Tag: President Trump

Coronavirus: Conservatives planning to slash Social Security
Just below the surface of the crises currently engulfing the nation is a debate over Social Security, with wide-ranging consequences. The Democratic Party is on board for expanding, not cutting, Social Security. The Republican Party is planning to slash Social Security.

Support for expanding Social Security makes sense, as Social Security provides a large measure of economic security to tens of millions of retirees, people with disabilities and others. And, the vast majority of the public supports its expansion. After supporting a number of bipartisan attempts to cut Social Security over the last several decades, Vice-President Biden now favors expanding it, if elected president.

President Trump campaigned on the promise of never cutting Social Security, though his actions in office have shown that to be a lie. If he gains a second term, efforts to cut are likely.

What is most concerning, though, is that Senator Mitt Romney is leading a charge, with many Democrats in tow, to implement a fast-track process to cut Social Security and Medicare, behind closed doors. He also wants to eliminate unemployment insurance expansion which has been critical to the lives of 43 million recently unemployed Americans as a result of the pandemic. Sixty House members now support Romney’s dangerous idea.

In sharp contrast, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, including Senators Bernie Sanders, Ed Markey and Kamala Harris, are proposing to give workers a $2,000 monthly stipend as part of the next coronavirus stimulus package. They want to make sure that working Americans have the money to pay for basic necessities throughout this pandemic, including expanded unemployment insurance, paycheck protection help for small businesses and larger Social Security payments to retirees.

Outright emergency payments at a time of serious economic hardship is a far cry from a conservative proposal that would exploit people’s desperation by giving them some money now from the Social Security Trust Funds if they agree to take less Social Security later. As David Sirota writes in Jacobin, what’s so especially inexcusable and unseemly about this proposal is that it would require tens of millions of people with literally no savings to protect themselves by using money that they will need for their economic wellbeing, at the same time as Congress literally gives tens of billions of dollars to companies with billions of dollars in reserves.

The proponents of this inequitable proposal are effectively suggesting that government handouts to profitable businesses, without proof of need and no payback, are acceptable. But, in their view, individuals should self-finance, increasing their current economic security by trading away their future economic security. If fiscal neutrality is the goal, why not impose corporate and individual wealth taxes, which would be far more equitable?

Biden is now on the side of Americans, tweeting “Give people coronavirus economic relief and don’t hold their hard-earned benefits hostage.” Working families’ economic security depends on him prevailing in November. And, when he does, all of us will need to hold him to his promise to expand, not cut Social Security.

Here’s more from Just Care:
June 10, 2020
How Trump is threatening the health and well-being of Social Security beneficiaries
Though the coronavirus pandemic is most deadly to older adults and people with disabilities, Donald Trump is pushing states to open up, despite the danger to them. In addition to their physical security, he is also endangering their economic well-being.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided emergency one-time $1,200 payments to adults with incomes of $75,000 (phased out for those with higher incomes) and $500 for each of their dependent children under age 17. Underreported are the needless obstacles blocking the way of people receiving Social Security benefits, primarily older adults and people with disabilities, from receiving those emergency payments.

People receiving Social Security benefits should have been the first to get these payments, and should have gotten them automatically. After all, the federal government already pays monthly Social Security benefits to nearly 65 million older adults, people with disabilities, survivors, and their dependent children. The government already has bank or debit card information, the ages of the children, and, indeed, everything else needed to pay those benefits automatically and quickly.

But, instead, the Trump Administration at first required those of them who had not filed a tax return in 2019 or 2018 to submit information on a special web site before they could get a check. So, those who did not have enough income to file taxes – which is millions of them – were required to go online to collect their check. Only after tremendous pressure did it reverse course.

Then, the Trump administration put up a similar roadblock for the four million young people receiving Social Security payments as dependents. It had all the information needed to provide them with the $500. Instead, it gave their parents a day and a half to complete online information in order to receive the money. If they were not aware they needed to do so–and, of course, most were not–they will not see this money until 2021. And they will only get their money in 2021, if they file in 2021.

