The Big Ugly Bill

[Elixir]

you could have gone directly into the legislation and looked yourself. Like I did. It took a bit more work, but right off the bat, there was no Section of that number.

WHAT was amiss?

SEC. 44125. PROHIBITING FEDERAL MEDICAID AND CHIP FUNDING FOR GENDERTRANSITION PROCEDURES.(a) Medicaid.--Section 1903(i) of the Social Security Act (42U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended--(1) in paragraph (26), by striking ``; or'' and inserting asemicolon;(2) in paragraph (27), by striking the period at the endand inserting ``; or'';(3) by inserting after paragraph (27) the following newparagraph:
``(28) with respect to any amount expended for specified
gender transition procedures (as defined in section 1905(kk))
furnished to an individual enrolled in a State plan (or waiver
of such plan).''; and
(4) in the flush left matter at the end, by striking ``and
(18),'' and inserting ``(18), and (28)''.
(b) CHIP.--Section 2107(e)(1)(N) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1397gg(e)(1)(N)) is amended by striking ``and (17)'' and
inserting ``(17), and (28)''.
(c) Specified Gender Transition Procedures Defined.--Section 1905
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(kk) Specified Gender Transition Procedures.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 1903(i)(28),
except as provided in paragraph (2), the term `specified gender
transition procedure' means, with respect to an individual, any
of the following when performed for the purpose of
intentionally changing the body of such individual (including
by disrupting the body's development, inhibiting its natural
functions, or modifying its appearance) to no longer correspond
to the individual's sex:
``(A) Performing any surgery, including--
``(i) castration;
``(ii) sterilization;
``(iii) orchiectomy;
``(iv) scrotoplasty;
``(v) vasectomy;
``(vi) tubal ligation;
``(vii) hysterectomy;
``(viii) oophorectomy;
``(ix) ovariectomy;
``(x) metoidioplasty;
``(xi) clitoroplasty;
``(xii) reconstruction of the fixed part of
the urethra with or without a metoidioplasty or
a phalloplasty;
``(xiii) penectomy;
``(xiv) phalloplasty;
``(xv) vaginoplasty;
``(xvi) vaginectomy;
``(xvii) vulvoplasty;
``(xviii) reduction thyrochondroplasty;
``(xix) chondrolaryngoplasty;
``(xx) mastectomy; and
``(xxi) any plastic, cosmetic, or aesthetic
surgery that feminizes or masculinizes the
facial or other body features of an individual.
``(B) Any placement of chest implants to create
feminine breasts or any placement of erection or
testicular prostheses.
``(C) Any placement of fat or artificial implants
in the gluteal region.
``(D) Administering, prescribing, or dispensing to
an individual medications, including--
``(i) gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)
analogues or other puberty-blocking drugs to
stop or delay normal puberty; and
``(ii) testosterone, estrogen, or other
androgens to an individual at doses that are
supraphysiologic than would normally be
produced endogenously in a healthy individual
of the same age and sex.
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the
following when furnished to an individual by a health care
provider with the consent of such individual's parent or legal
guardian:
``(A) Puberty suppression or blocking prescription
drugs for the purpose of normalizing puberty for an
individual experiencing precocious puberty.
``(B) Medically necessary procedures or treatments
to correct for--
``(i) a medically verifiable disorder of
sex development, including--
``(I) 46,XX chromosomes with
virilization;
``(II) 46,XY chromosomes with
undervirilization; and
``(III) both ovarian and testicular
tissue;
``(ii) sex chromosome structure, sex
steroid hormone production, or sex hormone
action, if determined to be abnormal by a
physician through genetic or biochemical
testing;
``(iii) infection, disease, injury, or
disorder caused or exacerbated by a previous
procedure described in paragraph (1), or a
physical disorder, physical injury, or physical
illness that would, as certified by a
physician, place the individual in imminent
danger of death or impairment of a major bodily
function unless the procedure is performed, not
including procedures performed for the
alleviation of mental distress; or
``(iv) procedures to restore or reconstruct
the body of the individual in order to
correspond to the individual's sex after one or
more previous procedures described in paragraph
(1), which may include the removal of a pseudo
phallus or breast augmentation.
``(3) Sex.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `sex'
means either male or female, as biologically determined and
defined in paragraphs (4) and (5), respectively.
``(4) Female.--For purposes of paragraph (3), the term
`female' means an individual who naturally has, had, will have,
or would have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or
historical accident, the reproductive system that at some point
produces, transports, and utilizes eggs for fertilization.
``(5) Male.--For purposes of paragraph (3), the term `male'
means an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would
have, but for a developmental or genetic anomaly or historical
accident, the reproductive system that at some point produces,
transports, and utilizes sperm for fertilization.''.

^ That "didn't exist"?
Enlighten me, Jimmy. Did Swami make that shit up? Was it removed prior to passage? Why couldn't you find it?

