Looks like vaccination is going away

[jonatha]

The important number: 11.8 million Americans will be at risk of losing health insurance under the OBBB.
https://apnews.com/article/gop-bill...erage-health-bb4f090d2706ffb3d5652e70f246a10e

 

[robnisch]

So, let me get this straight. 11 million people could lose their health care. Which is primary care that can find problems before they get worse.
And they use more emergency rooms. And over 300 rural hospitals may have to close.
Wont this cost more in long run?
I guess if they die, problem solved.

 

[Bomb#20]

Like I said before, Medicaid is going up. There's a limit to my patience for doing your research for you so I'm not going to bother with specifics about other social services;

Sheesh. So all those facts remain undisputed. You don’t have facts and refuse to find them.

Get a grip. You're disputing facts; I'm presenting facts, not disputing them; and I disputed claims you made that you falsely call facts.

"A: Funding for social services does not go up under the new budget bill" -- not a fact. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.

"• Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) face steep reductions" -- not a fact. SNAP faces a reduction; how steep remains to be seen since its cost varies with the economy so much. Medicaid is not being reduced. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.

", with Medicaid alone seeing cuts of nearly $1 trillion over a decade," -- not a fact. Your "AI" doesn't know what the word "cut" means.

"potentially causing millions to lose health insurance." -- not a fact. If millions lose health insurance it will be caused not by nonexistent cuts but by the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients. Total funding increases even as some patients are turned away, because cost per patient is going up, because medical professionals keep raising their prices.

"• Funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and military spending increases," -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.

"while resources are shifted away from public services like Medicaid" -- not a fact. Resources are shifted to public services like Medicaid. The circumstance that some previous Congress ordered future administrations to shift resources to public services like Medicaid at an ever-increasing rate and the current Congress issued new orders that slow down that rate of resource shifting does not magically reverse the meaning of the words "away from".

" and clean energy initiatives. • The bill also reduces or phases out tax credits for clean energy and electric vehicles" -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.

", and imposes new restrictions and paperwork requirements on Medicaid recipients, which is expected to further reduce access to these services." -- a fact not in dispute, but that's an element of the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients.

"While some areas, such as immigration enforcement, receive more funding," -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.

" the overall trend for social services is a decrease in funding and eligibility. The budget reallocates resources away from public health," -- not a fact. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.

" nutrition," -- a fact not in dispute, and having some bearing on our argument, but of a magnitude insufficient to make up for all the increases in funding for other social services.

" and clean energy programs." -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.​

What I refuse to find are the numbers for every one of the dozens of federally-funded social service programs. Some of those are being cut, but the grand total of them is not being cut. Just based on the sizes of the programs, all the cuts to all the ones being cut cannot plausibly add up to as much as the increase in Medicare funding alone.

Social services are being gutted, you are equivocating and evading.
My own patience has limits as well.

You said they're "ordering the agencies and insurer who used to pay for their medical care to fold up shop and give the money (aka fraud and waste) to billionaires as a tax break." That's false. Total funding for social services is going up. So if some particular service is being gutted, they are giving the money to the users and providers of other social services. Billionaires are not getting the money. More and more money is being taken from billionaires.

The "journalists" who call it a massive cut and don't mention the "relative to current law" bit

The FACT remains that it is being cut, along with the other items listed.

Capitalizing "fact" doesn't make your claim about Medicaid any factier.

Your … uh … misrepresentation thst “social services have increased funding” remains BS.

I misrepresented nothing. Your hostility to zero-based-budgeting doesn't make it incorrect.

Even more aggravating because your “analysis” ignores the 10% the dollar has lost vs other currencies already under this term of the Felon.

What's that got to do with anything? Do you think the medical providers Medicaid patients rely on insist on payment in Euros? Or is this just you once again making believe we're arguing about Trump's badness rather than your upthread assertions?

Cuts relative to current law are CUTS in common parlance, not exclusive to lib-trained AI.

Does that mean when you wrote "Funding for social services does not go up under the new budget bill", you already knew full well your claim was based on reports of "cuts" which meant "cuts relative to current law", rather than on any evidence that funding doesn't go up?

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
An increase is a cut.

