Tag: obamacare subsidies
Scrooge Economics: The GOP Assault On SNAP And Medicaid Will Devastate Millions

Scrooge Economics: The GOP Assault On SNAP And Medicaid Will Devastate Millions

If you’re like me, your mail and email inboxes are filled this holiday season with pleas for donations from charitable organizations that help people on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Now more than ever they need our help because of the draconian cutbacks in funding contained in the legislation passed by the Republican Congress last July and signed into law by Donald Trump.

During the six-week government shutdown this fall, Democrats fought a worthy yet unsuccessful battle to renew the Biden-era’s increased Obamacare subsidies. Without them, millions of working people without employer-based coverage (the self-insured) won’t be able to afford their health insurance.

As of this writing, it seems unlikely the negotiations promised when the shutdown ended will succeed in reversing those cuts. Millions of people are expected to drop coverage next year because of the dramatic increase in their health insurance premiums.

Less attention on Medicaid/SNAP cuts

While those discussions are underway, few on Capitol Hill are talking about reversing the cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (commonly known as food stamps), which won’t hit in full force until 2027. This was a strategic decision by the GOP to hide their full impact from voters until after the mid-term elections. Those cuts will affect far more people that the Obamacare premium increases.

Indeed, the Medicaid/SNAP cuts will be the biggest reductions in federal assistance for the poor in U.S. history. It’s already forced thousands of legal immigrants in the U.S. off of Medicaid. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will eventually remove an estimated 7.5 million people from the program, mostly by setting up bureaucratic roadblocks to re-enrollment for people who already meet the law’s new work requirements.*

Those Medicaid cuts will account for three-fourths of the 10 million people expected to lose health care coverage over the next decade under the One Big Ugly Bill. Meanwhile, about 40 million people will receive smaller food subsidies unless states step in to help — an unlikely outcome in most areas of the country.

For anyone who cares about deficits, pay attention to the underlying math. The cuts to Medicaid and SNAP will reduce federal expenditures by about $1.1 trillion over the next decade. Extending the Obamacare subsidies would cost about $350 billion. The new and renewed tax cuts for corporations and the well-off will cost the Treasury about $4 trillion. Couldn’t they make do with just $2.5 trillion in tax cuts and leave the poor and self-insured alone?

Donald Trump and the GOP, meet Ebenezer Scrooge. You have a lot in common.

Cuts will affect everyone

These Medicaid/SNAP cuts aren’t going to affect just the poor and working class. They will hit everyone with employer-based coverage. Premiums for private coverage will rise even faster than now (six to seven percent on average for next year) due to the higher levels of uncompensated care given to the growing number of uninsured people who will be visiting the nation’s emergency rooms, where care is the most expensive.

It will also hit everyone who pays state and local taxes since states will be forced to pick up a higher share of the overall cost of Medicaid. The single biggest “revenue raiser” in the bill is a reduction in the tax that states are allowed to levy on health care providers. These provider taxes are used by states to pay for their share of the Medicaid program. They also increase the matching amount paid by the federal government. Every state but Alaska levies provider taxes, so this will be a big-time loss for almost every state in the country and their taxpayers.

Medicaid is the second largest expenditure in every state budget, just behind K-12 education. State and local officials, who must balance their budgets, will have just three options when faced with these draconian cuts. They can take money from other budgets like education (unlikely); they can raise taxes (a few blue states, maybe); or they can cut services (the most likely).

There are only two ways to cut services. They can eliminate non-emergency services like preventive screening, dental care and nascent programs to provide healthy food and shelter. These are precisely the kinds of services that prevent illnesses like cancers or tooth abscesses, which are far more costly to treat when left to fester. Cutting services is a penny-wise, pound-foolish alternative.

The other option is cutting Medicaid provider reimbursement rates, which are already lower than either Medicare or private insurance rates. Low physician payment rates are the main reason why only 70 percent of the doctors in the U.S. treat Medicaid patients, unlike the more than 95 percent who treat Medicare patients. Health care access will become immeasurably worse should states pursue this strategy.