It took a bit more work

A bit more work that yielded ... nothing?
Working harder, not smarter?
I may be a total moron on the google-foo scale, but it is evident to me that the actual contents of that bug ugly bill are designed to be invisible to anyone who might question it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

you could have gone directly into the legislation and looked yourself. Like I did. It took a bit more work, but right off the bat, there was no Section of that number.

WHAT was amiss?

IT ISN'T IN THE BILL THAT PASSED CONGRESS AND WAS SIGNED INTO LAW! It was something was in some version of the House bill while making it through the House.. I can't even say with any certainty that the House passed this section in their bill the first time around.

The OP indicates it is law. It is NOT law. I noted previously, something like this likely couldn't survive the reconciliation process because it isn't about the budget... therefore it was very unlikely to even be in the final bill.

 

[Elixir]

Anyhow, I still cannot locate SEC 44125 within any text that I can find of the current (passed) version of the BBB.
Yet, asked "Does the passed version of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" contain a SEC 44125?" Google's AI responds:

Yes, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" does include a Section 44125. This section specifically prohibits federal funding for gender transition procedures, including hormone therapy, for minors under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Section 44125: is titled "Prohibiting federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures for minors".
• It prevents federal funds from being used to support gender transition procedures for individuals under the age of 18.
• This includes procedures like puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries.
• The bill also includes a provision that prevents "gender transition procedures" from being considered an essential health benefit under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2027.
• This means that if a plan loses its EHB status, it may not be required to cover these procedures, potentially leading to out-of-pocket costs for patients.

Is it just another case of erroneous/false non-information being regurgitated by a flawed AI?
Enlighten me please.

 

[Elixir]

Got it. FROM AI, no less. It is indeed another case of AI 'lying'.

• Initial House Version: A version of the bill passed by the House on May 22, 2025, included Section 44125, which would have banned federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
• House Amendment: Before the House vote, an amendment was adopted to extend the prohibition to also include gender-affirming care for adults.
• Senate Scrutiny: When the bill moved to the Senate, this provision, along with others, was scrutinized for potential violations of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in a reconciliation bill, which the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was.
• Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled on June 20, 2025, that several provisions in the bill violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill, according to Wikipedia.
• Removal from Final Bill: As a result of this ruling and likely further negotiations, the prohibition on federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures was removed from the final version of the bill that passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.

The Parliamentarian struck it from the final version. Phwew. Good for her.
I can now become the woman I always wanted to be. /s

My apologies for citing (and biting on) the bait post that presented it as having been passed.

It's still a big ugly debacle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Got it. FROM AI, no less. It is indeed another case of AI 'lying'.

• Initial House Version: A version of the bill passed by the House on May 22, 2025, included Section 44125, which would have banned federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
• House Amendment: Before the House vote, an amendment was adopted to extend the prohibition to also include gender-affirming care for adults.
• Senate Scrutiny: When the bill moved to the Senate, this provision, along with others, was scrutinized for potential violations of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in a reconciliation bill, which the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was.
• Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled on June 20, 2025, that several provisions in the bill violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill, according to Wikipedia.
• Removal from Final Bill: As a result of this ruling and likely further negotiations, the prohibition on federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures was removed from the final version of the bill that passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.

The Parliamentarian struck it from the final version. Phwew. Good for her.
I can now become the woman I always wanted to be. /s

My apologies for citing (and biting on) the bait post that presented it as having been passed.

It's still a big ugly debacle.

Just to note again:

The one thing I do wonder is if this might have existed but got the ax in the reconciliation process as not being budget related. I was surprised to see it was "in the bill" as it seems more political and outside the scope of what is allowed in this type of bill.

I think the lesson we all can take here is that you don't question Jimmy Higgins.



More importantly, however, is that "AI" doesn't have to lie to be wrong. This isn't about bias, it is about it understanding nuance and AI isn't very I at this point. It is still just a search engine on steroids.

 

[Jarhyn]

Got it. FROM AI, no less. It is indeed another case of AI 'lying'.

• Initial House Version: A version of the bill passed by the House on May 22, 2025, included Section 44125, which would have banned federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
• House Amendment: Before the House vote, an amendment was adopted to extend the prohibition to also include gender-affirming care for adults.
• Senate Scrutiny: When the bill moved to the Senate, this provision, along with others, was scrutinized for potential violations of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in a reconciliation bill, which the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was.
• Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled on June 20, 2025, that several provisions in the bill violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill, according to Wikipedia.
• Removal from Final Bill: As a result of this ruling and likely further negotiations, the prohibition on federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures was removed from the final version of the bill that passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.

The Parliamentarian struck it from the final version. Phwew. Good for her.
I can now become the woman I always wanted to be. /s

My apologies for citing (and biting on) the bait post that presented it as having been passed.

