Possible changes coming to Medicare, but the Senate will probably

[Maxdeath]

I will ask anyone that. I don't suppose that you have any real idea that those you are talking about already pay the largest part of taxes any way. Of course not

Percentage wise they do not.

So you are saying that this is wrong? The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What
Or that they don't know what they are talking about? Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

A. That's from the Obama administration. tRump has lowered their taxes even more.

B. I'm talking about as a percentage of their income, which is not addressed in the out of date article from the notably right leaning site.

Trump lowered all taxes not just theirs.
If you have problem with the percentage look to Bernie, Pelosi and all the other rich congress that write the tax laws.

Bloomberg is a notably right leaning site? What are you smoking?

Don't forget these are the same people that setup college scholarships, hospital wings, library additions even money to homeless shelters.

Here is a recent one that you might notice first of all that it was also reported in The Hill. It does not fit you CNN, DNC talking points. Did The Rich Get All Of Trump's Tax Cuts?

So, the rich received the lion’s share of the tax cut. But they also pay the lion’s share of taxes. The top 1 percent pay 30.2 percent, the top 5 percent pay 51.1 percent, the top quintile pays 80.1 percent and the bottom quintile pays negative 9.0 percent.

they should and well add in the increases retirement taxes give aways, increases in HSAs , and the LCC real estate profits, they make out way above the those who make median wage. Most corps have a neg tax rate and most of the rich have foundations.

If you tell me what language that is I may be able to find some one to translate. Though I am not sure crazy can be translated.

 

[Maxdeath]

You know if they can donate and have all non profits foundations they can pay more in taxes.

Bernie, Pelosi think so. But not republicans.

So you think if you give ten dollars to a save the pet barracuda fund you should be made to pay more in taxes?

Bernie and Pelosi have no real comprehension of taxes. They keep voting for things that increase the national debt. But since you mention it where did they include a higher tax for those making 5 million a year in the bill that expands Medicare? Maybe I missed it. Or is this just you trying to defend Democrats spending like drunken sailors.

What do you care so much about the wealthy, like tramp who paid himself first and all those who went without, and filed bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

Damn you really don't understand the word fair. You really have no idea how the economy works. Learn something before posting.

 

[Penelope]

You know if they can donate and have all non profits foundations they can pay more in taxes.

Bernie, Pelosi think so. But not republicans.

So you think if you give ten dollars to a save the pet barracuda fund you should be made to pay more in taxes?

Bernie and Pelosi have no real comprehension of taxes. They keep voting for things that increase the national debt. But since you mention it where did they include a higher tax for those making 5 million a year in the bill that expands Medicare? Maybe I missed it. Or is this just you trying to defend Democrats spending like drunken sailors.

What do you care so much about the wealthy, like tramp who paid himself first and all those who went without, and filed bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

Damn you really don't understand the word fair. You really have no idea how the economy works. Learn something before posting.

Trickle down has never worked!! Learn there are more people with median income and below so it ends up trickling up to the rich anyway , just more slowly. Trickle down is the reason why there is so much income inequality.

 

[Maxdeath]

You know if they can donate and have all non profits foundations they can pay more in taxes.

Bernie, Pelosi think so. But not republicans.

So you think if you give ten dollars to a save the pet barracuda fund you should be made to pay more in taxes?

Bernie and Pelosi have no real comprehension of taxes. They keep voting for things that increase the national debt. But since you mention it where did they include a higher tax for those making 5 million a year in the bill that expands Medicare? Maybe I missed it. Or is this just you trying to defend Democrats spending like drunken sailors.

What do you care so much about the wealthy, like tramp who paid himself first and all those who went without, and filed bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

Damn you really don't understand the word fair. You really have no idea how the economy works. Learn something before posting.

Trickle down has never worked!! Learn there are more people with median income and below so it ends up trickling up to the rich anyway , just more slowly. Trickle down is the reason why there is so much income inequality.