Delaying emergency payments makes no sense. And, it is more than likely that millions will never file and so will never get the payments that Congress promised them.

The Trump administration also withheld the $1,200 payment from people who began receiving Social Security payments in 2020 and who had not filed tax returns for 2019 or 2018. Again, the government has all the information it needs to pay them these emergency monies, but it will not do so unless they file online. (At least, they were not given a deadline of less than 48 hours, a deadline that has now passed.)

Of course, most people receiving Social Security benefits are low-income, many living in poverty. Many also live in rural communities without internet access. And, many do not have computers or the ability to access online portals. Many have low literacy levels and are barely managing, often socially isolated and living alone through this pandemic. Even if they have family or friends who could help them file, they are most in need of sheltering in place and staying apart from those who might be contagious – which, of course, is everyone.

The people to whom the Trump administration is refusing to provide full automatic payments are at major health risk. They desperately need the stimulus payments they are due.

Ironically, the stimulus payments are going automatically and swiftly to people in better financial and physical shape, who have filed tax returns. Indeed, in their rush to get automatic payments to them, the administration has paid benefits to those who don’t qualify because their incomes have risen. The Trump administration has even paid benefits automatically to people who filed tax returns but have since died. But, sending the full amount automatically to all Social Security beneficiaries? That is where the line was drawn.

Perhaps even more threatening, Donald Trump is attempting a sneak attack to undermine Social Security. Trump is obsessed with so-called payroll tax cuts, which is code for cuts to the dedicated Social Security contributions that fund Social Security. Even if he replaces the contributions with borrowed money, he will be playing a long game. Just like the proverbial child who murders his parents and pleads for leniency because he is an orphan, Trump and his allies in Congress are running up huge deficits, starving Social Security of dedicated revenue, so that they will likely claim, down the road, that Social Security must be cut to tame the deficit.

Trump has gone so far as to claim he will veto further relief legislation if it doesn’t include these damaging cuts to Social Security’s dedicated revenue. To be clear, cuts to payroll contributions are far less helpful to families in need during this pandemic than the $2,000 monthly payments Democrats are proposing.

People who are unemployed will see nothing from the cut to Social Security contributions. People with lower incomes who still have jobs would see only a few hundred dollars more a month. And all of us will be poorer down the road, if the sneaky attack on our Social Security earned benefits succeeds.

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 27, 2020
Coronavirus: Trump wants to kill the ACA
In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump just confirmed that he wants to kill the ACA and, with it, health care coverage for about 30 million Americans. The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is supporting a lawsuit brought by several Republican governors against the ACA that is now in the Supreme Court.

For sure, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not offer the guaranteed universal coverage we all need. Rather, it delivers health insurance that is too often unaffordable and generally also comes with very restricted networks of doctors. People with coverage through state health insurance exchanges also cannot count on the insurance they buy through the state exchanges being there for them from one year to the next.

That all said, the ACA offers some excellent protections. If the Trump Administration kills the ACA, it will end federal protections that ensure people with preexisting health conditions can get health insurance. It will also end a mandate on health insurers to cover dependent children up to age 26 on their parents’ policies. And, it will end Medicaid coverage for people with incomes up to 135 percent of the federal poverty level.

Moreover, if 30 million people lose health care coverage, premiums would likely rise significantly for everyone else and Medicare costs would rise. The more people with health insurance, the lower the cost of health care coverage. People who are uninsured drive up costs for everyone with insurance. Put differently, the more people with health care coverage before they go on Medicare, the lower the costs to Medicare when they enroll. In addition, everyone benefits when everyone is insured. Universal coverage promotes the public health.

Several Republican states brought the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. A group of Democratic states is defending the ACA. The Supreme Court has already upheld the ACA twice. But, this time around, it is not clear it will. It will hear arguments in this case next month. But, it might not issue a decision until 2021.

