Big beautiful bill. For who?

[watu05]

Most regressive tax bill in decades.


Trump’s Big Bill Would Be More Regressive Than Any Major Law in Decades

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=g

 

[watu05]

The Senate bill would cut Medicaid even further transferring more wealth to those who don’t need it. At the expense of those who do Just let the let the tax cuts expire.

 

[lawpoke87]

The Senate bill would cut Medicaid even further transferring more wealth to those who don’t need it. At the expense of those who do Just let the let the tax cuts expire.

Aside from illegals and requiring able bodied people without small children to work, can you detail the specific Medicaid cuts ?

 

[astonmartin708]

Aside from illegals and requiring able bodied people without small children to work, can you detail the specific Medicaid cuts ?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/upshot/medicaid-hospitals-republicans-cuts.html

 

[lawpoke87]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/06/upshot/medicaid-hospitals-republicans-cuts.html

So we’re proposing reducing the amount states can tax providers from 6% to 3.5% and extrapolating the reduction in tax will lower the amounts the government can reimburse the healthcare industry and this could lead to the cutting of Medicaid coverage for individuals?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

So we’re proposing reducing the amount states can tax providers from 6% to 3.5% and extrapolating the reduction in tax will lower the amounts the government can reimburse the healthcare industry and this could lead to the cutting of Medicaid coverage for individuals?

Killing me softly with this matching tax reduction. Saves the employee & the federal government at the cost of the Medicaid recipients.

 

[lawpoke87]

Killing me softly with this matching tax reduction. Saves the employee & the federal government at the cost of the Medicaid recipients.

I’m confused which shouldn’t surprise you. I thought the provider tax is a surcharge the state placed on hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers. What does it have to do with a matching tax deduction and how does it save employees anything?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I’m confused which shouldn’t surprise you. I thought the provider tax is a surcharge the state placed on hospitals, nursing homes and other health care providers. What does it have to do with a matching tax deduction and how does it save employees anything?

I'm probably the one that is confused. When you said providers, I assumed you were talking employers. I didn't know that they put a surcharge on providers of healthcare. So that would be the healthcare patients that are not on medicaid & the federal government that would save. Seeing as how patients would save that surcharge?(hopefully) And the government would save the matching amount paid to Medicaid.

 

[watu05]

As I read it the loop hole allowed the states to collect more federal $ to fund their portion of Medicaid. Closing the loop hole prevents unintended consequences but also reduces funding for Medicaid in those states.

 

[astonmartin708]

So we’re proposing reducing the amount states can tax providers from 6% to 3.5% and extrapolating the reduction in tax will lower the amounts the government can reimburse the healthcare industry and this could lead to the cutting of Medicaid coverage for individuals?

When a healthy portion of your state’s funding for healthcare comes from those taxes yes.

Will it help with the budget? Yes, if we don’t spend the savings.

Will it kick millions off Medicaid who are well qualified, trying to work and need healthcare? Also, yes.

Don’t worry I’m sure there will be some tax breaks for rich folks to redistribute that wealth from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the wealthy.

It’s trickle up economics.

 

[lawpoke87]

When a healthy portion of your state’s funding for healthcare comes from those taxes yes.

Will it help with the budget? Yes, if we don’t spend the savings.

Will it kick millions off Medicaid who are well qualified, trying to work and need healthcare? Also, yes.

Don’t worry I’m sure there will be some tax breaks for rich folks to redistribute that wealth from the pockets of the poor to the pockets of the wealthy.

It’s trickle up economics.

What is a healthy portion?

My understanding is it’s basically taking from one pot to pay another. Health care providers are taxed by the state at 6%. They then turn around and place a surcharge on their services to pay for the tax.

Why would millions be kicked off Medicaid?

 

[astonmartin708]

What is a healthy portion?

My understanding is it’s basically taking from one pot to pay another. Health care providers are taxed by the state at 6%. They then turn around and place a surcharge on their services to pay for the tax.

Why would millions be kicked off Medicaid?

A healthy portion:

1. All states except for Alaska use provider taxes to help finance the state share of Medicaid spending. 39 states have 3 separate taxes on providers.​

More information here: https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/5-key-facts-about-medicaid-and-provider-taxes/

The recently passed House budget resolution targets cuts to federal Medicaid spending of up to $880 billion or more over a decade. To put the size of the spending cuts in perspective, $880 billion represents 6% of state taxes per resident and 19% of states’ spending on education per pupil, so offsetting the loss of federal revenues would be challenging for states, particularly considering that states generally must balance their budgets. Assuming states will be unable to replace cuts of that magnitude, they will face difficult choices about whether to reduce Medicaid spending by covering fewer people, eliminating optional benefits, or reducing provider payment rates.
CBO’s estimates of federal spending reductions are based on the agency’s assessment that states will reduce Medicaid spending, resulting in people losing Medicaid coverage. While CBO provides national estimates, the effects would vary significantly across the states. States with provider taxes near the safe harbor limit would be affected by even modest changes whereas states with lower provider taxes would only be affected by more significant reductions. Effects on total Medicaid spending and enrollment would also vary based on how much states offset lost provider tax revenues with other sources of funding. Because provider taxes often support Medicaid payment rates, there will almost undoubtedly be downward pressure on payment rates if provider taxes are restricted, particularly for institutional providers including nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and hospitals.

What is mostly agreed by everyone (including congress who is carrying out this budget alteration) is that many people NOT JUST PEOPLE MISSING WORK REQUIREMENT TARGETS will lose their access to healthcare.

 

[lawpoke87]

You think they're going to drop their prices? HA. HA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHA

Never said that. However, I do recall you making that very argument in favor of the ACA saying since health care providers won’t have to cover near as many uninsured patients they will in turn reduce the prices they charge. I realize you were parroting the Dem talking point but that was your statement. I called BS….and was correct.

Medicaid is in fact a bit different as they decided what they’re going to pay the healthcare providers for services rendered. So technically the providers don’t have to reduce any prices. Not sure how r health care providers reducing prices is relevant here

 

[astonmartin708]

Never said that. However, I do recall you making that very argument in favor of the ACA saying since health care providers won’t have to cover near as many uninsured patients they will in turn reduce the prices they charge. I realize you were parroting the Dem talking point but that was your statement. I called BS….and was correct.

Medicaid is in fact a bit different as they decided what they’re going to pay the healthcare providers for services rendered. So technically the providers don’t have to reduce any prices. Not sure how r health care providers reducing prices is relevant here

My argument was that uninsured lead to higher costs for the providers which then get passed on to the general public.