“Things are going to get a lot worse"

Either way, the looming Medicaid cuts will have a major impact on health care systems across the country, which are usually the largest employer in every town, city and county. People with fewer SNAP benefits spend less at grocery stories.

A recent Commonwealth Fund study estimated state gross domestic products would fall by $154 billion by 2029, which is more than the federal government would save, and cost over 1.2 million people their jobs. State and local tax revenue would fall by $12 billion.

But the harshest impact will be on providers who are heavily dependent on Medicaid patients for most of their funding, which are urban safety net and rural hospitals. The GOP legislation set up a $10 billion-per-year fund for five years to help rural hospitals. But half its money will be evenly divided among the 50 states — a pittance compared to all the cuts coming down the pike. Moreover, it will do nothing for urban safety net hospitals, which are overwhelmingly located in Democratically-run cities.

The bottom line is that hospital systems and local physician groups dependent on Medicaid will face greater financial struggles, layoffs and closures. “Safety nets are struggling right now,” Dr. Erik Mikaitis, the CEO of Cook County Health, told a health care forum sponsored by Crain’s Chicago Business on Wednesday morning. The system gets 56% of its $5.14 billion budget through Medicaid. “Things are only going to get a lot worse.”




Fearing Midterm Ruin, Trump Blinks On Obamacare --Yet Still Aims To Gut Program

Fearing Midterm Ruin, Trump Blinks On Obamacare --Yet Still Aims To Gut Program

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

President Trump’s health plan, promised by Thanksgiving, was leaked to the press over the weekend. With the frosty reception immediately given this trial balloon by Republicans on Capitol Hill, I doubt it will see the light of day before people gather for their holiday dinners with family and friends.

The leaked plan’s outline went something like this:

  • It offered a two-year extension for the expanded premium subsidies, which Democrats demanded be restored in full during the six-week government shutdown
  • It establishes a minimum monthly payment of $5 for any plan, no matter how poor you are.
  • It would raise premiums for millions of low-income plan purchasers by turning the current cost-sharing formula, which currently lowers premiums, into a reimbursable expense, which will raise premiums.
  • It will establish a new subsidy cliff (when all subsidies stop) at 700 percent of poverty income (about $110,000 for a single adult in 2025).
  • It will allow beneficiaries to shift their tax credits into a health savings account, but only if they buy a bronze or high-deductible plan.

Other press accounts suggested the Trump proposal would also make short-term, limited benefit plans a permanent option on the Obamacare exchanges, and turn their allowable duration (just three months under a Biden administration rule) into years. Trump also wants to ban any government-subsidized plan from providing gender-affirming care or providing care for undocumented immigrants.

If you want more insight into this plan, you can turn to Charles Gaba’s substack or Andrew Sprung’s XPostFactoid. No one knows more about how the exchanges work (or don’t) than those two.

The politics

The only thing new in this plan is its direct relevance to the next two spins of the political cycle. Limiting the subsidy extension to two years gets the Republicans beyond the mid-terms, where they are staring at the possibility of a major shellacking.

Also, if passed, it would guarantee another fight over “failing Obamacare” during the next presidential election. That slogan will ring true to millions of people if the other elements of the plan are enacted, since they will go a long way toward turning a relatively successful program into a failing one.

There’s no need for me to go on at great length about why these rehashed GOP talking points should be non-starters for anyone who cares about health care, or has empathy for the least well-off among us. In short:

  • Any co-premium paid out-of-pocket for the very poor — even $5 — will dissuade hundreds of thousands of not millions from purchasing plans.
  • Turning cost-sharing into a reimbursable expense for the sick will also raise premiums.
  • The new subsidy cliff for the better-off people will incentivized hundreds of thousands if not millions of younger, healthier workers to drop coverage. This raises the average cost of the sicker, poorer patients still in the risk pool, which in turn raises premiums, which in turn discourages even more people from purchasing plans.
  • And, if those younger, healthier workers still want insurance, they will be offered the opportunity to buy those longer-duration, limited benefit plans, which will leave them with huge bills should they actually need to use their insurance. Again, more healthier people out of the risk pool; higher premiums for everyone in the risk pool.

