Trump to cut $2.7t from domestic programs...Is the FSA pissing themselves?

[toomuchtime_]

Trump budget would put an end to some drug-cost help under Medicare Part D

Retirees with high prescription drug costs might want to keep an eye on President Trump's hoped-for changes to Medicare.

The president's proposed 2020 budget, released Monday, calls for allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies and would cap how much beneficiaries pay out-of-pocket under Part D prescription drug coverage, among other provisions. Yet it also would get rid of some help that beneficiaries receive for their medicines.

On top of eliminating help with generic drug costs for low-income Medicare recipients, the budget would stop allowing manufacturer discounts to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs during the so-called coverage gap under Part D.

"If those discounts are no longer counted, it means people would spend longer in the coverage gap and spend more out of pocket," said Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for The Senior Citizens League. "Those discounts currently are 70 percent of the cost of a drug."

Medicare Part D's coverage gap, or "donut hole," is the time between a drug plan's coverage limit ($3,820 for 2019) and the threshold for qualifying for catastrophic coverage ($5,100 for 2019), which is when your share of the cost drops.

While Medicare beneficiaries now pay 25 percent for brand-name drugs during that gap — the same share before reaching the drug plan's limit — they also have been able to count manufacturer discounts toward their out-of-pocket costs while in the gap. That helps them reach the catastrophic phase of coverage faster.

Some retirees with lower income get extra help to cover the cost of their medicine. Others, however, have too much income to qualify for assistance but nevertheless struggle to pay the cost of their prescriptions — which can lead to drastic choices.

"They start cutting tablets in half to stretch out their medicine, or use credit cards to pay," said Elizabeth Gavino, founder of Lewin & Gavino in New York and an independent broker and general agent for Medicare plans. "For some, it's a choice of taking medicine or buying food."

Adding to the potential woes for those already struggling is the impending expiration at the end of 2019 of an Affordable Care Act provision that limited annual increases in the threshold for catastrophic coverage. Over the past nine years, yearly increases have totaled $550 altogether.

In 2020, however, the threshold is projected to jump by $1,250 to $6,350 from $5,100 this year, according to the 2018 Medicare trustees report. Beyond that, the increase is expected to average $450 each year through 2027, at which point the out-of-pocket threshold would hit $9,450.

"That's a huge amount of money for future retirees or people retiring today who will be paying that much more," Johnson said.

Not a very good article. If the discounts don''t count toward the coverage gap, then the undiscounted price would count and that would help people satisfy the coverage gap sooner.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, in the last election 54.5% of the people of Utah played no part in choosing the current president.

Not true. Losing an election does not mean you intentionally when you voted for some one who might have won is not the same as throwing your vote away on a private pout.

They choose to vote for someone that had no chances to win the state, and winning the state is all that matters in our system. Hillary had no more chance of winning Utah than Johnson my state.

The people that live in Cali and voted for Trump knew he had zero chance of winning the state, but they did it anyhow. That is no different than what I do.

It's very different. Even if they knew Hillary couldn't win, a large percentage of voters vote a straight ticket, so they might be electing other Democrats, and a lot of voters hope against hope that their candidate will win.

So, what you are saying is that if one is a partisan sheep like you and votes straight ticket, it is ok to vote for someone that has no chance to win. But if you refuse to be a slave to the two parties and vote with a brain instead of who I am told to vote for, then it is not ok to vote for someone that has no chance to win.

what ever helps you sleep at night.

First off, let's not speculate about you having a brain or not being a sheep. If either of those were true, we would not be having this conversation. You did not make a mature decision and vote for someone who had a chance of winning precisely because you are a slave to an ideology that has no chance of ever making a difference in the US, and if you had a brain, you would not be calling everyone who disagrees with a sheep, since you clearly are a sheep.

As it says at the bottom of my post, "a belief is not an idea the mind possesses, it is an idea that possesses the mind." You need to consider how this applies to you.

I live in a blue state that all the polls had given to Clinton, but I voted for Trump anyway because I had known for years that Clinton was stupid and irresponsible, something the polls could not factor, and she certainly didn't disappoint me. As the polls got closer and closer, she stopped campaigning here and Trump doubled down on campaigning here and he won the state by a very small margin. If Hillary had won, my vote would still have been meaningful because I was trying to influence the election. You just dropped out.

once again for the reading impaired...my vote impacted the election the exact same amount that the vote of 55 million other people's did.

you can keep spinning it all you like, but in our system of states mattering and winner takes all, those are the facts.

it just pisses you off that I refuse to be a mindless partisan sheep that worships the current occupant of the white house.

