Democrats stoke terror of entitlement cuts for vulnerable Americans

Terror: a state of intense or overwhelming fear

Terrorism: the systematic use of terror, specifically as a means of coercion

                                                                                                    - Mirriam Webster Dictionary

In an exchange meant to make her sound like a nice person, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D) of Wisconsin announced she's planning to bring a guest to President Trump's address to Congress tomorrow night. In an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," she said she's bringing a woman with cancer who is "terrifed about the possible impacts of a cut to Medicaid." 

I'm sorry a woman has cancer. I'm sorry she needs Medicaid for her treatment. Mostly, I'm angry that she's "terrified" because the bellows stoking her fear is her Democrat host for tomorrow's speech.

I first became aware of the depth of the terrorism (yep) perpetrated by the left as regards entitlement programs in an online group for a rare disease from which I suffer. Immediately after Trump's election victory, the woman who started the group into which she'd poured years of hard work announced she was shutting it down because Trump "ran on cutting Medicaid, subsidized housing, and abolishing the Americans With Disabilities Act" (ADA). Making sure she didn't lose housing, medical care, food support and civil rights would be a full-time job. No more time for anything else for her or, as she warned, the other disabled people in the group. I wasn't a frequent visitor to this group because I don't like to define myself by my medical condition, but I did hop on occasionally to ask questions about a disease that I sometimes have to spell for doctors. But for many, it was a lifeline.

These are the actions of a terrorized person. When her stunning announcement was made in a series of rolling posts over weeks, group members were expressly told no questions were allowed--confirmation bias only, please. Some people who seemed truly fearful upon hearing this "news" tried to ask for sources but were removed or ignored. Terror spread.

It's not my intention to mock this woman and the other terrified people. What you may be detecting as snark is anger and deep sadness about what these people are going through. These stories are illustrative of the effects of Democrat propaganda fed to vulnerable people. The Democratic Party should swap out their donkey icon for a spoon.

In the months since the election, I've tried to find any mention of Trump's saying he's cutting these programs. I've found the opposite. He has expressly said he isn't, and I can't even find his mentioning the ADA. 

That's not to say I'm in love with the budget bill. It sets the budget goals for fical years 2025-2034. It raises spending across all sectors every year. This isn't new. Years ago I recall pundits saying only a Democrat can call a spending increase a cut. 

So where are the savings supposed to come from? From cutting wasteful spending. This has been directed to be done carefully by each department, not just by DOGE but by the departments themselves. If the $2 Trillion in cuts can't be achieved, the bill directs that the tax cuts be rolled back to make up for it. If it looks like they'll have to cut at the meat of important entitlement programs, it's up to the American people to push back on that. These plans will take time. Nobody is cutting Medicaid tomorrow--if at all--in a way that will hurt the poor and disabled. 

So lets cut the hysteria. It's impossible to research this topic (save reading the actual bill) without slogging through a swamp of hyperbolic opinion pieces talking about how important benefits for the needy may have to possibly potentially be cut. Interestingly, few of them include cuts in waste or fraud in their fictional yarns about how cuts would/could be done, and if they mention it, it's only to say fraud is extremely rare.  Speculative hand-wringing pieces about how spending cuts could potentially be horrific are endemic. No wonder people are afraid. 

These successful terror tactics are diabolical and as old as politics. Trump says something and people then fill in what they think he must really mean or follow their own crazy domino theories of what one of his actions will surely lead to. Then they present it as fact. The piles of media about looming devastating cuts are merely theories manufactured by people who are critical of everything Trump does, so all of their hypothetical outcomes are horrible. The narrative itself is horrible too.

Like this headline from the Autism Self Advocacy Network, "ASAN condemns Trump's baseless attacks on people with disabilities." The article says Trump blamed January's plane/helicoptor crash on disabled people. Remember when he did that? You don't because he didn't. What he really said was that DEI was responsible; yes, seemingly without evidence. I didn't approve of his timing. But that is not the same as saying disabled people caused the crash. That is simply a group with an axe to grind trying to move people to action by putting words in Trump's mouth.

Most of the media's language surrounding Trump's alleged cutting of entitlement programs stems from the aggressive $2 Trillion spending cut goal in the latest budget language and from DOGE's stated goal. People run with that and say things like, "This may lead some people to think that it might be possible that the government could maybe potentially cut entitlements because we don't see how you can cut that much from the budget without likely enacting entitlement cuts."

