The Big Beautiful Bill shall became Law

dogs4thewin said:

If you need help and qualify you can still get it this just makes it to where people cannot or at least will have a MUCH harder time getting on if they are abusig the system work requirements, many non-cititzens ECT.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. You know it's not about that. It's about how to save money without affecting those in power/with money. If it weren't for their supporters who depend on that same aid, they would have cut it all out. They fed the public a line, and you are repeating it. I have no idea why.

rjs330 said:

Thats not what the breakdown shows.

Click to expand...

H.R. 1 makes significant changes to the Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Changes include new requirements states must meet to maintain federal support for the Medicaid programs, as well as more strict criteria beneficiaries must meet to qualify for and maintain enrollment in federal healthcare programs.

JosephZ said:

The breakdown by the Congressional Budget Office shows that poor and vulnerable get less while the wealthy get more. The reports show show that the bottom 20% of earners will receive less than 5% of tax cut benefits while also facing losses from Medicaid and SNAP reductions and the top 1% will see tax savings averaging $50,000–$100,000 annually. The top 1% would also benefit from estate tax changes and business incentives.

The changes would not be evenly distributed among households. The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution.

Resources for households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would decrease by about $1,600 per year (in 2025 dollars) compared with their projected income in CBO’s baseline projections (see Figure 1).5 That amounts to 3.9 percent of their income (see Figure 2). Those projected decreases are mainly attributable to reductions in in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and

Click to expand...

I see the problem. A lack of paying attention. The rich get the smallest amount of tax cuts while those that earn less have the highest tax cut.

The fact is those that earn less keep more of their money than the rich do. The fact that rhe rich have more money to begin with is irrelevant to the process. Say a rich person gets a 3% cut while income of a 50000 earners get 7%. The lower income earner get double the cut the rich got.

7% is certainly a lesser amount than 3% in full dollars.

Let's be honest. You and most of those on the left want NO tax cut for the rich or an actual tax increase. Well, you aren't going to get it.

The FACT is lower earners will keep more of their money.

Medicaid has not been cut. Those that need it will have it.

JosephZ said:

The breakdown by the Congressional Budget Office shows that poor and vulnerable get less while the wealthy get more. The reports show show that the bottom 20% of earners will receive less than 5% of tax cut benefits while also facing losses from Medicaid and SNAP reductions and the top 1% will see tax savings averaging $50,000–$100,000 annually. The top 1% would also benefit from estate tax changes and business incentives.

The changes would not be evenly distributed among households. The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution.

Resources for households in the lowest decile of the income distribution would decrease by about $1,600 per year (in 2025 dollars) compared with their projected income in CBO’s baseline projections (see Figure 1).5 That amounts to 3.9 percent of their income (see Figure 2). Those projected decreases are mainly attributable to reductions in in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and

Click to expand...

I see the problem. The rich get the smallest amount of tax cuts while those that earn less have the highest tax cut.

In total dollars the rich keep more because they pay more. 3% of 3 million is more money than 7% of 40,000.

I know the left wants the rich to not get a cut and want them to get an increase. But already pay the most taxes. The amount that they pay is far more than anyone else.

Those $1600 reductions in income will be made up by work requirements and more. Working 20 hours a week will give them far more then $1600 a year and will get them involved in the work force allowing them to create even greater amounts of income later. And SNAP recipients will have no reduction due to state matching requirement.

We'll see if this works out or not. The sky is falling projections and the constant drumbeat of the "rich dont pay their dairy share" are a bit old now. Especially the latter. Been going on for as long as I remember.

Akita Suggagaki said:

H.R. 1 makes significant changes to the Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Changes include new requirements states must meet to maintain federal support for the Medicaid programs, as well as more strict criteria beneficiaries must meet to qualify for and maintain enrollment in federal healthcare programs.

Click to expand...

Thats not a cut.

rjs330 said:

Thats not a cut.

Click to expand...

The GOP, Trump/Congress and those who support the bill counted it as a spending cut to offset their tax reductions. They lied?

FenderTL5 said:

The GOP, Trump/Congress and those who support the bill counted it as a spending cut to offset their tax reductions. They lied?

Click to expand...

They didn't say that.

After deleting his exultant reply, Rep. Van Orden later clarified that he replied to the wrong tweet.
/surejan.gif

Vambram said:

Congress sending Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' to his desk after dramatic all-night House vote

House Republicans delivered a stunning victory for President Donald Trump's agenda in the wee hours of Thursday morning.

www.foxnews.com

This is great news for the USA.

Click to expand...

This bill is so great the negative gutting impacts of it won't go in effect till after the midterms.