 

[debbiedowner]

Trump budget would put an end to some drug-cost help under Medicare Part D

Retirees with high prescription drug costs might want to keep an eye on President Trump's hoped-for changes to Medicare.

The president's proposed 2020 budget, released Monday, calls for allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies and would cap how much beneficiaries pay out-of-pocket under Part D prescription drug coverage, among other provisions. Yet it also would get rid of some help that beneficiaries receive for their medicines.

On top of eliminating help with generic drug costs for low-income Medicare recipients, the budget would stop allowing manufacturer discounts to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs during the so-called coverage gap under Part D.

"If those discounts are no longer counted, it means people would spend longer in the coverage gap and spend more out of pocket," said Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for The Senior Citizens League. "Those discounts currently are 70 percent of the cost of a drug."

Medicare Part D's coverage gap, or "donut hole," is the time between a drug plan's coverage limit ($3,820 for 2019) and the threshold for qualifying for catastrophic coverage ($5,100 for 2019), which is when your share of the cost drops.

While Medicare beneficiaries now pay 25 percent for brand-name drugs during that gap — the same share before reaching the drug plan's limit — they also have been able to count manufacturer discounts toward their out-of-pocket costs while in the gap. That helps them reach the catastrophic phase of coverage faster.

Some retirees with lower income get extra help to cover the cost of their medicine. Others, however, have too much income to qualify for assistance but nevertheless struggle to pay the cost of their prescriptions — which can lead to drastic choices.

"They start cutting tablets in half to stretch out their medicine, or use credit cards to pay," said Elizabeth Gavino, founder of Lewin & Gavino in New York and an independent broker and general agent for Medicare plans. "For some, it's a choice of taking medicine or buying food."

Adding to the potential woes for those already struggling is the impending expiration at the end of 2019 of an Affordable Care Act provision that limited annual increases in the threshold for catastrophic coverage. Over the past nine years, yearly increases have totaled $550 altogether.

In 2020, however, the threshold is projected to jump by $1,250 to $6,350 from $5,100 this year, according to the 2018 Medicare trustees report. Beyond that, the increase is expected to average $450 each year through 2027, at which point the out-of-pocket threshold would hit $9,450.

"That's a huge amount of money for future retirees or people retiring today who will be paying that much more," Johnson said.

Not a very good article. If the discounts don''t count toward the coverage gap, then the undiscounted price would count and that would help people satisfy the coverage gap sooner.

You're not a senior are you? You're not taking any very expensive drugs are you? You don't understand one thing about Part D do you? The manufacturers discount saved people thousands of dollars and what the manufacturer paid went towards their catastrophic. I don't think you read the whole article.

Read your response again and I know you didn't comprehend the article or know anything about it.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not true. Losing an election does not mean you intentionally when you voted for some one who might have won is not the same as throwing your vote away on a private pout.

They choose to vote for someone that had no chances to win the state, and winning the state is all that matters in our system. Hillary had no more chance of winning Utah than Johnson my state.

The people that live in Cali and voted for Trump knew he had zero chance of winning the state, but they did it anyhow. That is no different than what I do.

It's very different. Even if they knew Hillary couldn't win, a large percentage of voters vote a straight ticket, so they might be electing other Democrats, and a lot of voters hope against hope that their candidate will win.

So, what you are saying is that if one is a partisan sheep like you and votes straight ticket, it is ok to vote for someone that has no chance to win. But if you refuse to be a slave to the two parties and vote with a brain instead of who I am told to vote for, then it is not ok to vote for someone that has no chance to win.

what ever helps you sleep at night.

First off, let's not speculate about you having a brain or not being a sheep. If either of those were true, we would not be having this conversation. You did not make a mature decision and vote for someone who had a chance of winning precisely because you are a slave to an ideology that has no chance of ever making a difference in the US, and if you had a brain, you would not be calling everyone who disagrees with a sheep, since you clearly are a sheep.

As it says at the bottom of my post, "a belief is not an idea the mind possesses, it is an idea that possesses the mind." You need to consider how this applies to you.