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 13, 2020
Coronavirus: President Trump threatening to block new stimulus money unless Congress cuts Social Security and Medicare contributions
The US lacks the strong leadership it needs to both contain the spread of the novel coronavirus and to protect Americans from economic ruin. On Sunday evening, Donald Trump insisted at a Fox News townhall that he will block any new Congressional stimulus packages to address the coronavirus pandemic unless it also includes cuts to Social Security and Medicare payroll contributions. Of course, cuts to Social Security and Medicare could endanger the lives of millions of Americans.

Cuts to Social Security and Medicare are wildly unpopular, garnering almost no public support. Republicans and Democrats alike overwhelmingly support maintaining or increasing spending on Medicare and Social Security. Payroll contributions put money into their Trust Funds. As it is, these Trust Funds would benefit from an injection of money. With so many people out of work, far less money is going into them right now.

In the last month, more than 30 million Americans have lost their jobs. More than 10 million of them have lost their health insurance. They have little if any income. But they need to pay their mortgages and rent, their electric, phone and internet bills. They also need to eat.

Without a paycheck, younger Americans are at serious risk. Older Americans are at high risk of dying from Covid-19. Many hospitals are losing enormous amounts of money and might not survive. They all need government help.

But, President Trump is threatening to withhold this critical help unless Congress also cuts the payroll tax. In his words, “We’re not doing anything without a payroll tax cut.” Of course, a payroll tax cut is not what we need. The payroll tax cut helps wealthy people, working people with incomes over $75,000 a lot more than it helps low-income people.

A person earning $75,000 a year would save $1,500 over the course of the year. Someone earning $45,000 a year would save $900. A minimum wage worker would save just $302. And, of course, anyone who has been laid off would save nothing.

Americans and hospitals need money now. And, low-income workers need more help and should get more help than wealthy Americans. If the goal is to help America and its residents, the cut in payroll contributions makes no sense and depletes the Social Security Trust Funds.

President’s Trump goal appears to be to cripple Social Security. In fact, he has said he wants to cut Social Security if he is re-elected.

As Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works explains, to help the country out of its economic and health crisis, Congress should be allocating more emergency funds to people. It should be increasing Social Security benefits and Medicare should be covering the costs of health care that are not covered by insurance and for the uninsured.

Most older adults rely on Social Security to survive–to pay for their basic needs. It keeps millions of older adults from impoverishment. President Trump’s proposal should be seen for what it is: a death sentence for many older adults, if not today, down the road.

It’s up to Congress to push back against President Trump and do right by older adults and the country and not cut Social Security or Medicare payroll contributions. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for her part, says “No way.”

Here’s more from Just Care:
May 7, 2020
Coronavirus: Who’s immune?
It’s not at all clear yet when the need for social isolation will end and life will return to normal. For many people, two questions are top of mind. What does it take to be immune to the coronavirus and how would you know if you are immune? Andrew Joseph reports for Stat News on what we know about immunity.

If you have tested positive for the virus or have had the symptoms, you are likely to have the Covid-19 antibodies. And, because at least some people have Covid-19 without experiencing any symptoms, even if you have had no symptoms, you might have the antibodies.

A number of tests are being developed that can determine whether you have Covid-19 antibodies. Unfortunately, they are not 100 percent accurate. What’s worse is that many experts believe that the antibody test could show that you have the antibodies and you could still contract the virus again. To repeat, the antibody test cannot show with complete certainty that people are immune and cannot be reinfected.

Right now, top scientists cannot say for sure that having the virus or having the antibodies protects you against reinfection. Most likely you will be protected against reinfection if you’ve had the virus because your body develops antibodies to fight off the virus; the problem is that those antibodies might not be strong enough to ward off a more powerful strain of the virus.

Some experts believe that even if you have the antibodies and are not reinfected, you could still spread the virus to others. Yes, just because you’ve had Covid-19 and have the antibodies does not mean that you cannot spread the virus at some later date.