Is that a direct quote? No. Is it an accurate depiction of the prolifigate use of qualifiers used in everything I've read on the subject? Yes. 

Agressive cuts to waste, fraud, abuse and simple overspending might, maybe, possibly, probably, lead people to think, make people believe--these are the words and phrases used around the idea that Trump's spending goals could, in someone's opinion, lead to entitlement cuts. The most often-cited reason is they can't see any other way, which could mean they lack imagination, intelligence, political will, or they could be right. But there is no true data, just scare tactics wrapped in CYA qualifiers used to incite terror in the most vulnerable among us and those who care for them.

I have some words for what Democrats and their media partners are doing here: shamful, discraceful, cold blooded, political, evil.

Think of these motivations as they parade their "plus ones" at tomorrow's speech. CNN reported that the House Democratic Policy and Comminications Committee sent a memo to Democrats to bring someone who has been hurt or will be hurt (?) by Trump's policies. I understand there'll be a number of disabled veterans there. It would be nice to think the disabled are actually being respected by congressional Democrats instead of used as props to prove some nebulous point or to terrify other disabled people even more. 

Yeah. That would be nice.

    

Beware of refusing government benefits--they'll punish you for life

There are two ways they'll get 'cha:

1. Widows/Widowers/Divorcees

Your spouse has died while employed. He died before retirement age, or he/you are past retirement age and he was still working. (This also applies if you're younger but legally disabled.) You were on his employer's health insurance plan. If you don't make the right decision, you will pay penalties for the rest of your life.

When your spouse dies while employed, you'll be offered COBRA benefits, even if you're Medicare eligible. COBRA legislation was passed in 1985 to give employees and their dependents temporary access to their former employer's health insurance plan. You can receive COBRA for 36 months after your spouse's death. What if you choose it?

COBRA is no walk in the park. While it gives continuity of care to widows (whom professionals advise not to make important decisions for a year), it's expensive. With COBRA, your spouse's employer provides an umbrella for you to continue on the identical health plan you're used to. Many choose it because they've met their deductable for the year. Some choose it due to complex medical issues for which they've assembled teams of caregivers. The only difference is that now you're responsible for the entire premium. Many widows won't be able to afford that, but some will and will do it just to avoid adding more change to an ever-growing pile of change at the worst time in their lives.

If you wish to end it or it expires, you'll need to go on Medicare. That's when you'll find out you've made a big mistake, and you had no idea this was even a thing, let alone something that would cost you more money forever.

You will be charged, without exception, a 10 percent penalty for each year you were eligible for Medicare but chose not to enroll. For example, if you choose to stay on COBRA for the allowed 36 months, you'll pay 30 percent more for your Medicare premium for the rest of your life.

How the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) makes Medicare penalties possible:

It's an astonishing feat of slight of hand, really. The ACA mandated that people have and employers offer "creditable coverage." This means it must be "affordable" and offer "minimum essential coverage."

Most widowed people never think going on COBRA is a risk to their financial future because it's identical to the plan they were on when their spouse died. The reason COBRA doesn't meet the standard under the ACA is it's not "affordable."

So the government penalizes you for choosing expensive health insurance, whatever your personal reasons, during what experts say is the most stressful time in a person's life, because they decided for you that it's too expensive. So, to remedy that they make you pay more money for your Medicare insurance for the rest of your life.  

Well, that sounds reasonable to absolutely no one. Especially because nobody tells you this when you're faced with the decision. When asked why they don't mandatorily tell widows about the COBRA penalty, the Social Security representative I spoke with after 9.5 hours on hold said it's because, well...because they don't. "It's not in the packet we have for widows." That was the actual answer. Even though every widow with a working spouse will be offered COBRA because it's the law.

2. Retirement-age workers:

Our aging population and bad economy has led to more people (11 million) working past retirement age. According to the Pew Research Center, the 62 percent of retirement-age workers who work full time is up 33 percent since 1987. 

You become eligible for Medicare in the seven months straddling your 65th birthday. If you or your spouse have the audacity to work and stay on your employer's health plan past that age, you're going to eventually pay the price. Pew also notes that record numbers of retirement-age workers are eligible for employer benefits like 401(k), pensions, and health insurance. You decide to take it. 