The circumstance that Orwellian language abuse has been normalized to the point of entering common parlance does not make it any more honest. Quite the reverse.

I suppose that in your warp world it would be inappropriate to compare those “increases” with the military and ICE “increases” in that big ugly bill?

You mean in my warp world where we're arguing about whether your claims are factual rather than about Trump's badness? Your understanding of "warp" is apparently as broken as your understanding of the public finances. You want to lecture somebody about how bad Trump is, go find a Trump voter.

Hiding behind the fact that dollar numbers go up every year does little to hide the gutting of government services to pay for tax breaks for billionaires and corporations.

What they're paying for is the U.S. medical industry raising its prices faster than inflation for decades on end and gobbling up an ever-increasing fraction of total production. If you have any evidence that the money is actually being given to billionaires or to corporations in general outside the medical industry, I'm all ears.

You probably think it’s a coincidence that this is all structured to be forgotten about by the electorate until AFTER the midterms.

Yes, yes, Trump is a bad bad man -- yet another fact not in dispute but having no bearing on our argument.

 

[Elixir]

"• Funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and military spending increases," -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.

Except the little matter of scale.

You mean in my warp world where we're arguing about whether your claims are factual rather than about Trump's badness?

You have not shown any of the factual claims I have presented to be other than factual except by overly literal rather than common usage of the word "cuts". If that so offends you, I'll refrain from using the term to refer to items that were earmarked for increases that were reduced (aka "cut")

What they're paying for is the U.S. medical industry raising its prices faster than inflation for decades on end and gobbling up an ever-increasing fraction of total production.

Uh, once again you misconstrue what is being paid for.
If we had the dreaded evil that the 'Murkin right calls "socialized medicine", and other countries call "medicine", there would be no "'medical industry" which is today a euphemism for a bunch of money grubbing private corporations that shuffle paper and do no medicine.

We COULD be getting a return, in the promise of a "longer healthier life". Indeed statistics support that we get a little of that, and it's a value that is hard to translate to dollars. But the cost of supporting the "top ten percent" of all US earners who are embedded in the "medical system" has resulted in no single payer system. This has delivered higher costs and inferior outcomes to other western democracies' "socialized" medical systems.
Now we have a visionary government agency in charge of our health (we can get to human services) whose overt mission it is to tear down the credibility of medical professionals, replace research with quackery and pocket the cost difference in the guise of "savings". Add an electorate that is stupid enough to not only take this shit, but beg for more, and waddya get? We're going to get more of the same only worse, because now the wolves fucking OWN the henhouse.

Yes, yes, Trump is a bad bad man

You have a delightful talent for understatement.

Resources are shifted to public services like Medicaid.

Oh? WHAT resources and from where do you believe they are being “shifted”?
Repeating that you think you are presenting facts doesn’t make facts out of what you’re presenting.
While the total dollar amount allocated to Medicaid may be higher than last year, the current House-passed budget bill includes major cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.
And what remains is already worth ten percent less to the rest of the world just since the Felon re-began his economic bungling.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Like I said before, Medicaid is going up. There's a limit to my patience for doing your research for you so I'm not going to bother with specifics about other social services;

Sheesh. So all those facts remain undisputed. You don’t have facts and refuse to find them.

Get a grip. You're disputing facts; I'm presenting facts, not disputing them; and I disputed claims you made that you falsely call facts.

"A: Funding for social services does not go up under the new budget bill" -- not a fact. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.​

​

"• Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) face steep reductions" -- not a fact. SNAP faces a reduction; how steep remains to be seen since its cost varies with the economy so much. Medicaid is not being reduced. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.​

​

", with Medicaid alone seeing cuts of nearly $1 trillion over a decade," -- not a fact. Your "AI" doesn't know what the word "cut" means.​

​

"potentially causing millions to lose health insurance." -- not a fact. If millions lose health insurance it will be caused not by nonexistent cuts but by the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients. Total funding increases even as some patients are turned away, because cost per patient is going up, because medical professionals keep raising their prices.​

There is supposed to $800 billion (I think) in reduced Medicaid spending. That $800 billion in savings can only occur (to help offset the cost of the tax cuts) if some people are cut off from Medicaid.