You mean like it didn't work for JFK or Ronald Reagan? Who both had very good economies.
Funny how it worked for them but somehow does not work. Even Bush tried it when the economy went south and some economists credit for a big part of the ending of the recession.

 

[basquebromance]

The Mayo Clinic prioritizes profits over patients as rural communities are left behind | MinnPost

 

[debbiedowner]

You know if they can donate and have all non profits foundations they can pay more in taxes.

Bernie, Pelosi think so. But not republicans.

So you think if you give ten dollars to a save the pet barracuda fund you should be made to pay more in taxes?

Bernie and Pelosi have no real comprehension of taxes. They keep voting for things that increase the national debt. But since you mention it where did they include a higher tax for those making 5 million a year in the bill that expands Medicare? Maybe I missed it. Or is this just you trying to defend Democrats spending like drunken sailors.

What do you care so much about the wealthy, like tramp who paid himself first and all those who went without, and filed bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

Damn you really don't understand the word fair. You really have no idea how the economy works. Learn something before posting.

Trickle down has never worked!! Learn there are more people with median income and below so it ends up trickling up to the rich anyway , just more slowly. Trickle down is the reason why there is so much income inequality.

You mean like it didn't work for JFK or Ronald Reagan? Who both had very good economies.
Funny how it worked for them but somehow does not work. Even Bush tried it when the economy went south and some economists credit for a big part of the ending of the recession.

The Cons of Reaganomics
1. It required 100% compliance from the beneficiaries to work.
Reagan and Congress assumed that those receiving the tax cuts would voluntarily comply with the idea of investing into the future of the country. Their assumption was wrong. Many of those who received an economic benefit from Reaganomics simply held onto their additional cash, effectively taking it out of the economy. The average working household so little, if any benefits.

2. It created higher levels of national debt.
For the tax cuts to be implemented, Reaganomics took on the philosophy that it “it takes money to make money.” Spending levels decreased as tax incomes plummeted, but the cuts weren’t enough. The national debt went up higher during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan as a percentage more than any other serving President at that time.

3. It created larger deficits.
The spending deficits were massive in Reaganomics and it threatened to put the country back into another recession. The only way that the economy could be salvaged so a recovery could happen was to raise taxes. In total, Reaganomics wound up raising taxes nearly a dozen times on many of those who were counting on the benefits of a tax break, but never received one.

4. It created an unrealistic economy.
Internal spending was a foundational component of Reaganomics, especially within the defense sector. Over the 8 years that Reagan served, the defense budget was increased 6 times. This led to an unsustainable sector that provided temporary jobs and benefits, but no long term gain. At the height of Reagan’s defense spending, there were more than 50 defense contractors operating in the US. By 2004, there were just 5.

5. The anticipated cuts of Reaganomics never came.
One of the ways that Reagan attempted to pay for the economic policies was through cuts to education. He personally saw the Department of Education as an extraneous component of government. In total, more than $1 billion was removed from the department, but eventually Reagan had to give up on abolishing it because he couldn’t get any support behind him for the move.

The pros and cons of Reaganomics show that a system which works in simulations and on paper doesn’t always work in real life. There were certainly some positive gains made during this period in American history, but for some, the advantages came at a price that was much too high.


The Pros of Reaganomics
1. It lowered the threat of inflation.
Many of the economic issues that happened in the 1970’s were because of inflation that was trying to run out of control. It was nice to have high inflation because it meant that interest rates were high, but the cost of goods and services were soaring in relation to the real value of wages. Reaganomics helped put a stop to this.

2. It creates lower taxes for many Americans.
Taxation has always been a key subject for Americans, dating back to the revolt on the tea tax that led to the Boston Tea Party. Americans want to be represented for the taxes they pay and many feel that the value of what they send to the government isn’t returned. The lower taxes of Reaganomics helped to provide a little additional personal income that could be used to support the GDP.

3. It encouraged budgets to be cut.
The problem with government spending is that it tends to keep increasing over time. Reaganomics encouraged the government to be fiscally conservative with their spending habits just as the nation’s households were. The end result was a cut of many extraneous programs, grants, and services that really weren’t needed.