It's still a big ugly debacle.

To be fair, funding for concentration camps and all the legal footwork to remove oversight unto making them death camps is still in the bill.

And if they removed the funding for Medicaid and Medicare, or severely gutted it, the point is moot.

 

[Swammerdami]

Got it. FROM AI, no less. It is indeed another case of AI 'lying'.

What does AI stand for? Artificial Intelligence? The very name is a lie. ASS is the proper acronym; I'm just not sure if that stands for
* Artificial Stupidity Sucks, or
* Aimless Shitfests for Suckers

Either way, Musk's Grok Bot -- which is literally designed to spout fascist lies -- is now the paradigm of ASS/AI. Expect it to be all downhill from here.

• Initial House Version: A version of the bill passed by the House on May 22, 2025, included Section 44125, which would have banned federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
• House Amendment: Before the House vote, an amendment was adopted to extend the prohibition to also include gender-affirming care for adults.
• Senate Scrutiny: When the bill moved to the Senate, this provision, along with others, was scrutinized for potential violations of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in a reconciliation bill, which the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was.
• Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled on June 20, 2025, that several provisions in the bill violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill, according to Wikipedia.
• Removal from Final Bill: As a result of this ruling and likely further negotiations, the prohibition on federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures was removed from the final version of the bill that passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.

The Parliamentarian struck it from the final version. Phwew. Good for her.

That just means the fascists gave it very low priority. The Parliamentarians are appointed by the Majorities IIRC; they could have and would have been replaced (legally or not) if they stood in the way of crimes and treasons that were important to our fascist overlords.

 

[thebeave]

Got it. FROM AI, no less. It is indeed another case of AI 'lying'.

• Initial House Version: A version of the bill passed by the House on May 22, 2025, included Section 44125, which would have banned federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender-affirming care for minors.
• House Amendment: Before the House vote, an amendment was adopted to extend the prohibition to also include gender-affirming care for adults.
• Senate Scrutiny: When the bill moved to the Senate, this provision, along with others, was scrutinized for potential violations of the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule restricts what can be included in a reconciliation bill, which the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was.
• Parliamentarian Ruling: The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, ruled on June 20, 2025, that several provisions in the bill violated the Byrd Rule and could not be included in a 50-vote reconciliation bill, according to Wikipedia.
• Removal from Final Bill: As a result of this ruling and likely further negotiations, the prohibition on federal Medicaid and CHIP funding for gender transition procedures was removed from the final version of the bill that passed the Senate and was signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025.

The Parliamentarian struck it from the final version. Phwew. Good for her.
I can now become the woman I always wanted to be. /s

My apologies for citing (and biting on) the bait post that presented it as having been passed.

It's still a big ugly debacle.

I'm just glad my hearing is OK after all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The worst part of all of this is that the noise distracts from the real issues in the bill, and the problems with the debt that are accruing. The bill comes at a cost that provides no real benefit to the nation and its economy. It pretty much tells my generation to go fuck itself, you ain't getting social security, at least in any form that the boomers got. Sure, they paid into it a lot, but so did I, and I'm fucking pissed that apparently the GOP will fuck it over by doing almost nothing at all. Gen X'ers are being robbed.

 

[ZiprHead]

The big, bad Republican bill wasn't regressive enough for the anti-tax crusaders

There's a plan afoot to further reward America's rich investors, with or without Congress.

www.motherjones.com

It is apparently not enough for America’s anti-tax crusaders that Congress just passed one of the most expensive and regressive tax bills in our history. The Washington Post reports that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups are now urging the Trump administration to change how investment profits are taxed—unilaterally, if need be—in a way that would overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest Americans.

Sound familiar?

Namely, they want to index capital gains to inflation. Suppose I bought $100,000 worth of Apple stock on July 10, 2020 and kept it. Today, I could sell that stock for $170,383—a tidy $70,383 profit. That’s a 74 percent overall return and an average annual return of 11.7 percent. Pretty good, right?

Not good enough for Norquist et al.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

The rich just cannot get rich enough.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The big, bad Republican bill wasn't regressive enough for the anti-tax crusaders

There's a plan afoot to further reward America's rich investors, with or without Congress.

www.motherjones.com

It is apparently not enough for America’s anti-tax crusaders that Congress just passed one of the most expensive and regressive tax bills in our history. The Washington Post reports that Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform and other conservative groups are now urging the Trump administration to change how investment profits are taxed—unilaterally, if need be—in a way that would overwhelmingly favor the wealthiest Americans.

Sound familiar?

Namely, they want to index capital gains to inflation. Suppose I bought $100,000 worth of Apple stock on July 10, 2020 and kept it. Today, I could sell that stock for $170,383—a tidy $70,383 profit. That’s a 74 percent overall return and an average annual return of 11.7 percent. Pretty good, right?

