High Anxiety on the Upper West Side

Your comment paints a dire picture of the Upper West Side and the nation, predicting mass deaths and homelessness among seniors due to proposed cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which is untrue.

First, you call the UWS the country’s largest naturally-occurring retirement community (NORC), with more seniors reliant on these programs than any comparable area. The UWS, from 59th to 96th Streets, does have a notable senior population—about 20-25% of its roughly 200,000 residents are over 65, per NYC census data. That’s higher than the city average, but calling it the “largest NORC” is a stretch without evidence. Places like Miami-Dade County or parts of Arizona have larger and denser retiree populations, many equally dependent on these programs. The UWS isn’t uniquely vulnerable; it’s just one of many urban areas with aging residents.
You predict “hundreds, possibly thousands” of unnecessary deaths from Medicaid cuts, especially in nursing homes. Medicaid does fund about 60% of nursing home care nationwide, and in New York, it covers over 70% of long-term care residents. But the GOP’s current budget talks, as of March 2025, don’t propose eliminating Medicaid—they’re discussing reductions, like lowering the federal match rate for ACA expansion (from 90% to 60%) or adding work requirements. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these could save $880 billion over a decade, not wipe out the program. New York’s state budget could adjust—Medicaid spending here is already $80 billion annually, with the state covering 31%. Nursing homes might face tighter budgets, but “thousands” of deaths assumes a total collapse that’s not on the table. Hospitals and providers would lobby hard against such extremes, and even some GOP lawmakers are wary, given Medicaid’s popularity (75% approval per KFF polls).

On Social Security and Medicare, you foresee the “largest wave of homeless seniors” if they’re “severely cut.” Trump and GOP leaders have repeatedly said—on the campaign trail and since taking office in 2025—that Social Security and Medicare won’t be touched for current recipients. The Republican Study Committee’s 2023 proposal to raise the retirement age to 69 applies only to future retirees (those under 59 now), not you or today’s seniors. Medicare Advantage tweaks are floated, but not benefit slashing. The 2025 COLA for Social Security is 2.5%, adding $50 monthly on average—hardly a prelude to cuts. Homelessness spikes would require eviscerating these programs, not trimming them, and the math doesn’t support that without tanking GOP voter support, as you note.

You tie this to a $2 trillion tax break for the wealthy. The actual figure floating around is $4.5 trillion to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, per CBO estimates, with Medicaid cuts covering less than half. Corporate tax rates (21%) and billionaire breaks are part of it, but so are tariffs (10% on imports, raising $1.9 trillion). It’s not a direct “rob the poor, give to the rich” swap—spending offsets are broader. And seniors aren’t powerless; AARP’s lobbying muscle and 38 million members ensure any cuts face fierce resistance. The GOP lost seats in 2018 partly over ACA repeal fears—touching seniors now could indeed cost them 2026, as you suggest.

“High anxiety” might feel justified, but the reality is less apocalyptic. Programs aren’t being gutted overnight; they’re being debated in a messy, divided Congress. New York’s liberal lean and wealthy tax base mean UWS seniors won’t be abandoned even if federal dollars shrink—state and local funds would likely step up. The predictions of mass death and homelessness lean on worst-case scenarios, not the incremental changes actually proposed. Facts over fear: the system’s creaky, not collapsing.