4. It created investment opportunities.
With many of the tax cuts targeting the wealthy class and businesses, the goal of Reaganomics was to create investment opportunities so that wealth could expand for everyone. The idea was if the wealthy invested into more wealth, it would create Middle Class jobs, increase salaries for all, and provide a better standard of living.

5. It took a hard stance on crime.
Reagan signed 8 Executive Orders and signed five major crime bills during his time in office that were designed to help Americans become productive instead of enslaved to illicit drugs.
Pros and Cons of Reaganomics - Vision Launch

 

[Maxdeath]

So you think if you give ten dollars to a save the pet barracuda fund you should be made to pay more in taxes?

Bernie and Pelosi have no real comprehension of taxes. They keep voting for things that increase the national debt. But since you mention it where did they include a higher tax for those making 5 million a year in the bill that expands Medicare? Maybe I missed it. Or is this just you trying to defend Democrats spending like drunken sailors.

What do you care so much about the wealthy, like tramp who paid himself first and all those who went without, and filed bankruptcy after bankruptcy.

Damn you really don't understand the word fair. You really have no idea how the economy works. Learn something before posting.

Trickle down has never worked!! Learn there are more people with median income and below so it ends up trickling up to the rich anyway , just more slowly. Trickle down is the reason why there is so much income inequality.

You mean like it didn't work for JFK or Ronald Reagan? Who both had very good economies.
Funny how it worked for them but somehow does not work. Even Bush tried it when the economy went south and some economists credit for a big part of the ending of the recession.

The Cons of Reaganomics
1. It required 100% compliance from the beneficiaries to work.
Reagan and Congress assumed that those receiving the tax cuts would voluntarily comply with the idea of investing into the future of the country. Their assumption was wrong. Many of those who received an economic benefit from Reaganomics simply held onto their additional cash, effectively taking it out of the economy. The average working household so little, if any benefits.

2. It created higher levels of national debt.
For the tax cuts to be implemented, Reaganomics took on the philosophy that it “it takes money to make money.” Spending levels decreased as tax incomes plummeted, but the cuts weren’t enough. The national debt went up higher during the Presidency of Ronald Reagan as a percentage more than any other serving President at that time.

3. It created larger deficits.
The spending deficits were massive in Reaganomics and it threatened to put the country back into another recession. The only way that the economy could be salvaged so a recovery could happen was to raise taxes. In total, Reaganomics wound up raising taxes nearly a dozen times on many of those who were counting on the benefits of a tax break, but never received one.

4. It created an unrealistic economy.
Internal spending was a foundational component of Reaganomics, especially within the defense sector. Over the 8 years that Reagan served, the defense budget was increased 6 times. This led to an unsustainable sector that provided temporary jobs and benefits, but no long term gain. At the height of Reagan’s defense spending, there were more than 50 defense contractors operating in the US. By 2004, there were just 5.

5. The anticipated cuts of Reaganomics never came.
One of the ways that Reagan attempted to pay for the economic policies was through cuts to education. He personally saw the Department of Education as an extraneous component of government. In total, more than $1 billion was removed from the department, but eventually Reagan had to give up on abolishing it because he couldn’t get any support behind him for the move.

The pros and cons of Reaganomics show that a system which works in simulations and on paper doesn’t always work in real life. There were certainly some positive gains made during this period in American history, but for some, the advantages came at a price that was much too high.


The Pros of Reaganomics
1. It lowered the threat of inflation.
Many of the economic issues that happened in the 1970’s were because of inflation that was trying to run out of control. It was nice to have high inflation because it meant that interest rates were high, but the cost of goods and services were soaring in relation to the real value of wages. Reaganomics helped put a stop to this.

2. It creates lower taxes for many Americans.
Taxation has always been a key subject for Americans, dating back to the revolt on the tea tax that led to the Boston Tea Party. Americans want to be represented for the taxes they pay and many feel that the value of what they send to the government isn’t returned. The lower taxes of Reaganomics helped to provide a little additional personal income that could be used to support the GDP.