Not good enough for Norquist et al.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

The rich just cannot get rich enough.

Actually, I've wanted this for ages--just not exactly as they're doing it.

Apply cost basis to all investment--you should not be taxed for standing still. Remove the capital gains tax rates.

Stock--overall, this is close to neutral. More beneficial to the conservative investor, more cost to the high fliers.
Dividends--considerable tax decrease.

 

[Swammerdami]

Actually, there is a clear argument that capital "gains" due to general inflation should not be taxed. I for one will not debate this point of logic.

There are oodles and oodles of other ways in which tax policy can be considered unfair or illogical. Coming up with a "perfect" tax policy is a pipe dream; if it were a goal the first step would be to discard the present system completely and start from scratch. But this won't and shouldn't happen.

Instead we make do with the system, however defective, which has evolved, and make incremental changes to it. The goal is to solve problems. And to solve them with minimal disruption to the tax code, since people plan using the present code and major changes are disruptive for planning.

That's why subtracting inflation from capital gains is a bad idea. It DISRUPTS the present system, but for what purpose? What problem is it intended to solve? IF you think that the average worker is not paying enough in taxes, while the investor class, the rich, and the super-rich are paying too much; IF you think it should be the goal of tax reform to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor, THEN you should be happy to support subtracting inflation from capital gains. But many of us do NOT feel that transferring the tax burden from the rich to the poor is a high priority. A wealth tax might be a GOOD idea, but in the absence of that change, taxing the pseudo-gains from inflation is a way to recover some of the funds lost to not having a wealth tax.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

The rich just cannot get rich enough.

Actually, I've wanted this for ages--just not exactly as they're doing it.

Apply cost basis to all investment--you should not be taxed for standing still. Remove the capital gains tax rates.

Unclear. I'll GUESS you meant to write "Reduce the capital gains tax rates to zero."
Bad idea.

Stock--overall, this is close to neutral. More beneficial to the conservative investor, more cost to the high fliers.
Dividends--considerable tax decrease.

Why? What about interest payments?

 

[Elixir]

What about real estate? I’ve been paying taxes that have increased every year more than inflation. When I sell I have to use the purchase price as a basis, even though those dollars were worth 2x today’s.
Is that fair?

 

[TV and credit cards]

you should not be taxed for standing still.

You should not profit for standing still.
There is no fair when it comes to capital gains. It is remuneration for having done no work. Taxing of capital gains should be as the government sees fit at any given time as the need calls for it. The duties of government to its citizens should not be curtailed while wealth builds more wealth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's why subtracting inflation from capital gains is a bad idea. It DISRUPTS the present system, but for what purpose? What problem is it intended to solve? IF you think that the average worker is not paying enough in taxes, while the investor class, the rich, and the super-rich are paying too much; IF you think it should be the goal of tax reform to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor, THEN you should be happy to support subtracting inflation from capital gains. But many of us do NOT feel that transferring the tax burden from the rich to the poor is a high priority. A wealth tax might be a GOOD idea, but in the absence of that change, taxing the pseudo-gains from inflation is a way to recover some of the funds lost to not having a wealth tax.

Note that I said to tax them as ordinary income rather than at the capital gains rate. That makes the change overall about neutral.

And wealth taxes are horrible things.

These players want to let me adjust the “cost basis”—the price I originally paid for the stock—for inflation. Using this inflation calculator, I could then tell the IRS that my initial $100k investment was in fact a $120,407 investment, and so my profit for tax purposes is only $40,976.

This is insane—for several reasons.

The rich just cannot get rich enough.

Actually, I've wanted this for ages--just not exactly as they're doing it.

Apply cost basis to all investment--you should not be taxed for standing still. Remove the capital gains tax rates.

Unclear. I'll GUESS you meant to write "Reduce the capital gains tax rates to zero."
Bad idea.

You guessed backwards. Capital gains simply would be income.

Stock--overall, this is close to neutral. More beneficial to the conservative investor, more cost to the high fliers.
Dividends--considerable tax decrease.

Why? What about interest payments?

You get interest for giving them money. We do not have the concept of basis value for interest because the value isn't supposed to change, but if you adjust everything to current dollars then you make the part of the "interest" that was inflation go away.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, I've wanted this for ages--just not exactly as they're doing it.

Apply cost basis to all investment--you should not be taxed for standing still. Remove the capital gains tax rates.

Stock--overall, this is close to neutral. More beneficial to the conservative investor, more cost to the high fliers.
Dividends--considerable tax decrease.

Reminds me of WWE and the McMahons. WWE paid a nice dividend, the McMahons owned so much of the stock, they were paying themselves with it.

 

[robnisch]

The BBB is just more "trickle down" economics.

MSN

As they did last time the rich will just sit on the new gains or buy back stocks.