Can you see a pattern? Raise premiums (for 2026), raise premiums (for 2027), and raise premiums (for 2028). Give young, healthy people an out (who cares about those who get sick and can’t afford their high deductibles). Then, let’s have an election where the GOP can point to the “obvious” failures of Obamacare.

As for preventing transgender people and undocumented immigrants from receiving care (whoops, the undocumented are already ineligible), that’s just cruel. It’s especially cruel to the more than half million people brought here as children by undocumented parents, most of whom are now hard-working, taxpaying adults.

Trump has already denied them coverage, reversing an earlier rule. This would make it permanent.

Merrill Goozner, the former editor of Modern Healthcare, writes about health care and politics at GoozNews.substack.com, where this column first appeared. Please consider subscribing to support his work.

Reprinted with permission from Gooz News

With Unity And Grace, Democrats Can Build Powerful Midterm Message On Shutdown

With Unity And Grace, Democrats Can Build Powerful Midterm Message On Shutdown

The shutdown is winding down as eight Senate Democrats (7 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats) voted with Republicans to get to the 60 votes needed to reopen the government. The ensuing spending plan will not include the health coverage subsidies for which the Democrats were holding out.

There is a lot of legitimate anger at the “defectors.” If you were going to cave, why wait until day 40? With public opinion leaning your way, why let up? Especially when this is the only leverage you’ve got? And how can you shake hands with these thoroughly untrustworthy Reppublicans, who have blatantly and illegally ignored previous spending allocations? All for the promise of a show vote on the health-coverage tax credits next month, a vote that will almost surely fail?!

Also, some of what the moderate Democrats are claiming they “got” in the deal are not at all Republican concessions, specifically rehiring government workers illegally laid off during the shutdown and “fully funding SNAP.” Simply getting the other side to obey the law may look like a win these days, but it is not.

Still, there are a number of arguments that point the other way, ones I’d argue are more compelling, though if and only if the fight we saw in the shutdown regarding who’s fighting for whom continues to rage. If these moderates don’t work with the rest of the Democratic caucus to build on the political and messaging gains made during the shutdown, then they really are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The main argument for ending the shutdown was that the Ds were not going to get the tax credits and too many people were feeling the brunt of the shutdown. The former is probably true; the latter is definitely true.

The group of people affected by the shutdown grew with each week, beyond the hundreds of thousands of federal workers who have not been paid for weeks. The Trump administration’s legal fight to avoid paying SNAP food assistance benefits put tens of millions of Americans at risk of going hungry. And its decision to ratchet back air traffic capacity ensnared millions of others in air travel disruptions and flight cancellations that began over the weekend.

Given that these two facts—probable loss on tax credits and spreading pain—were highly predictable from the start, why shutdown at all? For one, minority leader Schumer understood that the party was itching for a fight with what is, hands down, the worst, most spineless GOP Senate caucus of any of our lifetimes. On a daily basis, they bow before their corrupt leader and violate their vows to protect the Constitution.

Granted the leverage that shutdown gave them, Senate Democrats had to pitch a fight. And they pitched a uniquely strong one. They made the Republicanss own the highly potent health-care (un)affordability issue, and they’ll get another chance to elevate that issue next month when Republicans continue to stand by while 20-plus million people see their premiums spike.

My sense, backed by some polling evidence, with the most important polls being last Tuesday’s mini-blue-wave, is that a very important sentiment is clarifying among voters: the Trump administration doesn’t care a whit about their economic concerns but the Democrats do.

I grant you, that last bit—”the Democrats do”—is an uphill battle and is just now maybe coming into focus. The shutdown underscored that for Republicans, unaffordability and cruelty are spectator sports. This leaves Democrats as the only party in the game. No question, the party is suffering from years, if not decades, of being perceived as abandoning working-class economics, in many cases, justly so. But during the shutdown, they were clearly the party fighting for affordable health care, for SNAP, for government workers, while the Republicans were weaponizing the moment to push hard in the wrong direction on each of these issues.

