• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump budget: $800 billion in Medicaid cuts

Socrates1 said:
I see able bodied scum in the super markets with multiple tats , diamond ear rings , piercings , $200 sneakers , gold chains and their handy food stamp card . The very same ones that head to the emergency room when the get a headache from too many drugs , they have no co-pays , no deductibles , and NO worries ! It's the taxpayers that foots the bill !!
Click to expand...

Yes I see them too. For every one of those, I see just as many people that are unable to help themselves.

The system is fraught with problems. Eliminating corruption is a good thing. Putting those unable to help themselves out is worse.
 
Trump’s Budget Throws Millions Toward Shame-Based Abstinence-Only Programs

Adding to the plentiful criticism of his controversial 2018 proposed budget, President Donald Trump's proposed budget also allots millions to abstinence-only education programs — $227 million to be exact. While it's unfortunately not an unheard of move for a Republican administration to support these sort of programs, investing in education policies that seek to shame and discourage sexual activity rather than providing information that allows young people to protect themselves remains deeply unsettling and insulting.
Click to expand...

https://www.bustle.com/p/trumps-bud...rd-shame-based-abstinence-only-programs-60343


I can see it now.. Your National Spokesperson

.
rs_600x748-160129095301-600-bristol-palin-tripp-sailor-grace-kids-012416.jpg


Because it worked so well for me!!





 
Socrates1 said:
I see you failed accounting ! :lol:
Click to expand...

You do know that I have a degree in accounting and hold a CPA... but this is not a discussion of accounting, its a discussion of social policy.

You fail to understand how things actually work. Not paying your medical bill in April means a bigger medical bill in Dec. Not paying medicaid does not eliminate the problem of the medical needs of our citizens. It will re-appear later in a far more expensive fashion. Swapping preventative care for the later burden of emergency room care will cost far more than what people think they are saving on medicaid, in much the way that failing to do routine service on your automobile will cost you a great deal more in major auto repair later.

But wait, you already know that...

Socrates1 said:
I see able bodied scum in the super markets with multiple tats , diamond ear rings , piercings , $200 sneakers , gold chains and their handy food stamp card . The very same ones that head to the emergency room when the get a headache from too many drugs , they have no co-pays , no deductibles , and NO worries ! It's the taxpayers that foots the bill !!
Click to expand...

You do realize that prior to the PPACA, the average family paid $1,000 per year to their private health insurance to cover the uninsured and an additional $2,000 in the from of tax burden.

BTW, maybe its the Christian in me, but I don't refer to other persons as "able bodied scum", it tells us a bit about you that is somewhat repulsive.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
You do know that I have a degree in accounting and hold a CPA... but this is not a discussion of accounting, its a discussion of social policy.

You fail to understand how things actually work. Not paying your medical bill in April means a bigger medical bill in Dec. Not paying medicaid does not eliminate the problem of the medical needs of our citizens. It will re-appear later in a far more expensive fashion. Swapping preventative care for the later burden of emergency room care will cost far more than what people think they are saving on medicaid, in much the way that failing to do routine service on your automobile will cost you a great deal more in major auto repair later.

But wait, you already know that...



You do realize that prior to the PPACA, the average family paid $1,000 per year to their private health insurance to cover the uninsured and an additional $2,000 in the from of tax burden.

BTW, maybe its the Christian in me, but I don't refer to other persons as "able bodied scum", it tells us a bit about you that is somewhat repulsive.
Click to expand...

Your problem continues to be that you believe this is the federal taxpayer responsibility and not the state and local governments. One size fits all appeals to people who don't understand cost of living in the various states nor the true issue regarding Medicaid which is a federal mandate and use of federal tax money for state and local problems.
 
Conservative said:
I worked for 35 years in the business world, had private insurance until I turned 65 paying into that system. I was forced into Medicare and found my doctor of 25 years didn't take Medicare so had to buy a supplement to keep him thus driving up my costs and that wouldn't be any different with a Universal Healthcare system
Click to expand...