To complicate matters further, even if the antibodies protect you against getting the virus again, no one knows how long that protection will last. In the case of other coronaviruses, the antibodies have offered people some protection against reinfection for at least a year. For Covid-19, scientists still don’t know what level of antibodies is needed for longer or better protection.

Some evidence suggests that if you had a mild case or were asymptomatic, you might have only a low level of antibodies making you more susceptible to reinfection. Other evidence suggests that some people develop lower levels of antibodies than other people, increasing their likelihood of reinfection. And, still other evidence indicates that some people have immune cells, separate and apart from antibodies, that could protect them from reinfection even if they don’t have antibodies.

For all these reasons, many experts believe that President Trump’s plan to reopen the country in states that are seeing a reduced number of Covid-19 cases is foolhardy. Similarly, the idea that some people could have “immunity passports” sounds good in theory, but could be a big mistake. While we wait, here are some tips for boosting your immune system.

Here’s more from Just Care:
April 22, 2020
President Trump calls to reduce payroll contributions, threatening Social Security
Last week, President Trump called for a reduction in payroll contributions–lower employee and employer Medicare and Social Security payments. Of course, this would mean less money in the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. It would deplete their reserves and their ability to pay out people’s benefits at the level they do today.

Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works, commented that President Trump’s insistence on reducing payroll contributions is not an appropriate response to the coronavirus pandemic. It’s inefficient and does not help anyone who has been laid off from work, the people who need money most.

In fact, President Trump now says he supports reducing payroll contributions permanently. In his words, “The payroll tax cut would be a great thing for this country.” He wants a way to justify cutting Social Security benefits.

Trump’s proposal jeopardizes Social Security. Social Security is self-financing, not adding any money to the deficit. It depends on payroll contributions to support itself. Workers pay in to protect themselves against lost wages after they retire, or leave their jobs because of disability, or lose a spouse.

In the words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Over several decades, politicians have tried unsuccessfully to privatize Social Security. They’ve tried cutting benefits through a chained CPI and means testing. Today, the Trump administration is trying to deprive it of needed funds, “starve the beast.”

Right now, the federal government should be working as hard as possible to get people money, not finding ways to deprive them of their long-term financial security.

Here’s more from Just Care:
April 15, 2020
Trump confirms his plan to cut Medicare, Social Security
If you value your Medicare and Social Security benefits as much as the vast majority of Americans, you should know that last week President Trump said that he plans to slash them. Aaron Ruper reports for Vox News that during a town hall meeting, Trump said that he will cut Medicare and Social Security in order to reduce the national debt. Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations has led to the largest national debt in history.

Specifically, Trump said that cutting Medicare and Social Security would be part of his agenda, if reelected. He agreed with a reporter that he would need to cut these programs to address the national debt. Trump also promised not to cut these critical programs when he campaigned for president. So, his administration is now trying to walk back his recent statement.

To be sure, the Republican Party has been working hard to cut Medicare and Social Security however it can. And, it has succeeded at underfunding the Social Security Administration, making it harder for people to secure benefits, particularly people applying for Social Security Disability Income (SSDI). But, Americans overwhelmingly support these programs and the vast majority want to expand them or keep them as they are.

Now, Trump is again saying that he will “protect your Social Security and Medicare, just as I have for the past 3 years.” He is denying that he said he plans to cut them, even though he is on video saying he plans to cut them in his second term. In fact, his proposed 2021 budget includes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

As the Wall Street Journal reported: “The White House proposes to cut spending by $4.4 trillion over a decade. Of that, it targets $2 trillion in savings from mandatory spending programs, including $130 billion from changes to Medicare prescription-drug pricing, $292 billion from safety-net cuts—such as work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps—and $70 billion from tightening eligibility access to disability benefits.”

Fortunately, House Democrats have prevented Trump’s proposed cuts to Medicare and Social Security from becoming law. So long as the Democrats control the House, they will continue to prevent Trump’s proposed cuts from becoming law. There is a lot riding on the outcome of the 2020 election.

