Thune Secures Generational Wins for South Dakota in Reconciliation Bill Passage
“The Senate’s reconciliation bill will put more money in the pockets of South Dakota families and strengthen farms, ranches, and small businesses across our state for generations to come.”
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today applauded the Senate’s passage of the Republicans’ reconciliation bill that will provide permanent tax relief for South Dakota families and small businesses, bolster the agriculture sector for farmers and ranchers across the state, and provide resources for the B-21 bomber mission at Ellsworth Air Force Base. The legislation will also make a generational investment in border security, increase American energy independence, and cut waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs.
“The Senate’s reconciliation bill will put more money in the pockets of South Dakota families and strengthen farms, ranches, and small businesses across our state for generations to come,” said Thune. “This historic legislation delivers on a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make our country safer, stronger, and more prosperous, and I look forward to getting these pro-growth policies working for the people of South Dakota.”
Permanently extends the 2017 Republican-led tax cuts:
- Prevents a $2,500 tax hike on the average South Dakota family;
- Prevents a $5,125 tax hike on the average farm;
- Prevents the potential loss of 17,000 jobs in South Dakota; and
- Prevents 88,730 South Dakota small businesses from seeing their tax rates surge to 40 percent.
Puts even more money in the pockets of South Dakota families by:
- Permanently extending and expanding the nearly doubled standard deduction claimed by 413,980 families in South Dakota;
- Allowing seniors to reduce their taxes even further with a $6,000 boost to their standard deduction;
- Permanently extending and increasing the doubled child tax credit, which is claimed by 101,810 South Dakota families;
- Eliminating taxes on tips and overtime pay; and
- Increasing take-home pay by an estimate of $7,100 to $12,000 for the typical South Dakota family.
Strengthens South Dakota’s economy and incentivizes small businesses and family-owned farms to grow and invest in their workers by:
- Permanently increasing the estate tax exemption to $15 million for single filers ($30 million for married couples filing jointly) and indexing it to inflation to protect more family-run farms, ranches, and small businesses from this punitive tax and costly estate-planning expenses;
- Permanently extending the job-creating 199A small business deduction;
- Reinstating incentives for small businesses like immediate expensing for new equipment and for domestic research and development;
- Creating an estimated 40,000 additional jobs in South Dakota over the next 10 years; and
- Increasing long-run wages by an estimate of $5,400 to $10,300 for South Dakota workers.
Provides critical support for South Dakota’s agriculture producers and rural communities by:
- Delivering a modernized safety net to help provide the certainty that South Dakota’s agriculture producers require to feed and fuel our nation;
- Expanding access to standing disaster programs for South Dakota’s farmers, ranchers, and foresters;
- Reinvesting in critical conservation programs;
- Including funding for animal disease prevention to combat zoonotic disease like New World Screwworm, African Swine Fever, Foot and Mouth Disease, and Highly-Pathogenic Avian Influenza; and
- Investing in trade promotion for agricultural commodities to expand access to foreign markets.
Bolsters the mission at Ellsworth Air Force Base and makes our nation safer by:
- Providing $4.5 billion to expand production and expedite fielding of the B-21 bomber that will operate at Ellsworth Air Force Base; and
- Making a generational investment in U.S. border security, including finishing the border wall.
###
Most of that sounds fine, but then there are those Medicaid cuts. Eliminating the health coverage for ten to twelve MILLION Americans. This will be a disaster for the healthcare industry and the uninsured.
So… the Senate includes $50 billion in rural hospital funds to make up for that loss. Does this mean that they are paying them NOT to treat those patients now?
elk, you clearly do not understand how Medicaid works.
It’s not like regular health insurance, which has copays and deductibles, and what the insurance doesn’t pay, the patient is responsible for the difference.
Medicaid reimburses the providers with whatever amount CMS thinks is reasonable, no matter what the actual cost of the service was, and it is illegal to bill the patient for the difference.
Because of this, Medicaid enrollees quickly learn that whatever is ailing them, it is cheaper to go to the hospital ED than to go to the pharmacy for an over-the-counter medication. Medicare doesn’t work that way: people on Medicare have copays and deductibles.