I think a good part of that is smoke and mirrors that won't be seen, as it holds to work requirements, and most on Medicaid either work or can't (disabled, children). The other portion is to remove undocumented folks from the Medicaid rolls. That would result in a savings. They also include more checks for eligibility.

Social services are being gutted, you are equivocating and evading.
My own patience has limits as well.

You said they're "ordering the agencies and insurer who used to pay for their medical care to fold up shop and give the money (aka fraud and waste) to billionaires as a tax break." That's false. Total funding for social services is going up. So if some particular service is being gutted, they are giving the money to the users and providers of other social services. Billionaires are not getting the money. More and more money is being taken from billionaires.

I thought the Big Beautiful Pill was a tax cut bill, not the overall budget.

Currently social services are being cut back by illegal impounding of federally authorized spending, but that isn't about the bill.

And I just realized this is the Vaccination thread. WTF?!

 

[Elixir]

I thought the Big Beautiful Pill was a tax cut bill, not the overall budget.

Did B#20 tell you that?

It’s a liberal spending spree, but inverted. Instead of paying to have kids’ genders changed during public school lunchtime, it pays for massive, well earned rewards for Job Creators.
[/RW Bullshit]

And I just realized this is the Vaccination thread. WTF?!

They say it’s vaccination but it’s really female sheep urine, and it will make your child gay.

 

[Politesse]

Death Panels.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, what do you expect from Nazi Scientists? There's more than one reason we don't use Nazi Science and one of them is because they assumed their conclusions and a lot of it was just cruelty fetish shit rather than real research.

The administration will today generate a huge amount of junk science to fake a cover for what they will try to claim in coming years about the people they genocide.

 

[robnisch]

Well, what do you expect from Nazi Scientists? There's more than one reason we don't use Nazi Science and one of them is because they assumed their conclusions and a lot of it was just cruelty fetish shit rather than real research.

The administration will today generate a huge amount of junk science to fake a cover for what they will try to claim in coming years about the people they genocide.

Well, this guy's stuff was used for a long time by surgeons.

1933–1953: Eduard Pernkopf’s Atlas— “a tainted beauty”

Eduard Pernkopf’s Atlas of Topographical and Applied Human Anatomy has been called “a tainted beauty.” The atlas consists of 800 exquisite watercolor paintings of human anatomy, and is considered a “masterpiece,” “a work of lasting scientific importance” that has been used by doctors and...

ahrp.org

 

[Bomb#20]

Sheesh. So all those facts remain undisputed. You don’t have facts and refuse to find them.

Get a grip. You're disputing facts; I'm presenting facts, not disputing them; and I disputed claims you made that you falsely call facts.

"A: Funding for social services does not go up under the new budget bill" -- not a fact. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.​

​

"• Medicaid and SNAP (food assistance) face steep reductions" -- not a fact. SNAP faces a reduction; how steep remains to be seen since its cost varies with the economy so much. Medicaid is not being reduced. Your "AI" is mindlessly reciting disinformation it was fed.​

​

", with Medicaid alone seeing cuts of nearly $1 trillion over a decade," -- not a fact. Your "AI" doesn't know what the word "cut" means.​

​

"potentially causing millions to lose health insurance." -- not a fact. If millions lose health insurance it will be caused not by nonexistent cuts but by the Medicaid payments being reprioritized to different patients. Total funding increases even as some patients are turned away, because cost per patient is going up, because medical professionals keep raising their prices.​

There is supposed to $800 billion (I think) in reduced Medicaid spending.

As the NBC article linked upthread explains, the people who claim Medicaid spending is being reduced $800 billion are measuring spending relative to what the earlier law said should be spent in the future, not relative to current spending. The earlier law had a built-in schedule of spending more and more every year into the future. The OBBBA slows down the rate at which spending will increase, so that the total spending over the next ten years will increase $800 billion less than the earlier Congress wanted it to increase. Normal English speakers don't call a slow increase a "reduction", but in the world of Washington DC political spin you can set the origin of your scale to wherever you please.