3. It encouraged budgets to be cut.
The problem with government spending is that it tends to keep increasing over time. Reaganomics encouraged the government to be fiscally conservative with their spending habits just as the nation’s households were. The end result was a cut of many extraneous programs, grants, and services that really weren’t needed.

4. It created investment opportunities.
With many of the tax cuts targeting the wealthy class and businesses, the goal of Reaganomics was to create investment opportunities so that wealth could expand for everyone. The idea was if the wealthy invested into more wealth, it would create Middle Class jobs, increase salaries for all, and provide a better standard of living.

5. It took a hard stance on crime.
Reagan signed 8 Executive Orders and signed five major crime bills during his time in office that were designed to help Americans become productive instead of enslaved to illicit drugs.
Pros and Cons of Reaganomics - Vision Launch

You do realize that:
1. What you posted was a cut and paste.
2. It was written for a far left publication.
3. It was written by a person with no professed background in economics or other pertinent discipline. Having a few blogs does not make one an expert.
4. You are attempting to put trickle down in a bad light in one presidents time. That does not explain how it worked still worked for JFK or why some economists say that it was a part of the last recession recovery.

 

[Flopper]

vote against if it gets taken up at all. The Grim Reaper is in charge!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bill passed by a vote of 230 to 192, with Democrat support and Republican opposition (except two Republicans who voted for the measure). While it’s unlikely that the GOP-controlled Senate will take it up, advocates of the bill are hopeful that it moves the needle on how lawmakers approach any changes to Medicare, which is the primary health insurance for most Americans age 65 or older.

Medicare would cover dental, vision — if Senate OKs House bill

The bill does not have the impact on drug prices that people seem to believe.
It only allows Medicare to negotiate certain high-priced single source drugs. Medicare's ability to negotiate a lower cost is very limited, since most of these drugs are unique and have little competition from similar drugs. It seems most likely that Medicare would ask drug companies to lower their price so they could be included on a Select List. My understanding is that this list would be separate from the part d insurance company formularies. So if the insurance formulary does not list the drug, then patients would be able get the cost on the select list, which hopefully would lower than list price.

Both vision and dental are comprehensive covering both preventive and corrective treatment. Both dental and vision are covered under Part A which means there will be no increase in part the B premium.

There is a lot of other stuff in this bill which have some major impacts. Here is a link to the bill, probably not worth reading because it stands no chance of getting through the Senate with out major changes.
Text - H.R.3 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act

 

[debbiedowner]

vote against if it gets taken up at all. The Grim Reaper is in charge!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bill passed by a vote of 230 to 192, with Democrat support and Republican opposition (except two Republicans who voted for the measure). While it’s unlikely that the GOP-controlled Senate will take it up, advocates of the bill are hopeful that it moves the needle on how lawmakers approach any changes to Medicare, which is the primary health insurance for most Americans age 65 or older.

Medicare would cover dental, vision — if Senate OKs House bill

The bill does not have the impact on drug prices that people seem to believe.
It only allows Medicare to negotiate certain high-priced single source drugs. Medicare's ability to negotiate a lower cost is very limited, since most of these drugs are unique and have little competition from similar drugs. It seems most likely that Medicare would ask drug companies to lower their price so they could be included on a Select List. My understanding is that this list would be separate from the part d insurance company formularies. So if the insurance formulary does not list the drug, then patients would be able get the cost on the select list, which hopefully would lower than list price.

Both vision and dental are comprehensive covering both preventive and corrective treatment. Both dental and vision are covered under Part A which means there will be no increase in part the B premium.

There is a lot of other stuff in this bill which have some major impacts. Here is a link to the bill, probably not worth reading because it stands no chance of getting through the Senate with out major changes.
Text - H.R.3 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act

If you're saying both dental and vision are now covered under Part A of Medicare you're wrong, it is not covered under Medicare at all, except for a medical condition of the eyes or if someone knocks your teeth out or accidental and then it would be covered under Part B.