I don't follow. Medicare supplements just help pay your cost-sharing, they don't open up a different provider network to you.

As for Medicaid is it funded mostly by federal tax dollars and controlled more by the federal govt. than the states. I believe in states' rights and responsibilities thus let the state decide whether or not they want to participate in Medicaid. When the federal taxdollars stop as they would with ACA then the state has to pick up the costs which means the taxpayers of the state. let them decide before hand if they want Medicaid, some didn't choose to take the expanded Medicaid program including TX
Click to expand...

States do decide whether to participate in Medicaid; every one of them has opted in. And states do tailor their Medicaid programs (and certainly they administer them), which is why they're all different.
 
Greenbeard said:
I don't follow. Medicare supplements just help pay your cost-sharing, they don't open up a different provider network to you.



States do decide whether to participate in Medicaid; every one of them has opted in. And states do tailor their Medicaid programs (and certainly they administer them), which is why they're all different.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't follow because you ignored the reality that for decades I paid into SS and Medicare along with private insurance payments so that when I retired I was forced into Medicare and now have to pay more to keep my doctor

That is the point, states decide to participate in Medicaid and thus the electorate in the state has that choice. 800 billion cuts in Medicaid means 800 billion dollars less in taxes to fund Medicaid allowing the people of the states to keep that money in the state and in their economy thus having more to deal with state and local healthcare issues
 
Top Cat said:
Donald Trump budget: $800 billion in Medicaid cuts - CNNPolitics.com

Such a lying snake.

Click to expand...


In Washington, an increase is a cut. In the rest of the Universe, an increase is an increase.

Is it any wonder that the general public does not trust what is being said in washington and what is being reported by our press?

AP FACT CHECK: No Medicaid cuts in Trump budget? Really? - ABC News
<snip>
So, yes, Medicaid spending would increase by $4.7 trillion over a decade.

But as a proportion of the economy, it would clearly be cut.

Medicaid spending would fall from 2 percent of the economy to 1.7 percent in 2027 due to the reductions in spending projections by Trump.

That slight decrease adds up to more than $600 billion over 10 years.
<snip>
 
Conservative said:
Of course you don't follow because you ignored the reality that for decades I paid into SS and Medicare along with private insurance payments so that when I retired I was forced into Medicare and now have to pay more to keep my doctor
Click to expand...

No, I mean that's not what Medicare supplements are. Do you mean you're on Medicare Advantage?

That is the point, states decide to participate in Medicaid and thus the electorate in the state has that choice. 800 billion cuts in Medicaid means 800 billion dollars less in taxes to fund Medicaid allowing the people of the states to keep that money in the state and in their economy thus having more to deal with state and local healthcare issues
Click to expand...

Those states have already made the choice to participate in Medicaid. Federal cuts are just the feds reneging on their agreement/responsibility to provide matching funds for state spending on their Medicaid populations.

Your argument about allowing states to keep more money in their economies only applies to donor states like California, New York, Massachusetts etc. that contribute more in taxes that they get back in federal assistance. Poorer states like Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc get hosed, on the other hand, and would see a net exodus of dollars from their economies if federal funds to them were turned off.
 
Greenbeard said:
No, I mean that's not what Medicare supplements are. Do you mean you're on Medicare Advantage?



Those states have already made the choice to participate in Medicaid. Federal cuts are just the feds reneging on their agreement/responsibility to provide matching funds for state spending on their Medicaid populations.