That $800 billion in savings can only occur (to help offset the cost of the tax cuts)

It's not offsetting tax cuts. It's the same story here -- the people who claim taxes are being massively cut are measuring taxation relative to what the earlier law said should be taxed in the future, not relative to current tax levels. The earlier law had a built-in schedule of taxing a lot more starting in 2026. The OBBBA cancels that tax hike and leaves tax levels pretty much unchanged (fiddling a bit, exempting tips and so forth.) Normal English speakers don't call maintaining taxes at their present rates a "tax cut", but in the world of Washington DC political spin you can set the origin of your scale to wherever you please.

if some people are cut off from Medicaid.

I think a good part of that is smoke and mirrors that won't be seen, as it holds to work requirements, and most on Medicaid either work or can't (disabled, children). The other portion is to remove undocumented folks from the Medicaid rolls. That would result in a savings. They also include more checks for eligibility.

Yes. Because funding isn't increasing as fast as medical prices are rising, full Medicaid services to some recipients can only occur if others are cut off. The money saved from cutting those people off is going to doctors, hospitals, pharma companies and insurance companies, not to tax cuts. If you want to continue caring for the poor at current levels and not cut anyone off, find a way to stop medical prices from rising faster than inflation. Letting health care grow faster than the economy and take a bigger hunk of GDP every year forever is not sustainable, no matter how much you hike tax rates.

You said they're "ordering the agencies and insurer who used to pay for their medical care to fold up shop and give the money (aka fraud and waste) to billionaires as a tax break." That's false. Total funding for social services is going up. So if some particular service is being gutted, they are giving the money to the users and providers of other social services. Billionaires are not getting the money. More and more money is being taken from billionaires.

I thought the Big Beautiful Pill

I see what you did there.

was a tax cut bill, not the overall budget.

At some point along the way the administration calculated that they'd need to make fewer compromises to get the votes they needed if they rolled all their plans together than if they broke them out into half a dozen bills in the traditional way.

And I just realized this is the Vaccination thread. WTF?!

Tom started it -- I think he thinks our anti-vaxxer-in-chief's policies are going to reduce vaccination rates, and thereby increase dependence on the social safety net. Time will tell. It looks to me like the changes are intended to make it easier to sue for alleged vaccine injuries. But that's not necessarily bad for vaccine manufacturers, who won't mind being sued more if the payouts are more predictable and limited. Recall that it was vaccine manufacturers who pushed for creating the VICP system in the first place.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So, let me get this straight. 11 million people could lose their health care. Which is primary care that can find problems before they get worse.
And they use more emergency rooms. And over 300 rural hospitals may have to close.
Wont this cost more in long run?
I guess if they die, problem solved.

Where is that Joni Ernst “everybody’s going to die” meme when you need it?

 

[Bomb#20]

"• Funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and military spending increases," -- a fact not in dispute, but having no bearing on our argument.

Except the little matter of scale.

You mean in my warp world where we're arguing about whether your claims are factual rather than about Trump's badness?

You have not shown any of the factual claims I have presented to be other than factual except by overly literal rather than common usage of the word "cuts". If that so offends you, I'll refrain from using the term to refer to items that were earmarked for increases that were reduced (aka "cut")

Well, that's a good start. But since you're using "reduced" to refer to items that were increased, you haven't really fixed the problem.

What they're paying for is the U.S. medical industry raising its prices faster than inflation for decades on end and gobbling up an ever-increasing fraction of total production.

Uh, once again you misconstrue what is being paid for.

Do I?

That's what's being paid for.

If we had the dreaded evil that the 'Murkin right calls "socialized medicine"

"If?" Dude! We have socialized medicine! The last vestige of free market health insurance was abolished in 2010 when the ACA made it illegal to exclude preexisting conditions. The service that companies called "insurance companies" provide is no longer insurance. These companies are now subcontractors in the biggest, most expensive, and most ludicrously inefficient socialized medicine scheme in the world. We're Americans. We can do socialized medicine -- we can do socialized anything -- we just can't do it intelligently.

, and other countries call "medicine", there would be no "'medical industry" which is today a euphemism for a bunch of money grubbing private corporations that shuffle paper and do no medicine.

Um, you know "medical industry" doesn't just mean "insurance companies", don't you? It includes hospitals, doctors, nurses, pharma companies, pharmacies, device manufacturers, university researchers, yada yada. All these components of the medical industry "do medicine", and all of them are cranking up their prices.

