madmadworld
The Official TV Watcher
So still tax on tips if they are on a credit card :wtf
Most people don't hold much cash these days.
Most people don't hold much cash these days.
Why is this "A stretch"? Removing fraudulent people/claims is good and states like Ca can't be trusted to do it accurately.It’s a stretch to characterize as a “cut” spending increases that have not occurred, especially when these increases come from the prevention of states identifying people no longer eligible for the program.
Again good! Why does the Fed allow states to tax AND collect matching funds in the first place?An additional $191 billion in alleged spending cuts concerns provider taxes, a complex issue that major news networks don’t understand. States fund Medicaid by taxing providers — hospitals and doctors — and then paying that money back to the same providers. That enabled states to claim this as a Medicaid expenditure and collect the matching funds from the federal government.
Yet here we are changing the rule that was done "decades ago"?This fake accounting, facilitated by provider taxes, allowed states to spend money on Medicaid without actually incurring their expenses. Understanding this potential for abuse, Congress passed a law saying that such use of provider taxes would not qualify for the matching federal funds decades ago.
Unfortunately, there was an exception. As long as the provider tax levy stayed below 6%, the government would look the other way. Because the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) offered states a much more generous match of $9 for every $1 the state spent on the expansion population, states started looking for ways to boost their provider taxes while staying under the 6% threshold that triggered closer scrutiny.
Of course, the states remained free to tax providers at any rate they wanted — 6%, 50%, 150% or more. Still, if they did so, the government would take a close look to make sure that they weren’t funneling that money back to the providers to enhance their federal intake.
That’s why the legislation reduces that 6% threshold to 3.5%, which in the past, President Obama, the Washington Post, and the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended.
While this may indeed lead to reductions in Medicaid spending, describing it as a cut obscures reality. With this provision, neither the federal matching formula is changing nor is it forbidding the use of provider tax as a source of funds. There is no “limit” to the taxes states can impose on providers, but a limit to how much abuse the feds will overlook.
If states want to limit their provider taxes to meet federal standards, that’s for each state to decide.
Finally, the largest component of the alleged $1 trillion cut in Medicaid spending comes from new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. (Notably, this restriction is broadly popular with Americans.) The work requirement exempts children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly, caretakers and parents of young children. The only people it is designed to apply to are working-age, work-capable people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, work requirements will lead to reduced spending of $326 billion.
An argument could be made that this qualifies as a cut, as it is a new restriction on program eligibility. On the other hand, an argument could be made that, unlike some restrictions on eligibility, this is a voluntary cut and is up to the beneficiary. Prospective Medicaid beneficiaries will decide whether the program benefits are worthwhile, considering the trade-off of the new work requirement, and the benefits will remain available to them.
As lawmakers and citizens consider how to afford the fast-growing costs of the Medicaid program, it’s vital to distinguish actual reductions in benefits from changes in incentives.
The reforms to be implemented offer several examples where the public should consider whether anything is being cut and who exactly is making the decision.
Jeremy Nighohossian is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
July 11, 2025
![]()
COMMENTARY: What we get wrong about Medicaid ‘cuts’
Dishonesty about the fast-growing costs of Medicaid.www.reviewjournal.com
Why is this "A stretch"? Removing fraudulent people/claims is good and states like Ca can't be trusted to do it accurately.
Again good! Why does the Fed allow states to tax AND collect matching funds in the first place?
Yet here we are changing the rule that was done "decades ago"?
I could keep going. Anyway, I'm ok with the medicaid changes right now. It'll likely need modification for oversights and things as we move along and get better.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is sponsored by Pfizer, but ok.
I read now CC will be deductible also. smhCash vs. card tips
Las Vegas workers had mixed reactions to the news. Some said customers tip often in cash, so it’ll have a larger impact. Others said they receive many tips via credit card, so they won’t see much of a change.
![]()
Nevada-inspired ‘no tax on tips’ policy coming to fruition after Trump megabill passes
No taxes on tips and overtime will likely come to fruition as a major tax policy heads to President Donald Trump’s desk.www.reviewjournal.com
Good catch. thought he was not white washing.The Competitive Enterprise Institute is sponsored by Pfizer, but ok.
Good catch. thought he was not white washing.
There will be little to no savings on healthcare. that junkie is too powerful. Doctors just treat people and their accountants pass the cost on.
so we that buy their insurance etc will pay. as always.