Your argument about allowing states to keep more money in their economies only applies to donor states like California, New York, Massachusetts etc. that contribute more in taxes that they get back in federal assistance. Poorer states like Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc get hosed, on the other hand, and would see a net exodus of dollars from their economies if federal funds to them were turned off.
Click to expand...
Please describe for me a donor state? It does seem that you think that every dollar that goes back to the States is for State programs and that's wrong. Do you believe it is a state Citizen's responsibility to pay for federal mandated programs?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
Please describe for me a donor state? It does seem that you think that every dollar that goes back to the States is for State programs and that's wrong. Do you believe it is a state Citizen's responsibility to pay for federal mandated programs?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Medicaid is not a federally mandated program. It's a voluntary program for states in which the feds offer to provide matching funds for state spending on health care (such that the state never gets less than $1 for every $1 in state spending; poorer states get a lot more than $1 for every $1 they spend). Any state that decides it wants to withdraw from Medicaid can do so, but it immediately loses half or more of the funding for its health care safety net. That's money that stops flowing to that state's local communities, hospitals, and all sorts of care providers.

The idea that turning off the federal spigot in exchange for a tax break for the wealthy means there's more money flowing into your communities is not true at all for most places. A fair number of hospitals would go under and many communities would see their economic backbone take a serious hit.
 
Greenbeard said:
Medicaid is not a federally mandated program. It's a voluntary program for states in which the feds offer to provide matching funds for state spending on health care (such that the state never gets less than $1 for every $1 in state spending; poorer states get a lot more than $1 for every $1 they spend). Any state that decides it wants to withdraw from Medicaid can do so, but it immediately loses half or more of the funding for its health care safety net. That's money that stops flowing to that state's local communities, hospitals, and all sorts of care providers.

The idea that turning off the federal spigot in exchange for a tax break for the wealthy means there's more money flowing into your communities is not true at all for most places. A fair number of hospitals would go under and many communities would see their economic backbone take a serious hit.
Click to expand...

Good then a cut of 800 billion dollars for those 50 states is irrelevant as that is money that doesn't have to go the Federal Govt. through taxes. Stop with the tax breaks for the people who pay most of the taxes anyway. Let the states decide how to insure their own. Big govt. one size fits all has created the mess we have today.
 
Cutting Medicaid spending throws the whole problem onto the state's taxpayers while the health and welfare of the state's citizens declines, so the wealthy can get wealthier.
 
Conservative said:
Good then a cut of 800 billion dollars for those 50 states is irrelevant as that is money that doesn't have to go the Federal Govt. through taxes. Stop with the tax breaks for the people who pay most of the taxes anyway. Let the states decide how to insure their own. Big govt. one size fits all has created the mess we have today.
Click to expand...
Somebody is going to have to pick up a much higher health bill because of the proposed stupidity. It will be you and me, little buddy.
 
JamesBY said:
Somebody is going to have to pick up a much higher health bill because of the proposed stupidity. It will be you and me, little buddy.
Click to expand...
You just don't get it at all. You have been conditioned to believe that is the role of the Federal Government and it isn't. Healthcare cost are born by the citizens of the state not the federal taxpayers so let the states solve their Healthcare problem

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
You just don't get it at all. You have been conditioned to believe that is the role of the Federal Government and it isn't. Healthcare cost are born by the citizens of the state not the federal taxpayers so let the states solve their Healthcare problemSent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
We the People have said the federal government will be involved. Whether you agree is meaningless. The Medicaid issue will not go the way you hope, I believe. We the People make those decisions.
 
Last edited:
JamesBY said:
We the People have said the federal government will be involved. Whether you agree is meaningless. The Medicaid issue will not go the way you hope, I believe. We the People make those decisions.
Click to expand...

We the people in order to people of the Unites States in order to create a perfect Union, provide justice, insure domestic tranquility, Provide for the common defense, PROMOTE domestic welfare
Click to expand...

Please explain to me the difference between PROVIDE and PROMOTe
 
JamesBY said:
You stumble over the words' meaning, which often happens among the far and alt right.
Click to expand...
Really? Is English your first language? Promote means provide???

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
No. promoting the general welfare, liberals want to provide for it
Click to expand...

You should read the Constitution sometime. From Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Click to expand...
 
Top Cat said:
Yes I see them too. For every one of those, I see just as many people that are unable to help themselves.

The system is fraught with problems. Eliminating corruption is a good thing. Putting those unable to help themselves out is worse.
Click to expand...

Teach a man to fish ......................:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom