Do #MTSEN GOP Candidates Think Slashing Health Care and Adding $7 Trillion to Debt is Good?

Brooke BainumNews

Helena – The new White House budget proposal would add at least $7 trillion to the deficit over 10 years while severely cutting Medicare and Medicaid. These cuts to crucial services would come even as the wealthiest and corporations benefit from the recent tax scam to the detriment of Montana’s working families.

Just this month, wealthy real estate developer Matt Rosendale, Californian Troy Downing, and ethically-challenged Russell Fagg all expressed support for a bill that adds trillions of dollars to the debt and kicks 46,000 Montanans off their health insurance; do they support the latest plan to add trillions more to the deficit and increase the costs of critical prescription drugs for 4.5 million seniors?

ICYMI: Washington Post: White House budget proposes increase to defense spending and cuts to safety net, but federal deficit would remain
By Damian Paletta and Erica Werner
February 12, 2018

Key Points:

  • “The biggest factor in the White House’s deficit problems appears to be issues caused by the tax law…”
  • “In 2019 and 2020 alone, the government would add a combined $2 trillion in debt under Trump’s plan.”
  • The budget proposal “forecasts that tax revenue will plummet in the next few years and never recover to the levels forecast before the tax plan was enacted in December.”

Read the entire article HERE.

ICYMI: Associated Press: Winners and losers under Medicare drug plan in Trump budget
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
February 13, 2018

  • “…the budget proposes a change in how Medicare accounts for manufacturer discounts received by patients whose total bills range between $3,750 and $8,418. [About 4.5 million seniors] could wind up paying about $1,000 more.”
  • “A second group just behind the sickest patients would lose ground financially.”
  • “Currently Medicare counts manufacturer discounts received by patients in this group to calculate total spending that determines when they qualify for catastrophic coverage. That practice would stop, meaning beneficiaries would have to spend more of their own money to reach the threshold for the richer catastrophic coverage.”

Read the entire article HERE.

###

Share this Post