Here's where you'll get tripped up. The majority of older workers work for small companies. Small companies don't have to offer health insurance under the ACA, but if they do, they're required to offer "creditable coverage." If your insurance doesn't meet that standard, you'll be penalized when you go on Medicare. Your employer doesn't really have to tell you the insurance they offered doesn't meet the standard. Surprise! This happens more often than you'd expect because the ACA allows for substandard plans to be "grandfathered" and "grandmothered(?)" in. I've spent hours researching whether small companies pay a per-employee penalty for doing this (large ones do) and some resources say they do, some say they maybe do, some say they don't... I give up. I'm sure that's how they feel too when met with these reams of regulations.

They use the same 10-percent-per-eligible-year penalty system for these workers. I couldn't find any reference to a percentage cap, e.g. if you work until age 75, you'll pay 10 percent for the 10 years you could have been on government insurance. That's a 100 percent penalty, doubling your premium for the rest of your life. If you work longer, it'll be more. (There are also potential Medicare Part D penalties under this scenario, but this is already an exhausting amount of information, so I won't go into that now.)

And here you thought you were saving the government money by not burdening them with your healthcare bills and taking care of it independently! It seems the government thinks that's a bad thing. They argue that they want literally everyone who is eligible for Medicare to enroll because they're spreading the risk by making healthier people pay premiums to cover costs for less healthy enrollees. I understand that risk pools are a part of insurance underwriting, but I'd like some hard data on how much money they're saving under this system.

Possible Solutions

Does the penalty system profit the government on the backs of some of society's most vulnerable: widowed people, the elderly, and the disabled? How does the math shake out from the penalties collected vs money saved by not having to pay for their medical bills for years?* I think at least an estimation of that data should be available and debated so we can move to the important thing: changing policy.

Medicare doesn't tell you about these penalties. The bipartisan BENES 2.0 Act would require them to warn people about the penalties of delaying Medicare enrollment, but there has been no action on the legislation since it was introduced in May of 2023. They should add language to the bill (just in case someone tries to read it again) that mandates all widows be warned during their inevitable contact with Social Security after their spouses die so they, I don't know, WON'T CHOOSE COBRA. 

Legislation was introduced in May, 2024 to allow those on COBRA to enroll in Medicare Part B without penalty. One problem with the bill is that it would apply only to those who begin COBRA coverage January 2025 or later. I'd make it retroactive. In fact, I prefer a bill that wipes out penalties altogether for the 779,400 Americans who pay them (as of 2021, the last year for which data is available). 

If I could make policy, I'd eliminate the penalties (retroactively) and (after looking at the numbers) propose a 5 percent decrease in premiums for each year someone doesn't enroll in Medicare. 

After all, we already have laws in place to help delay people's retirement as long as possible (raising retirement age, increasing benefits for each year you delay, not giving widow's benefits to widows younger than 60, etc.) to keep income taxes rolling in and Social Security dollars in government pockets. Why are opposite systems in place to encourage Medicare enrollment as soon as possible?

Why not a carrot rather than a stick? It's just a hypothesis, but given our population's demographics and increased life expectancy since Social Security was enacted, it could wind up saving taxpayer dollars while simultaneously giving a break to these hardworking, sometimes broken people. Unless saving money isn't really the goal.

Oooh, and while we're problem solving, maybe we should take another look at that Affordable Care Act. Do it for the widows and the old people.

*Our federal government spends $848.2 billion per year on Medicare, $15,727 per Medicare recipient. Costs have risen from 10 percent of our federal budget to nearly 14 percent in the last 30 years. Medicare Parts B and D have several revenue streams (including premiums), but most revenue is from "government contributions." If each of the 779,400 people who currently pay Medicare penalties delayed enrollment for just one year, it would have saved taxpayers more than $12.3 billion. If each person pays a 10 percent penalty for that year, the government earns just $14.5 million. So, I suppose, they're making money on both ends in the current system, because each person who delays also pays. But incentivizing them to continue on private insurance could save more money than penalizing or threatening penalties if they don't. It's an imperfect calculation, but it shows me that we'd save a lot of money if we encouraged people to delay Medicare enrollment rather than penalizing them.