Here’s more from Just Care:
March 11, 2020
President Trump’s 2021 proposed budget would most hurt vulnerable older adults
Monique Morrissey writes for the EPI blog about President Trump’s proposed 2021 budget. Morrissey explains that this White House budget would hurt vulnerable older adults, even though it claims to benefit them.

President Trump’s proposed budget would cut Medicare and Medicaid spending significantly. It would also cut discretionary spending unrelated to defense. In other words, funding for programs that help older Americans would be cut. Programs at risk include HEAP, which provides home emergency assistance to low-income older adults.

The President proposes more than $750 billion dollars in cuts to Medicare over ten years, which is likely to jeopardize access to care for older adults and people with disabilities. However, we don’t yet know what the President means when his proposed budget says that it will find Medicare savings by ending “excessive spending and distortionary payment incentives.” It also says that it would “preserve benefits and access to care.”

One Medicare provision in the proposed budget makes sense–to equalize payments for particular health care services across different venues. Right now, Medicare pays wildly different amounts for the same procedures depending upon whether they are performed in an outpatient or inpatient setting.

The proposed Medicare budget cuts would likely increase people’s out-of-pocket health care costs and undermine access to care. The President would like to cut government payments to providers that cover unpaid medical bills. Consequently, providers may be less inclined to treat people with Medicare with limited incomes. In addition, hospitals and clinics in low-income areas may be forced to shut down. These potential issues would likely end up affecting middle-class older adults as well.

The President also wants to cut back on Medicaid expansion, which could leave more older adults without adequate health care coverage and put more health care providers serving people with low incomes at risk. In addition, he wants to increase copays for emergency room visits for people with Medicaid, which would deter them from getting needed care. And, the President wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would not only increase the number of uninsured Americans dramatically but also drive up costs in Medicare. For example, it would mean the Part D prescription drug coverage gap would be reinstated.

The President proposes to cut Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) by $76 billion over ten years. He intends to reduce the number of people who benefit from SSDI by five percent. He also wants to cut Social Security administrative costs, which are already too low. Further reductions in spending on administration could mean the closing of more Social Security offices or reductions in their hours of operation.

Here’s more from Just Care:
February 26, 2020
Trump Executive Order will drive up people’s Medicare costs
Watch out, older Americans and people with disabilities! President Trump just announced a plan to give corporate health insurers even more control over your health care. His new executive order also calls for “market-based” pricing, which would drive up costs for everyone with Medicare, eviscerate traditional Medicare, and steer more people into for-profit “Medicare Advantage” plans.

Seema Verma, the Trump appointee who heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) may not have warned Trump about the slew of government audits revealing that many Medicare Advantage plans pose “an imminent and serious risk to the health of…enrollees.” They also overcharge taxpayers to the tune of $10 billion a year.

In the last few years alone, CMS’ limited audits have highlighted major issues with Medicare Advantage plans. Reports from the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) have underscored these issues. They have recommended that CMS increase its oversight of Medicare Advantage plans and its enforcement efforts.

A Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report indicates that the problems with Medicare Advantage may be even more far-reaching than the government audits indicate. The Medicare Advantage plans have failed to turn over reliable and complete claims data, as required by law. Without this data, it’s not possible to know whether they are covering the health care services they are paid to provide or to oversee them to the extent necessary.

Last month, Senators Brown, Klobuchar, Murphy, Blumenthal, Sanders and Stabenow laid out several serious malfeasances by these corporate Medicare insurers—including UnitedHealth Group, Aetna, Cigna and Humana—in a detailed letter they sent to Verma.

The insurers’ wrongdoings are systematic. They are ongoing. They endanger the health and financial well-being of millions of people. They undermine the financial integrity of the Medicare program and harm the US Treasury. Yet, to date, CMS has failed to develop, let alone execute, a plan to hold these insurers accountable for violating their legal obligations and to ensure their members get the health care to which they are entitled.