I live in a blue state that all the polls had given to Clinton, but I voted for Trump anyway because I had known for years that Clinton was stupid and irresponsible, something the polls could not factor, and she certainly didn't disappoint me. As the polls got closer and closer, she stopped campaigning here and Trump doubled down on campaigning here and he won the state by a very small margin. If Hillary had won, my vote would still have been meaningful because I was trying to influence the election. You just dropped out.

once again for the reading impaired...my vote impacted the election the exact same amount that the vote of 55 million other people's did.

you can keep spinning it all you like, but in our system of states mattering and winner takes all, those are the facts.

it just pisses you off that I refuse to be a mindless partisan sheep that worships the current occupant of the white house.

lol By being so committed to an ideology that you cannot try to choose the better candidate who is running, you are a partisan sheep.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lol By being so committed to an ideology that you cannot try to choose the better candidate who is running, you are a partisan sheep.

I choose the best candidate and I vote for them. You vote for whom your party tells you to vote for.

you can keep on spinning it all you like, but only one of us has sold their soul to a political party

 

[toomuchtime_]

Trump budget would put an end to some drug-cost help under Medicare Part D

Retirees with high prescription drug costs might want to keep an eye on President Trump's hoped-for changes to Medicare.

The president's proposed 2020 budget, released Monday, calls for allowing Medicare to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies and would cap how much beneficiaries pay out-of-pocket under Part D prescription drug coverage, among other provisions. Yet it also would get rid of some help that beneficiaries receive for their medicines.

On top of eliminating help with generic drug costs for low-income Medicare recipients, the budget would stop allowing manufacturer discounts to count toward a beneficiary's out-of-pocket costs during the so-called coverage gap under Part D.

"If those discounts are no longer counted, it means people would spend longer in the coverage gap and spend more out of pocket," said Mary Johnson, Social Security and Medicare policy analyst for The Senior Citizens League. "Those discounts currently are 70 percent of the cost of a drug."

Medicare Part D's coverage gap, or "donut hole," is the time between a drug plan's coverage limit ($3,820 for 2019) and the threshold for qualifying for catastrophic coverage ($5,100 for 2019), which is when your share of the cost drops.

While Medicare beneficiaries now pay 25 percent for brand-name drugs during that gap — the same share before reaching the drug plan's limit — they also have been able to count manufacturer discounts toward their out-of-pocket costs while in the gap. That helps them reach the catastrophic phase of coverage faster.

Some retirees with lower income get extra help to cover the cost of their medicine. Others, however, have too much income to qualify for assistance but nevertheless struggle to pay the cost of their prescriptions — which can lead to drastic choices.

"They start cutting tablets in half to stretch out their medicine, or use credit cards to pay," said Elizabeth Gavino, founder of Lewin & Gavino in New York and an independent broker and general agent for Medicare plans. "For some, it's a choice of taking medicine or buying food."

Adding to the potential woes for those already struggling is the impending expiration at the end of 2019 of an Affordable Care Act provision that limited annual increases in the threshold for catastrophic coverage. Over the past nine years, yearly increases have totaled $550 altogether.

In 2020, however, the threshold is projected to jump by $1,250 to $6,350 from $5,100 this year, according to the 2018 Medicare trustees report. Beyond that, the increase is expected to average $450 each year through 2027, at which point the out-of-pocket threshold would hit $9,450.

"That's a huge amount of money for future retirees or people retiring today who will be paying that much more," Johnson said.

Not a very good article. If the discounts don''t count toward the coverage gap, then the undiscounted price would count and that would help people satisfy the coverage gap sooner.

You're not a senior are you? You're not taking any very expensive drugs are you? You don't understand one thing about Part D do you? The manufacturers discount saved people thousands of dollars and what the manufacturer paid went towards their catastrophic. I don't think you read the whole article.

I understand part D perfectly. I use it all the time. Manufacturers can and will still provide discounts but the discounts - discounts are based on income and wealth and not on any Medicare rulings - will not apply to the coverage gap, that is, the undiscounted price will have to apply and that will allow people to move passed the coverage gap sooner.

 

[busybee01]

Sorry I am not a racist.

but you are a robot.

I am a independent thinker unlike you.

and still a robot.

You wish. You are a sock puppet and nothing more.

and you're still a robot. you wouldn't know independent thought if it was planted in your fking brain.

You don't have a fucking brain to worry about. If Trump didn't tell you what to say you wouldn't be able to say anything.