We COULD be getting a return, in the promise of a "longer healthier life". Indeed statistics support that we get a little of that, and it's a value that is hard to translate to dollars. But the cost of supporting the "top ten percent" of all US earners who are embedded in the "medical system" has resulted in no single payer system. This has delivered higher costs and inferior outcomes to other western democracies' "socialized" medical systems.

We are getting a return, a stream of new drugs and other medical treatments massive compared to what we'd be getting if we had single-payer. Americans pay for a hugely disproportionate share of the world's medical research and thereby subsidize all the world's sick people; we do it because our insane system incentivizes it. Whether it's worth it is a philosophical question; whether we could get the same effect without the insanity and whether we could persuade other countries to do their fair share are difficult technical questions way the hell above my pay grade.

Now we have a visionary government agency in charge of our health (we can get to human services) whose overt mission it is to tear down the credibility of medical professionals, replace research with quackery and pocket the cost difference in the guise of "savings". Add an electorate that is stupid enough to not only take this ..., but beg for more, and waddya get? We're going to get more of the same only worse, because now the wolves ... OWN the henhouse.

Yes, yes, Trump is a bad bad man

You have a delightful talent for understatement.

Sorry, yes yes, Trump is a bad bad bad man.

Resources are shifted to public services like Medicaid.

Oh? WHAT resources and from where do you believe they are being “shifted”?

That's hard to say, since the government doesn't balance the budget. But ultimately it's coming out of some combination of the U.S. taxpayers, all the people who lend money to the government, and all the people who keep their wealth in dollars: all the people betting their fortunes they can get in and get out before the whole Ponzi scheme comes crashing down.

Repeating that you think you are presenting facts doesn’t make facts out of what you’re presenting.
While the total dollar amount allocated to Medicaid may be higher than last year, the current House-passed budget bill includes major cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.

Hah! You said you'd refrain from using the term to refer to items that were earmarked for increases that were reduced, and you couldn't keep it up for even one post!

And what remains is already worth ten percent less to the rest of the world just since the Felon re-began his economic bungling.

The rest of the world wasn't going to buy it from us anyway.

 

[Elixir]

The rest of the world wasn't going to buy it from us anyway.

Why not?
Let me tell you; the rest of the (civilized) world enjoys UHC, and doesn’t suffer so much from administrative costs.

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem here is that vaccines don't hurt anyone; at best they cause much more mold versions of what happens during a normal infection.

That's not actually true. Vaccines don't cause mild versions of the actual infection. Vaccines can cause generally "flu like" symptoms, and that's true for almost all vaccines, regardless of what symptoms the actual infection causes. Vaccines prompt the body to produce antibodies for the inactive virus strains included in the vaccine - and the production of antibodies causes inflammation and soreness, and often a slight fever over a short period of time. Tetanus vaccine doesn't cause any of the symptoms of tentanus, not even mild ones - it causes generally "flu like" symptoms. Same for diphtheria, and for rubella, and for shingles. Arguably, one could say that influenza vaccines cause mild flu symptoms, but that's largely because the symptoms from influenza are almost entirely a result of antibody production in the first place .

It's also not entirely true that vaccines don't hurt anyone. They don't hurt many people, but there are people who have allergic reactions to the vaccines pretty much across the board. Additionally, people with certain types of immune system conditions shouldn't take vaccines because it can cause severe reactions in them that can lead to serious injury or death. Vaccines in general come with warnings for certain types of allergies and immunocompromising conditions. Additionally, although it's rare, there have been some few vaccines in the past that have been associated with unexpected deleterious outcomes.

 

[southernhybrid]

Side effects to the vast majority of vaccines are extremely rare, although sometimes people who are allergic to eggs can have a reaction to the flu vaccine and a small percentage of people had some side effects to certain brands of the COVID vaccines. In the years I worked in public health administering the typical child hood vaccines, not a single person ever had a negative reaction. I've never heard of a negative reaction to the MMR, or polio vaccine. In rare cases, the pertussis vaccine can cause a problem for people with a history of seizures. There was a vaccine many years ago that was supposed to be for some type of flu that never became a pandemic that did give a good number of people negative reactions. That was in the 70s, I think. I'm old enough to have been required to take the smallpox vaccine and I don't recall anyone having a bad reaction to that one either.

