Could someone articulate exactly what cuts to medicare are in the bill? I can't find anything specific.
All I see are references to the pay-as-you-go act being 'triggered', which adds only another layer of vagueness, since that act has been law for 15 years.

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, Title I of H.J.Res. 45, is a public law passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed by US President Barack Obama on February 12, 2010.

It seems that PAYGO would be satisfied by cutting extraneous spending in other programs, why would it entail cutting specifically medicare?
Even if medicare were cut by 5%, that would affect providers more than recipients. For instance, 'laura''s nursing home would only get 4750.00 per month instead of 5000.00.
Aside from that, we could also cut spending on foreign woke boondoggles which benefit only very small demographics of people that are not even Americans in the first place. We could save a lot by not giving away bombs to foreign nations. We could apply deficit limits to overseas spending first, before we have to consider cuts to domestic spending. Hell if we stop paying zelensky so much then medicare would not be affected at all...

...slashing Medicare and Medicaid.
#13 | Posted by Danforth

Medicaid, I understand, is not actually '"slashed", but made contingent upon a work requirement for able-bodied adults. I think you are putting apples and oranges together.

p.s. you didn't articulate exactly what cuts to medicare are in the bill.
Anyone?

So I'm thinking there really is not anything in the bill about medicare per se. Which makes OPs headline a lie, and indicates the flow of democrat angst is actually an act, in support of another irrational propaganda operation. If any medicare spending is modulated it would be because of obama's PAYGO act, not trump's big shiny bill.

#18, 19 | Posted by chuffy

You are so wrong about so many things at once here I don't really want to bother, but:
1- I'm not a "Trumper" or a "fascist"
2- I'm honest enough, please call me on a lie if you can, or dispense with your bad opinion
3- I'm not "channeling" anyone, and for that matter have never seen a single 'podcast' to refer to
4- Medicare is per se not impacted by the bill, as you noted any cuts would be due to Biden's PAYGO law
5- None of my snips are from any "russian propaganda" sites. Hint, you can google any of my snips to discover their source, since I pick them up directly instead of rephrasing them per agenda like your OPies here.
6- You have no idea how I voted, presuming says more about you than about me.

What percentage of recipients are children unable to work? It's near 50%, btw.

This will definitively cut Medicare for millions of children, at minimum.

#21 | Posted by redlightrobot

Citation needed. You may be confusing medicare vs medicaid.

As of October 2024, 37 million children in the U.S. were enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP. This includes children with disabilities or chronic health conditions and those living in working families with low incomes. The programs help children get the care they need to stay healthy in school and activities

If you have a child under the age of 20, they can only qualify for Medicare if they have End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). Additionally, to qualify for Medicare coverage, the child must: Need dialysis on a regular basis or require a kidney transplant.

We could have had a universal healthcare system decades ago. But the private sector hates to lose its profits. Just to be clear, a for-profit healthcare system does not benefit the sick. It benefits the shareholders. This should be abundantly clear, as the Big -------- Bill did NOT go after the waste in Medicare Advantage.

#23 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2025-05-21 07:23 PM | Reply | Flag:* BIG Bump

This will definitively cut Medicare for millions of children, at minimum.

#21 | Posted by redlightrobot

repeating for emphasis,

Chuffy, you did your best to justify your generalizations and ad hominems, but those are by nature flawed and have little impact, rationally.

The only point of substance you mention is excess spending, but every time they try to cut spending, even on useless woke pet projects, the collective left screeches in agony.

"OMG he's spending like a drunken sailor! OMG orange!"
simultaneously,
"OMG he's cutting free money for LGBTQPEDO+ operas in West Bumblestan! OMG orange!"

There is definitively no way to satisfy the current crop of leftists.