 

[toomuchtime_]

lol By being so committed to an ideology that you cannot try to choose the better candidate who is running, you are a partisan sheep.

I choose the best candidate and I vote for them. You vote for whom your party tells you to vote for.

you can keep on spinning it all you like, but only one of us has sold their soul to a political party

I don't have a party. I just vote for the best candidate who has a chance of winning. You vote for some one you think is ideologically pure, you mindless sheep.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

lol By being so committed to an ideology that you cannot try to choose the better candidate who is running, you are a partisan sheep.

I choose the best candidate and I vote for them. You vote for whom your party tells you to vote for.

you can keep on spinning it all you like, but only one of us has sold their soul to a political party

I don't have a party. .

 

[busybee01]

This budget is going nowhere. I predict even Republicans will reject this. Trump gets what he wants and cuts everyone else.

so you're not for ending the deficit?

There have to be no sacred cows. We do not need $8.6 billion for a wall. We need to tackle military waste. Cost overruns on weapons systems are enormous.

A wall pays for itself within 3 years. It's fiscally irresponsible to not build a wall.

We don't need a fucking wall. Just because white racists are desperately trying to hold onto political power, we don't need to spend the money. We are responsible for the increased flow across the border. American dollars fuel the drug cartels.

Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket. A Democrat Congress promised to secure the border in 1986 and hasn't done it yet.
In exchange for the promised border security, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. It's way past time to secure the border.

Ronald Reagan opposed building walls. He was for tearing down walls.

 

[busybee01]

Those enlisted in the Free Shit Army have been bitching nonstop about Trump’s spending on America’s productive and the rising national debt. I’m wondering how they feel about his proposal to reduce the debt?
Trump's 2020 budget calls for $2.7T in spending cuts, promises to erase deficit in 15 years

This budget is going nowhere. I predict even Republicans will reject this. Trump gets what he wants and cuts everyone else.

As opposed to the last budget where Trump and his voters got less than nothing?

They got increased defense spending.

I'm talking about the last partial budget, moron. Trump got less than nothing.

In the last full budget, the Dims got 5 times more than the defense spending Trump was asking for.

Trump wanted a increase in defense spending and he got it. He also got more money for border security but not a wall.

 

[toomuchtime_]

so you're not for ending the deficit?

There have to be no sacred cows. We do not need $8.6 billion for a wall. We need to tackle military waste. Cost overruns on weapons systems are enormous.

A wall pays for itself within 3 years. It's fiscally irresponsible to not build a wall.

We don't need a fucking wall. Just because white racists are desperately trying to hold onto political power, we don't need to spend the money. We are responsible for the increased flow across the border. American dollars fuel the drug cartels.

Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket. A Democrat Congress promised to secure the border in 1986 and hasn't done it yet.
In exchange for the promised border security, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. It's way past time to secure the border.

Ronald Reagan opposed building walls. He was for tearing down walls.

But Hillary supported the border fence.

In her book “Hard Choices,” Clinton said she supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (page 459).

Clinton, “Hard Choices”: I only wish that the bipartisan bill passed in the Senate in 2013 reforming our immigration laws could have passed the House.

In addition to providing a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, the bill would have funded an enhanced border security plan, including additional border fencing.

FactChecking Clinton's Big Speech - FactCheck.org

 

[busybee01]

This is why we have 22 trillion dollars in debt, fuckers like you give your party a free pass. The GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the White House and yet you cannot bring yourself to blame them for a single fucking dime.

And stupid sheep on the other side do the same thing for their party.

Big talk for someone who claims not to have voted.

Who the fuck ever said I have not voted? Is this all you have left, stupid lies? I vote every election.

That's not what you have been saying. You claim you didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton, and those were the only two candidates who had a chance of winning, so you didn't vote in any meaningful way, you just pouted.

The morons are the people who voted for Trump or Clinton. In Utah approximately a quarter of voters voted for someone other than Trump or Clinton.

so they volunteered for them to win. got it.

They voted for the best candidate. They are the smart ones.

 

[Marion Morrison]

There have to be no sacred cows. We do not need $8.6 billion for a wall. We need to tackle military waste. Cost overruns on weapons systems are enormous.

A wall pays for itself within 3 years. It's fiscally irresponsible to not build a wall.

We don't need a fucking wall. Just because white racists are desperately trying to hold onto political power, we don't need to spend the money. We are responsible for the increased flow across the border. American dollars fuel the drug cartels.

