Medicare Cuts caused by House budget bill

[BNorris1953]

To my fellow Senior Citizens, to those who have loved ones on Medicaid (parents in nursing homes), to those whose children receive CHIP, and to all Americans who expect healthcare once they reach 65,

It appears the Republican budget bill awaiting a vote soon in the House of Representatives has the potential to cut a half TRILLION dollars from MEDICARE in addition to gutting Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act. I am attaching information below. You can Google for yourself. You may be interested in the links to the Congressional Budget Office analysis.

https://democrats-budget.house.gov/news/press-releases/cbo-confirms-gop-budget-bill-triggers-medicar...

[MaryRose416568]

So, they cant stop the taxing of SS benefits but they can and will cut Medicare.  Medicare is already paying less than commercial insurance. Rural hospitals will not survive with the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.  And what does this mean for the medical care of Seniors?  It means that care will be limited. But the good news is that the wealthy in this country will have tax cuts. AARP needs to stand up for NO cuts to Medicare. Remove or minimize the tax cuts for the wealthy in the current congressional bill will save huge amounts of money.  Leave the minimal tax cuts to the lower incomes. THe wealthy have their tax loopholes anyway so why do they need the cuts. 

[rl523]

Trump's Big Beautiful Bill is more like the Big Genocide Bill. It's going to kill off a whole generation of Baby Boomers. The seniors who are on Medicaid & Medicare are going to suffer the most. The bill basically guts Medicare. The whopping $500 billion cut in Medicare will drastically reduce the kind of care seniors will be able to get.

Those who voted for Trump and Republican members of Congress will also suffer. The younger working class still have parents who are seniors. If their parents need hospitalization, which normally occurs to seniors, their retirement savings will be wiped out. The working sons & daughters will then be forced to pay for their daunting medical expenses. This could financially wipe out entire generations of families.

A lot of seniors are already in nursing homes. They are on both Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are being gutted by this Big Genocide Bill. Seniors in nursing homes will be kicked out onto the streets. Their kids will have to take them into their homes and care for them.

President Trump promised that he would not cut Medicare. His Big Genocide Bill bill is doing just that. Thank you President Trump for turning your back on the seniors who helped build this country and many who voted for you.

[GailL1]

@rl523 

Here are the changes to Medicaid, Medicare, the ACA and Health Savings Accounts -  which the passed House bill outlines.  You can select the topic at the top of the page and then it shows the items under that topic, the current law and then the changes.  There are also other imbedded links that explains the programs more fully if you need that information.  

Just so we are all on the same page in the discussion -

Which of these do you not agree with? Which do you agree with, if any?

KFF.org - 05/22/2025 - Health Provisions in the 2025 Federal Budget Reconciliation Bill 

Like this one:  

You see, I for one, think that we should not have a MEDICAID incentive for states  in the EXPANDED MEDICAID program which was added during the ACA.  

This is where the Federal government pays states MORE for Medicaid coverage for low income abled bodied, childless adults less than 65 years old than what the Feds pay for those who are over 65, elderly, blind or disabled. The ones that MEDICAID was originally designed to cover.   The % difference in paid is rather great too -

Expanded Medicaid for the low income, abled bodied, childless - 90%, as compared to those who are the elderly (over 65), blind, disabled, pregnant mothers & their newborns, children in the CHIPS Medicaid program - 40 - 60%.

This difference in the Fed payments is nothing but a bribe to get the states to insure these low income abled bodied, childless folks under the EXPANDED program - I think the amount should at least be less than those who are more needy, IMO.  Or at least the same - but not more.

Some states (7-8) of them are taking this extra money and giving MEDICAID coverage to others REGARDLESS OF THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS.  

So let’s do talk about the specifics of the legislation in regards to Medicare and Medicaid - but let’s at least be factual in what we are saying.  

Government is complicated; government program are complicated - I think that we should assign different names to the different programs under MEDICAID but that might be too complicated for the masses to understand. But we have to understand it to understand the whatever changes or the cost savings.

[MaryRose416568]

Cuts to programs will affect us all. People who no longer will receive coverage will still turn up in ERs.  The lost money will be made up for by raising costs for people with insurance. The cuts will cost us rural hospitals and those people will travel to larger cities and that burden will be paid for by raising the costs to people with insurance. 

[PaulA981355]

lost in all the noise and misdirection are the actual numbers. See where tax cuts are going here:

https://itep.org/house-tax-plan-trump-tax-cuts-by-the-numbers/

Then remember that this week, Moody's joined Standard & Poor, and Fitch to grade US debt as Aa1. Microsoft and many municpalities in America have Aaa rating. This will not just blow away. This is not the time to cut taxes for people that don't need tax cuts. See itep.org link above

[GailL1]

@PaulA981355 

The US’s credit rating was downgraded because of the amount of government debt and because our interest on the debt is now at almost a TRILLION dollars.  

