this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2026
168 points (99.4% liked)

Progressive Politics

4177 readers
648 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This rapid deterioration of Medicare’s financial solvency represents a stark drop from the CBO’s previous estimate, which was published just last year, in March 2025. The dramatically shortened timeline means future retirees could face significant cuts to vital health care services far sooner than previously anticipated. As required by the Deficit Control Act, CBO Director Phillip Swagel noted the projections reflect the assumption benefits would be paid as scheduled even after the HI trust fund was exhausted.

The primary culprit for this accelerated depletion is a sharp reduction in the fund’s projected income, heavily driven by legislation passed over the last year. Specifically, the 2025 reconciliation act (Public Law 119-21, more commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) significantly reduced the revenues the trust fund normally receives from taxing Social Security benefits. This legislation lowered tax rates and established a temporary deduction for taxpayers age 65 or older. Consequently, this major policy shift enacted during the Trump administration has directly contributed to starving the Medicare safety net of critical future funding.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 26 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Taxing SS benefits seems like a bad idea. Maybe there are a few people out there that aren’t being taxed enough that could help fund it again?

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Isn’t taxing SS basically a double tax? We pay for it once already through our contributions to it while working

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (2 children)

Do SS contributions come from pre or post tax money? Like if you earn $1000 and pay $100 into SS, are you taxed on $1000 or $900?

You might be required to pay into it, but if its from pre tax money, then its not a double tax. Its a contribution you pay into, and eventually benefit from at which point its taxed.

Assuming you live long enough to receive it.

Edit: example.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Or, y'know, the government could just give working people a fucking break for a change on saving for their retirement. They give rich people a tax break for any cockamamie bullshit reason they can think of, but you can't let 30 bucks a week go buy without getting the government beak wet.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You’re right that it might be pretax, but I’m forced to pay it and can’t choose to invest it myself and it’s for a specific purpose that I have no control over, so it’s functionally a tax.

And don’t get me started on the fact I’ll probably never see a dime even though I’ve contributed over $200K

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yup, when I get my statement and couple the projected benefit with what my non-SS investing could yield, it's a nice number.

But I have no doubt that by the time I reach 67 it will all have been robbed from us.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

Robbed is definitely the right word there.

[–] tomkatt@lemmy.world 12 points 13 hours ago

No “maybe” about it, the time for soft language is long past. Billionaires need to be taxed to the hilt to pay for the aggregate needs of the populace and national infrastructure. They don’t pay their share and they leverage their wealth to continually increase their wealth and influence while not contributing to the commonwealth.

There’s no reason for these people to have more money than god, and we’ve seen them have exponentially disproportionate power and levels of influence in politics and life in general, influencing all aspects of society as their levels of wealth have dramatically increased over the last decade and change.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, taxing retirement pay to pay for retirement Healthcare sounds a little circuitous.

Not good that they didn't identify a way to replace that funding when changing things (as is the republican way), but can understand the argument of not taxing Social Security.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Now they can get extra cash from less taxes to pay for healthcare… I bet they get many options for affordable private insurance