This is the fight that Democrats won in the shutdown, even if they lost on tax credits. But if they stop here, they’re toast, and deservedly so. I could be wrong—maybe this time is different—but in a few months, most regular folks won’t remember the shutdown. These events have historically had a very short half-life.

But if they start here, if they learn from this shutdown that they can unify around the message of affordability, of competent governance that follows the rule of law, of elevating the hurt that this administration, backed by a do-nothing, wholly-compliant Congressional majority, is doing to large swaths of Americans on a daily basis, then the shutdown will have been worth it.

Jared Bernstein is a former chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Joe Biden. He is a senior fellow at the Council on Budget and Policy Priorities. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Econjared.

President Trump

Tariff Dividend Checks For Dummies (Who Run America's Policy Debates)

I learned basic arithmetic skills in third grade. I wasn’t exceptional, everyone in my public school third grade class learned them. Of course, we all can now use computers to have calculations done for us in a fraction of a second. But still somehow, we have major national debates that show zero understanding of even the most basic arithmetic.

The latest example is the $2,000 tariff dividend check that Trump is promising us. The arithmetic here is about as simple as it gets. We have roughly 340 million people in the country. Let’s say 10 percent don’t get the check because they meet Trump’s category of “high-income.”

That leaves over 300 million people getting Trump’s $2,000 checks. That comes to more than $600 billion. Trump’s tariffs are raising around $270 billion. That means we will be paying out $330 billion more in Trump tariff dividend checks than he is raising in tariff revenue. That is adding $330 billion to the deficit. That is from the same guy who is making an obsession of paying down our national debt.

And just to be clear, we were already looking at a budget deficit for 2026 of $1.8 trillion. If we add $330 billion, the deficit for the fiscal year will be $2.1 trillion. To put this in simple language that even a reporter for a major national news outlet can understand, Trump is proposing to add $2.1 trillion to the debt in 2026, he is not paying it down.

I acknowledge not being a deficit hawk and am not terrified by a deficit of this size, which is roughly seven percent of GDP. But I suspect most of the politicians in Washington are, and certainly anyone who thinks we need to be paying down the debt should be screaming bloody murder.

But watching the reaction in major media outlets, there seems almost no appreciation of the fact that Trump was floating what would ordinarily be considered a very large increase in the deficit. In fact, if Trump were to give this tariff dividend check every year over the next decade, it would add close to $4 trillion to the debt (counting interest payments), almost as much as the big tax cut Congress approved earlier this year.

It’s also worth comparing Trump’s tariff dividends to other items in the news. The government shutdown was in large part over the $35 billion in annual payments for enhanced subsidies for people buying insurance in Obamacare exchanges. Trump and Republicans in Congress claimed that we didn’t have the money to pay for these subsidies. Trump’s tariff dividend checks would cost more than 17 times as much as the enhanced insurance subsidies.

To make another comparison, Trump saved us around $6 billion a year by shutting down PEPFAR, the program that has saved tens of millions of lives by treating people in Africa for AIDS. This means that Trump’s tariff dividend checks will cost us 100 times as much as the AIDS program that he said we couldn’t afford.

And just to throw in one more comparison, the annual appropriation for public broadcasting was $550 million. Trump’s tariff dividend checks would cost more than 1000 times as much as the government’s payments for public broadcasting.

People can differ in their views on how important it is to save lives in Africa or provide people here with healthcare. They may also differ in their assessments of how important deficits are, but it really would be good if media outlets could make knowledge of third grade arithmetic a job requirement for reporters who deal with budget issues. It should be their job to provide meaningful information to the public on the topic. Letting someone talk about $2,000 dividend checks, and also about paying down the debt, is a sick joke.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack.

Reprinted with permission from Dean Baker.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World