PETER G PETERSON FOUNDATION 05/19/2025 - Moody’s Downgrade of U.S. Credit Rating Highlights Risks of... 

from the link ~

On May 16, Moody’s Ratings downgraded the U.S. credit rating, citing an inability of the nation to address large and growing deficits. This downgrade means that for the first time ever, all three major credit ratings agencies have downgraded U.S. credit below their top rating. Moody’s warning comes as lawmakers are considering budget reconciliation legislation that would make America’s fiscal situation significantly worse.

The new report from Moody’s downgrades the U.S. credit rating from the top level of Aaa (negative) to Aa1 (stable). In its announcement, Moody’s stated the following primary reasons for doing so:

• Growing debt caused by increased federal spending and reduced revenues from tax cuts. Moody’s includes the assumption that extension of the 2017 TCJA provisions will add $4 trillion to the debt over the next decade.
• Growing federal interest payments, driven by rising interest rates. The cost of financing the U.S. debt has increased rapidly, driven by higher Treasury yields since 2021.

The interest on the debt is now almost a TRILLION DOLLARS - that amount is paid before anything else.

Yes, we need to do both - REDUCE SPENDING and INCREASE REVENUES - but how do we do that when people keep wanting things.  

• We want government programs and services,
• we don’t want to pay taxes on our Social Security benefits,
• we don’t want to pay taxes on tips, or overtime.
• We want everybody to have healthcare coverage, even when the Feds have to bribe the states to cover low income, abled bodied, childless people by reimbursing them MORE than those who are low income old, blind, disabled or pregnant women.
• we want tax credits for the kids we have,
• we want to be able to deduct ourf State and Local Taxes on our income tax no matter what they are.  
• we want more from our Social Security and Medicare even though we have known for a long time  that the Trust Funds are drying up 
• we want good roads, good schools, good jobs, 
• we want to have an adequate retirement when we stop working

Companies have to invest in their businesses in order to grow and hire more people.  When they grow, they add more value to the economy.  For many, they are the ones that have given workers their health insurance, their retirement and other benefits.  

Yes, we do need to get to the point where we all contribute for what we want. 

from the link again ~

Now, all three major rating agencies have lowered their ratings for U.S. debt, reflecting deep concern about the United States’ growing debt and deficits. These serious and credible warnings should send a strong message to policymakers about the need to address America’s unsustainable fiscal path.

[PaulA981355]

yes. That much is widely known, it's spelled out on Moodys.com where I have an account.

My financial advisors keep me updated near real-time on this.

Do you know one really good way to "address our unsustainable fiscal path"???

Don't give tax cuts to people who earn over $360 000 per year. It's ludicrous to talk "fiscal responsibility" while giving tax cuts that add 3.5 trillion $ to the debt over 10 years.

It's a bit disturbing how quickly you've shown your true colors - first, it was "oh don't worry medicare . . ..  sequestration something something", to full-blown Heritage Foundation (EDIT - removed extraneous " char)  sock-puppet.

I've seen your profile - 3700 posts over 16 years. It's almost like you have something to gain by lulling people into complacency.

I'm done responding to you - you are not operating in good faith. Bye!

[GailL1]

@BNorris1953 

NONE of any of this has any affects on benefits - not the potential cuts to MEDICAID and not the potential cuts to MEDICARE - it just numbers - what the government pays to states or to providers.

Potential MEDICARE cuts would be due to PAYGO and Sequestration - IF the numbers on MEDICAID don’t pan out.

AGAIN, I repeat - there are no cuts to benefits of MEDICARE or MEDICAID

We have been thru this before - sequestration - and I bet no beneficiary even realized it.  Passage of the ACA comes to mind when the same budget reconciliation was used to pass it and the result was MEDICARE CUTS - but only in the form of sequestration.

What is sequestration - it is when government cuts pat to providers.  

[k228636m]

My adult daughter who is very ill and disabled, but denied SSI, will lose her MediCal. She has no income, is unable to lead a normal life and stays in bed most of the time - so she would be unable to fulfill the work requirement or the community service requirement and will lose all of her healthcare and dental care. She is very close to finding a diagnosis and help for her condition. This bill could end up killing her. So YES, in a way, it is a cut to MEDICAID as millions in her situation will lose their healthcare. 

[GailL1]

@k228636m 

Sorry to hear about your daughter’s health problems but her main problem in this instance seems to be with being denied being DISABLED (i.e. denied SSI).  The requirements for being declared disabled are determined by the medical evidence presented - that goes for SSDI as well as SSI since the review process is the same for both.  

The only differences in the two disability programs is for

• SSDI there has to be either a work history or one gets the benefits from a parents Social Security record IF that child’s disability was present before the age of 22.  
• SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is a welfare based program for those who are low income (and asset) elderly, blind or disabled and without a substantial work history for an ample Social Security benefit.

I hope your daughter has filed an appeal for her disability claim.  

One of the things that the legislators found in their review of this change was that there were some folks who definitely were disabled and young but because they could get their coverage under the ACA expandable Medicaid that they did not file for disability since the process has medical requirements.  So there will be some exceptions for awhile for those on the Expanded program with a disability to get documented and approved for that disability.

