extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and new provisions such as ending taxes on tips.

… Scalise, according to people familiar with the White House meeting, said that anything above $1.5 trillion in overall cuts would require running those changes by Trump. Scalise was also clear: The party couldn’t put anything in the bill the president opposed.

The federal government spends about $600 billion annually on Medicaid. States help fund and manage the program, which provides health insurance for roughly 72 million people, or about one in five Americans, including children and people with low incomes or disabilities.

Republicans have a long list of options on how they could cut Medicaid. Work requirements would save, by some estimates, $120 billion over 10 years. But the GOP will likely need more trims than that. Some potential changes, such as altering the funding formula to allow the federal government to contribute less to wealthier states, could hurt states such as California and New York, which lean Democratic but also have vulnerable Republican lawmakers.

… Republicans aren’t allowed to touch Social Security in the fast-track legislative process they are using, and Trump has said he opposes reducing Medicare benefits, leaving Medicaid as one of the remaining ways to significantly shrink spending. Within a 24-hour period, Trump stated that Medicaid shouldn’t be touched but also posted on X that he backs the House-led package that is likely to rely on cuts to Medicaid to meet its targets. …”
Click to expand...
I always like this wonky stuff.b you may get $100B in cuts for medicaid work requirements. Doge may get you to another couple hundred billion. That's still a long way to $2T. If Trump won't touch medicare or Social Security, the only real juicy target left is defense.

So if you are going to cut defense, its either personnel or equipment or both. Cutting back on equipment means layoffs at factories. Personnel might be done slowly by attrition, but it probably means pulling back from Europe or Asia or both. I'd probably pull back from Europe before Asia, but I think both can be done safely if we give our allies a reasonable roadmap so they can fill the gaps as needed.
 
How much are they proposing in new Border enforcement spending? Seem like last year when the Israel war aid was passed that it included 20 billion extra for border enforcement.
 
grimes70 said:
A couple Rs I know have already reached out to Tillis and their House reps saying they better make sure there are no cuts to SS/Medicare or they will not be voting for any Rs 2026. It's more the Medicare for us olds.
Click to expand...
Agree. The amount billed for my recent prostate cancer surgery was over $100,000. The amount actually paid was over $45,000. My out of pocket was $295. If there was no Medicare, and I had had to purchase a private health insurance plan on my own, my out of pocket would have been many times the $295. Also, my monthly premiums would be many times the $190 a month I pay now for my Medicare Advantage Policy now.
 
Last edited:
ChileG said:
Interesting. I was told on these boards that I am just falling for leftwing media hysteria when I worry that Republicans will cut my social security and Medicare. But I keep seeing videos of actual Republican lawmakers talking about needing to do just that (while also hoping the give tax breaks for the uber wealthy).
Click to expand...
One short-term protection is that under the rules governing the reconciliation trick needed to get the omnibus budget passed, under the Byrd rule Congress cannot make many (if any meaningful) cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Doesn’t mean they won’t do it separately, but if they can’t do it in the omnibus.

Byrd rule exceptions (things that cannot be covered via reconciliation):

“…
  • measures with no budgetary effect (i.e., no change in outlays or revenues);
  • measures that worsen the deficit when a committee has not achieved its reconciliation target;
  • measures outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision;
  • measures that produce a budgetary effect that is merely incidental to the non- budgetary policy change;
  • measures that increase deficits for any fiscal year outside the reconciliation window; and
  • measures that recommend changes in Social Security.
Any Senator may raise a point of order against an extraneous provision in the reconciliation bill, amendments, or the conference agreement. The Senate Parliamentarian decides whether there is a Byrd rule violation, and provisions struck through a Byrd rule point of order cannot be offered later as amendments. However, Byrd rule points of order can be waived by a vote of 60 Senators.

In addition to reconciliation-specific points of order, reconciliation bills are subject to other Senate points of order, like the Senate PAYGO rule, that apply to all legislation. …”

Budget Reconciliation Explainer

Reconciliation is a tool – a special process – that makes legislation easier to pass in the Senate.
democrats-budget.house.gov democrats-budget.house.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top