Who's "we"? You got a mouse in your pocket. A Democrat Congress promised to secure the border in 1986 and hasn't done it yet.
In exchange for the promised border security, Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million illegals. It's way past time to secure the border.

Ronald Reagan opposed building walls. He was for tearing down walls.

But Hillary supported the border fence.

In her book “Hard Choices,” Clinton said she supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (page 459).

Clinton, “Hard Choices”: I only wish that the bipartisan bill passed in the Senate in 2013 reforming our immigration laws could have passed the House.

In addition to providing a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally, the bill would have funded an enhanced border security plan, including additional border fencing.

FactChecking Clinton's Big Speech - FactCheck.org

As did her husband, moreso than the Bushes or Hussein.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Those enlisted in the Free Shit Army have been bitching nonstop about Trump’s spending on America’s productive and the rising national debt. I’m wondering how they feel about his proposal to reduce the debt?
Trump's 2020 budget calls for $2.7T in spending cuts, promises to erase deficit in 15 years

This budget is going nowhere. I predict even Republicans will reject this. Trump gets what he wants and cuts everyone else.

As opposed to the last budget where Trump and his voters got less than nothing?

They got increased defense spending.

I'm talking about the last partial budget, moron. Trump got less than nothing.

In the last full budget, the Dims got 5 times more than the defense spending Trump was asking for.

Trump wanted a increase in defense spending and he got it. He also got more money for border security but not a wall.

But he did get more money for the border fence, about 8 billion more.

 

[busybee01]

This budget is going nowhere. I predict even Republicans will reject this. Trump gets what he wants and cuts everyone else.

As opposed to the last budget where Trump and his voters got less than nothing?

They got increased defense spending.

I'm talking about the last partial budget, moron. Trump got less than nothing.

In the last full budget, the Dims got 5 times more than the defense spending Trump was asking for.

Trump wanted a increase in defense spending and he got it. He also got more money for border security but not a wall.

But he did get more money for the border fence, about 8 billion more.

A fence is not a wall and he got $1.3 billion.

 

[toomuchtime_]

As opposed to the last budget where Trump and his voters got less than nothing?

They got increased defense spending.

I'm talking about the last partial budget, moron. Trump got less than nothing.

In the last full budget, the Dims got 5 times more than the defense spending Trump was asking for.

Trump wanted a increase in defense spending and he got it. He also got more money for border security but not a wall.

But he did get more money for the border fence, about 8 billion more.

A fence is not a wall and he got $1.3 billion.

The President has said many times he intends to build a smart fence like Israel's fence with Sinai. He had asked for $5.7 billion but the Democrats pushed him into declaring an emergency and getting $8 billion. I guess they showed him who was boss!

 

[captkaos]

President Trump has certainly done a bang up job thus far reducing our debt and deficit.

You comparing him to the Kenyan?

I complained about our debt during his administration as well. Like I have for decades. The president's sycophants have been mostly silent as the grave concerning this matter. It must have taken two years to recover their voices after screaming about the Kenyan's debt for eight years. That spending could have been curbed if the opposition party ever got control of the House. lol

well the only way to cut the debt is to end SS and Medicare. You know that correct?

Stop Social Security for those who have never paid a dime in FICA through payroll deductions mandated by the Govt. Social Security should only be provided to those who have paid in. Instead it has become a free ride for people who have never worked. Americans with disabilities support systems should be funded from some other Govt agency. Not the Savings Account of Hard working Americans from every walk of life. Who have been getting ripped off since the beginning of Social Security under FDR. First major take away from working people to support Socialist agenda.

 

[deanrd]

Weird, Trump promised Mexico was going to pay for the wall.

And that was a lie.

And Trump promised he would never touch Social Security and Medicare.

And that was a lie.

Evidence Trump is a cult? Of course. When he can screw over his base and they love it. And want more of it.

 

[deanrd]

As opposed to the last budget where Trump and his voters got less than nothing?

They got increased defense spending.

I'm talking about the last partial budget, moron. Trump got less than nothing.

In the last full budget, the Dims got 5 times more than the defense spending Trump was asking for.

Trump wanted a increase in defense spending and he got it. He also got more money for border security but not a wall.

But he did get more money for the border fence, about 8 billion more.

A fence is not a wall and he got $1.3 billion.

No one can get over a "wall" made from steel slats. No one. It's not possible.