She will be much better off once declared disabled but that also comes with strict income and resource requirements at least for the SSI program.  

Yes, there does need to be a diagnosis and medical records and a statement from her doctors agreeing that her condition does not allow for her to work at all.  

You did not say why she was denied - but she still has the right to appeal unless the reason for denial was not a medical one - 

Since you referred to Medi-CAL then I know she is located in California and since California is one of the states that allows Medicaid coverage to cover those regardless of their legal immigration status and the proposed bill would also eliminate Medicaid coverage to undocumented folks, this may open up some state funds for the citizens.

California Healthline 05 /13/2025 - After Promising Universal Health Care, Gov. Newsom Must Reconsid... 

CALMatters.org- 05/14/2025 - Newsom proposes to freeze Medi-Cal enrollment for undocumented immigran... 

POLITFacts 05/16/2025 - Newsom championed Medicaid for immigrants in California illegally. Now he wa... 

NPR.ORG- 05/18/2025 - These Democratic governors are trying to curb health care for unauthorized imm... 

[SpringIsHereVA]

@k228636m , I am glad to hear that she is very close to finding a diagnosis and help for her condition.  💛

Take care,

Nicole  👵

---

➡️[*** @k228636m wrote on Friday 5/23/25:

My adult daughter who is very ill and disabled, but denied SSI, will lose her MediCal. She has no income, is unable to lead a normal life and stays in bed most of the time - so she would be unable to fulfill the work requirement or the community service requirement and will lose all of her healthcare and dental care. She is very close to finding a diagnosis and help for her condition. This bill could end up killing her. So YES, in a way, it is a cut to MEDICAID as millions in her situation will lose their healthcare. ***]

---

[PaulA981355]

This is deliberately vague.

Paying medical providers less = cuts.

The obvious consequence.of.oauinf providers less is loss ***somewhere***, and that always comes home to the consumer (patient).

Why the misdirection? Isn't deliberate?

[GailL1]

@PaulA981355 

Providers have their payments increased or DECREASED almost every year.  

CMS.gov  News Room - - CY 2025 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule 

Per the link ~  this was done last year and effective for 2025 

CY 2025 PFS Rate Setting and Conversion Factor

By factors specified in law, average payment rates under the PFS will be reduced by 2.93% in CY 2025, compared to the average amount these services were paid for most of CY 2024.

That’s what sequestration is - cuts to provider pay.  We have had occur several times in the not so distant pass - like I said - the time when the ACA was coming into being, it was used.  

It is capped below 4% - and again what providers are paid is based on a lot of stuff so they may be getting an increase for this and that - like initiating a EHR program (electronic health record) - adds to their pay, so to speak -.

Then there are services that go together and are now batch paid - an example here would be the collection of a blood specimen in the doc office - is billed but it is paid within the other services like the office visit.  

These reductions are also based on the area - because health care cost are more expensive in some areas than others.  

As a beneficiary, you will never know about these reductions in a docs pay - like I said, we have been under this reduction before.  

Do docs leave Medicare because of these little drops ?  They would be stupid to do so since beneficiaries of Medicare are so great in number.  

Docs that take Medicare assignment are still a huge % of the availability - like 96% - sure some of the specialist don’t take Medicare - Psychiatry is the one that is the biggest offender.  But even that is getting better since Medicare (and Medicaid) have opened this mental health category to other professions with varying degrees - 

At this point in the legislative process, we do not know if this will even be the case because it all depends on what the Senate now does - 

[PaulA981355]

(edited for format - the bullet-indents seem to not be working after submission)

Focusing on the technicalities of what sequestration is - is beside the point. 

Here are facts (if you believe these are not true, please refute each one with references and logic - not more legal terminology):

1 - the budget as proposed will cause between $3.3 and 3.8 trillion extra debt between now and 2037 (source: CBO analysis, 5/21/2025)

2 - regulations will require spending cuts to reduce debt.

3 - medicare payment-cuts (to providers) will be on the table for sequestration to cover the costs (existing legislation).

4 - if provider cuts occur, providers will get paid less for each patient treatment (source: arithmetic, logic)

5 - providers are not charities and have costs. It's is definite that something has to give when less money comes in; one or more of the following occur (Source: arithmetic and logic))

a) copays go up

b) quality and/or quantity of care goes down

c) providers lose money 

CBO analysis of the budget proposal:

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf?ref=utahpo...

Arrington's equivocation and misdirection claiming the CBO is partisan (it isn't . ..  .) is here: https://budget.house.gov/press-release/budget-chairman-on-cbos-response-to-democrat-hypothetical-sce...

There's no arguing over where the tax cuts go (read the House budget bill).

This will probably go the way big money wants it to go. I say this:

AARP will be here next year, 5, 10 etc. years in the future. 

@aarp- please bookmark the CBO assessment and Arrington's "look, squirrel" trickle-down misdirection and keep it at the forefront until/after the fallout begins.

In summary, the argument "sequestration is a boogeyman that will never arrive" is not a solution. The bond market agrees, and bonds make the world go 'round.