CMS had figures that showed people on Medicaid utilize hospital emergency departments at 2-3x the rate of the uninsured and privately insured..
In addition to this nonsense, Medicaid also covers vision and dental which is not covered by other health plans. Medicare doesn’t cover vision or dental. And when I say Medicaid “covers” these services, I mean Medicaid tells the providers to eat it, or shift the cost to their other patients.
Under the ACA, Medicaid could be expanded to cover people who were able-bodied and employable. The Federal government promised to pay the additional cost. 10 states never expanded Medicaid, and 9 states have trigger laws set to rollback Medicaid expansion if the Federal government stops paying 90% of the extra costs..
Idiots that the Democrats are, the expectation was that by expanding Medicaid, providers would have fewer uninsured patients and would make more money. Except that it isn’t the uninsured who leave huge unpaid balances in their wake, it’s the patients on Medicaid. Medicaid expansion allowed many employed people to drop the health insurance their employers provided, policies which often paid more than Medicaid did. If Medicaid is cut back, these people can sign up for their employers’ plans again.
So, theoretically, that should allow for easier access to rural healthcare, right? Why are so many rural healthcare groups against the bill? And if cuts are so large to Medicaid, why is the bill scored to blow a multi-trillion dollar hole in the deficit?
The big health care conglomerates, like Sanford and Avera, know that Medicaid reimbursements are so awful that private practitioners can’t keep the lights on, & small rural hospitals and clinics will be forced to join their organizations. The big guys can work with the low reimbursement rates because they deal with such high volumes. It’s kind of like what has happened to small family farms. The little guys are squeezed out. The big guys can’t stand it when a group of doctors goes rogue, sets up their own outpatient surgical centers, and take only private pay patients.
The more people who are on Medicaid cuts into that supply of private pay patients. That’s the whole idea, to shut down everybody who tries to go into private practice.
Thanks, Senator Thune. Your leadership in blowing further holes in the national debt and deficit will cement your reputation as a big spender perfectly willing to bill our grandchildren for your out-of-control spending. What is your plan now for the current $2 trillion deficit in the FY 25 budget?
I think Republican policies on defense matters, pro-life issues, Israel and border security – are definitely closer to what I believe than Democratic positions. But health care is not our strong suit. As I have mentioned previously, red states have a terrible record on health care. And life expectancy is the ultimate measure of success or failure. For example… Hawaii, California and Washington residents live about SEVEN YEARS longer than the most conservative states, on average. Try to let that sink in. Of the twelve healthiest states, only one is Republican.
Now, Republicans in Congress can’t wait to nationalize that horrible record. This is not going to turn out well.
California, Hawaii, and Washington residents have more access to fish & fresh fruit than just about anybody else in the nation. Living a long time has a more to do with diet and exercise than with medical care. Doctors treat disease, they don’t prevent it. You have to do that yourself.
Diet and exercise?
Of the 22 states with the LOWEST life expectancy, how many voted Republican in the last presidential election? Wanna take a stab at it?
Answer: 21 of 22 voted Republican. That is some coincidence, don’t you think?
Longevity is a matter of lifestyle choices. Period. People who make good lifestyle choices live longer. That’s all that matters. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, poor diet, & sedentary lifestyle will kill you. Then there are accidents, involving automobiles, guns, farm equipment etc. Recovery from injury is more likely if you are not a fat drunk with a nicotine addiction.
It has nothing to do with access to medical care, which only patches you up after you have injured yourself.
Notions about how seeing a doctor annually just so he can tell you to quit smoking and lose weight are just nonsensical. Everybody already knows they should do that, and being nagged by a doctor does not do anything.
So what you’re saying then is Red States have a predominantly lazy and dumb populations.
No. Annual checkups provide early detection for things like cancer, blood vessel occlusions, high blood pressure, etc. You don’t know what you are talking about. Healthy lifestyles are essential, but so is early detection.
A good percentage of people in every state exercise and have a healthy diet.
Immunizations, access to health care at all ages, pollution control, worker safety, seat belt usage, helmets, nutrition programs, highway safety, higher incomes, lower crime rates, suicide prevention, access to recreation… and education in general… may all contribute to longevity. And, of course, there are many other factors.