 

[Emily Lake]

The important number: 11.8 million Americans will be at risk of losing health insurance under the OBBB.
https://apnews.com/article/gop-bill...erage-health-bb4f090d2706ffb3d5652e70f246a10e

I get really frustrated with this type of reporting. It throws out a big number to grab headlines, and people who don't actually have any insight into what's going on just lap it up without even trying to figure out whether it's reasonable or not.

Around 11.8 million *people* will be disenrolled from *some form of coverage* is a true statement.

Of those, around 5 million are people who have dual coverage in Medicaid and ACA - many of whom are completely unaware that they've been signed up for ACA at all because some brokers have been committing fraud. You might say "oh, well it's not a problem if they have dual enrollment!" but that's because you don't actually know how it works. If an enrollee in ACA is eligible for medicaid, they're ineligible for premium subsidies. But brokers sign them up without their knowledge, and list them as having low income so they get a subsidy. That gets the broker paid a commission on a fraudulent enrollee, and the enrollee doesn't get a bill because the government is currently paying their entire premium. At least, that's how it works for the few months until CMS finishes their data reconciliation, identifies the enrollee as having dual coverage, and tells the insurer. Then the insurer has to do a three month outreach to try to convince the individual to terminate their ACA coverage - if they don't, the enrollee will receive a tax bill for their entire premium. But since a huge number of these don't even know they've been signed up, there are a lot of made-up addresses in there. So the insurer never makes contact with the individual, and eventually cancels their ACA coverage. In the meantime, however, that individual now has several months worth of federal subsidies that *they* have to pay back to the government.

Several million more who are going to be disenrolled from Medicaid aren't Americans - they're either undocumented or temporary immigrants who no longer qualify for Medicaid under the new bill. Perhaps you're concerned about the non-Americans who are losing access to tax-payer funded health care? I can understand that position... but the reality is that there are a whole bunch of actual Americans who are at risk, because Medicaid as a program can't continue to support an ever-growing population of non-citizens.

Yes, there are some people who will terminate their coverage in ACA when the subsidies roll back to their original levels as opposed to the incredibly generous levels that were temporarily put in place during the pandemic. That temporary measure is expiring. And yes, that does mean that some people will either no longer be able to afford coverage, or they will decide that it's no longer worth the cost.

I get very irritated, because articles like this use misleading rhetoric to make people think that near 12 million citizens are going to be denied coverage, and that's just not true. Yes, some citizens will no longer be able to afford ACA coverage, or will no longer qualify for Medicaid in non-expansion states. But the vast majority of counted lives that will go away are either dual-enrolled people who will be better off without the tax liability or they're not citizens at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, what do you expect from Nazi Scientists? There's more than one reason we don't use Nazi Science and one of them is because they assumed their conclusions and a lot of it was just cruelty fetish shit rather than real research.

The administration will today generate a huge amount of junk science to fake a cover for what they will try to claim in coming years about the people they genocide.

Do you ever write anything that's actually true? Or do you only channel extremist rhetorical talking points intended to instigate a civil war?

 

[Elixir]

I feel so much better now, knowing that the Trump Government isn’t ever going to stick their fingers in the middle of the Medicare/medicaid pie. Thanks for ‘splainin’ that, Emmers.
I should have known, since they’re doing such a great job keeping everyone healthy with cod liver oil, saving BILLIONS AND BILLIONS that can now go to tax cuts.

 

[ZiprHead]

Several million more who are going to be disenrolled from Medicaid aren't Americans - they're either undocumented or temporary immigrants who no longer qualify for Medicaid under the new bill.

Those people do not get Medicaid now, except for emergency services. The hospital gets the money. .4 percent of the Medicaid budget from FY 2023.

 

[Emily Lake]

I feel so much better now, knowing that the Trump Government isn’t ever going to stick their fingers in the middle of the Medicare/medicaid pie. Thanks for ‘splainin’ that, Emmers.
I should have known, since they’re doing such a great job keeping everyone healthy with cod liver oil, saving BILLIONS AND BILLIONS that can now go to tax cuts.

Look, be angry about it, be pissed off at it. Just do so for real reasons, not made up ones.