Tens of billions in overcharges are one big problem. Medicare Advantage plans have been upcharging the government for their services for many years now, by claiming that their members are in worse health than they actually are in order to increase payments. To make matters worse, they have refused to pay back the tens of billions in overpayments that the federal government has made to them. UnitedHealth successfully fought to keep the government from collecting this money.

Another major concern is that Medicare Advantage plans are failing to cover care their members need and are entitled to. Government audits show that Medicare Advantage plans are inappropriately delaying and denying care and coverage to hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of their members. This puts patients’ health and safety at risk. Thousands of people end up paying for care that should have been covered — or foregoing care altogether.

CMS has not named or flagged these corporate health plans on its Medicare website or notified people in any other way of plans with serious violations, as it had agreed to do on the recommendation of the Office of the Inspector General. So, people with Medicare are unaware when they enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan that the government has found to be jeopardizing the health and safety of its members. Instead, CMS continues to give four- and five-star ratings to some of these health plans. In the process, it misleads older adults and people with disabilities about their performance.

What’s more, CMS has found that a sizable number of Medicare Advantage plans have for years issued highly inaccurate provider directories; and, the GAO has noted “concerns about ensuring enrollee access to care.” Many of these health plans have narrowed their provider networks. GAO suggests that it is not at all clear which of these Medicare Advantage plans have an adequate number and mix of health care providers in their networks.

To date, the Trump Administration has been steering people into Medicare Advantage plans, without regard to their deficiencies. And, it has failed to provide people with Medicare with meaningful information about their health plan choices as required by law. It is on a reckless path, promoting the business interests of Medicare Advantage plans that violate the law over the health care needs of vulnerable Americans.

The Administration and its Congressional allies are playing a game of bait and switch with older adults and people with disabilities. They allow Medicare Advantage plans to lure people with benefits that traditional Medicare does not offer, such as dental care and transportation services to the doctor, without exposing their failings. The Trump Administration’s goal is to fully privatize Medicare and shift more costs onto older and disabled Americans.

To be clear, Trump’s executive order does nothing to hold the Medicare Advantage plans accountable for their fraudulent overcharges or their inappropriate denials of care and coverage. Rather, it rewards them. It gives them even more discretion regarding the services they cover and the freedom to create new bells and whistles to lure in members. The health and financial well-being of older and disabled Americans hangs in the balance.

Here’s more from Just Care:
October 9, 2019
President Trump wants to gut Medicare
We already know that President Trump has proposed slashing Medicare spending in his budget proposals. Now, Bess Levin reports for Vanity Fair that President Trump has told friends that he would like to gut Medicare if he is reelected. Will this be his undoing, at least among older adults who supported him in 2016?

To repeat, Trump’s plan for reducing the federal deficit is likely to be eliminating Medicare and the economic and financial security that it offers older adults, people with disabilities and their families. But, he knows better than to say so publicly right now. Trump will not campaign for reelection on gutting Medicare.

On Medicare, Trump’s views are aligned with the Republican party. So, if the Republicans hold the Senate in 2020, gutting Medicare is likely to be a major priority. The Republican Party sees gutting Medicare as an easy way to reduce the deficit while still keeping taxes low for the wealthy and the big corporations.

More likely than not, Trump will tell Americans that he has no plans to cut Medicare and Social Security. That’s what he did in 2016. Still, once elected, he put forward proposals to slash Medicare. In his 2020 budget, Trump proposed $845 billion in cuts to Medicare. And, he abandoned his plan to lower drug prices for people with Medicare.

Now, Trump wants to make good on his 2016 campaign promise to eliminate the deficit, which is projected to reach $960 billion by the end of September. He sees slashing Medicare as the way to do so. He wouldn’t think of raising taxes. He wants to keep taxes for the wealthy and corporations low. In fact, he wants to cut taxes further, by lowering the capital gains tax and reducing payroll taxes, both of which will only increase the deficit.

Social Security is also on President Trump’s chopping block. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) reports that President Trump is open to cutting Social Security as a “second-term” project.

Here’s more from Just Care:
August 27, 2019