That's how great the GOP think this bill is.

Akita Suggagaki said:

It wasn't the economy that sunk her. It was the border and culture war issues,
"The Big Lie" is that Trump really won over Biden. There is no undoing that moniker. They are forever linked.

Click to expand...

The culture war is something that isn't accidental, like two sides just happen to show up and shoot each other in some kind of encounter engagement gone wrong . It's been carefully built up by billionaire oligarchs to enrich themselves at public expense. It's what happens when wealth is unmoored from any kind of moral discernment, and a society blesses it as "progress", "unleashing the market", and "disruption".

Nearly 600 nursing homes named at high risk of closure if Medicaid cuts approved​

Some 579 nursing homes are named in a new report as being at “elevated risk” of closure if Medicaid cuts proposed in a 10-year budget reconciliation bill become law, according to a new Brown University analysis commissioned by Democratic Senate leaders.

The study released Friday was conducted by Vincent Mor, PhD, a noted long-term care researcher in Brown’s Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice.

The closure of 579 nursing homes would represent a 4% loss of facilities in the market and follow on the heels of a 5% loss over the last decade, fueled in part by COVID. They’d also come at a time when the senior population is exploding.

Mor and colleagues at Brown warned that cuts would likely force states to cut non-mandatory home- and community-based services, leading more patients to opt for nursing home care. But alongside that increased demand, states also would be less likely to be able to provide the additional funding nursing homes need.

essentialsaltes said:

Nearly 600 nursing homes named at high risk of closure if Medicaid cuts approved​

Some 579 nursing homes are named in a new report as being at “elevated risk” of closure if Medicaid cuts proposed in a 10-year budget reconciliation bill become law, according to a new Brown University analysis commissioned by Democratic Senate leaders.

The study released Friday was conducted by Vincent Mor, PhD, a noted long-term care researcher in Brown’s Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice.

The closure of 579 nursing homes would represent a 4% loss of facilities in the market and follow on the heels of a 5% loss over the last decade, fueled in part by COVID. They’d also come at a time when the senior population is exploding.

Mor and colleagues at Brown warned that cuts would likely force states to cut non-mandatory home- and community-based services, leading more patients to opt for nursing home care. But alongside that increased demand, states also would be less likely to be able to provide the additional funding nursing homes need.

Click to expand...

And in related news, Trump family members have been reported investing heavily in ice floes.

-- A2SG, the Onion should get right on that....

I love how Trump decides to cut billions from public broadcasters to 'save the budget' but it's all pittance compared to the ENORMOUS tax breaks he has given billionaires. Because that 'trickle down' economics always works!

He continues to pretend he's cutting the debt while cutting taxes to his uber-rich mates.
He pretends he's cutting the debt while making it worse as he cuts funds to 'mainstream media'. Those 'fake news' people that - unlike him - try to report inconvenient things called FACTS.

Meanwhile - American right-wing bias misses the point. Private, profit-driven hospitals will never balance the budget!

America could save $1 to maybe $1.5 TRILLION a year if you did ONE thing!

If you adopted the OECD model for healthcare. America spends DOUBLE the OECD average on healthcare - because profit-driven hospitals are not about patching people up and sending them home - but tricking them into getting 3 additional and expensive scans, tests, or meds that they don't really need. But I struggle to communicate this because American's don't seem to understand the basic concepts involved!

Nationalise? What's that Eclipse? Are you some kind of Socialist like Bernie Sanders?

1. No - on so many levels! Bernie, a Socialist? Don't make me laugh. In Australia he would be further right than our conservative government. Why? He cannot even say the word "nationalise". He talks about your Federal government as universal INSURER - providing insurance cover to all those super-expensive private hospitals!
2. I'm talking about Australian and UK and other OECD healthcare - where the government is the OWNER AND OPERATOR of over half the hospitals. (51% of Australia's 700 hospitals.)
3. EVERY citizen can walk in, get their broken leg x-rayed and patched up FOR FREE on their Medicare card.
4. Our FEDERAL PBS bulk-buys name brand medication - so that Big Pharma cannot rip off individual states or hospitals as they do in America. When it's one big government tender - they HAVE to get that! The marketplace bends over backwards to drive the price down.

Your Federal government would have to borrow a bit more, buy over half your hospitals, staff them with public servants managing the things (instead of greedy CEO's driving up costs to buy their next chalet in Switzerland. They're CEO's right? They DESERVE this apparently!)

But eventually the costs would come down. $1.5 trillion dollars a year would certainly help restore America's economy.

Oh - till the NEXT time Trump gives his billionaire mates another tax cut!