(no subject)

[novapsyche]

The budget that passed, according to NPR, was the most draconian in recent times. Severe cuts and changes in Medicaid. Poverty will increase.

Under this administration, the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. This is Bush's legacy.

I keep thinking about quantum physics, whether there are consequentially multiple universes for each individual choice, and if so, what the reality of Al Gore being president would be like. I think we're on the underside--I think we are living in an alternate reality. Our good timeline went askew some time ago.

Comments

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

Well, any time Cheney breaks a tie it can't be good for the country. Wasn't that the vote he just had to take a hand in?

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly.

[jennkitty.livejournal.com]

the changes in Medicaid scare me. The thought of suddenly making patients responsible for partial payment is very angering. i've worked in the medical field and have likewise had friends (and family, the nephews) who are and need to be on Medicaid. the entire reason they are on Medicaid is because they cannot afford private insurance or out-of-pocket health care. This is pretty damned disturbing.

[xantym.livejournal.com]

You may have a source I don't...you probably do, but the only source I could find that outlined the changes indicate that the medicaid changes mostly hurt wealthier seniors by changing the rules on whether someone can claim more government aid by ceding their assetts before dying.

It appears that savings due to changing the rules for student loan interest represent about two and a half times as much as the savings due to lessening the increase in medicaid.

Based on a few articles, it appears the reason this budget was so attacked was the fear that it would cause later tax cuts.

Drilling in Alaska was blocked though, and parliamentary actions were used to stop the bill from officially being adopted anyway, so the matter is not much of a political victory for anyone.

[jennkitty.livejournal.com]

my source is NPR, yesterday. now, they are genuinely trying to avoid bias, but it seeps through anyway. the concept of copays and patient responsibility was mentioned. i, too, looked for articles and found only mention of elderly not reaping the benefits of signing over assets. but if they change it with respect to how Medicaid pays, it could open the floodgates and un-do a lot of good.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

NPR reported that Medicaid recipients may expect, for example, a co-pay to go from $3.00 to anywhere from $20-160. The specific example was for a family of three making $17,000/yr.

I'm very angry about this.

[xantym.livejournal.com]

There will probably be a reasonably thorough dissection of who loses and by how much after the specifics are analyzed more thoroughly.

I am surprised that NPR would release such a figure at all for several reasons. Perhaps NPR was discussing medicare and not medicaid? Here are reasons why I would find the figure cited suspicious if it referred to medicaid:
1) The details of medicaid plans are determined almost completely by independent states.
2) Access to Medicaid is only implicitly linked to income...and I am not sure that copays are even linked at all, so it seems bizarre to create a model family with a stipulated income and prognosticate as to their copay.
3) Even to the extent that income is a factor in accessibility to Medicaid, 17000 for a family of 3 is a strange choice as it puts a family above the federally determined poverty level [16090 is the cutoff for a family of 3], and hence unlikely to be part of a "categorically needy" pool.

[xantym.livejournal.com]

The above being said, if it does end up meaning that copays increased from 3 dollars to 20, I would agree that that represents a severe decrease in aid to those in need.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

I don't expect you to know the answer to this, but I had to ask:

I what universe is $17000 per annum sufficient to house, feed, and clothe a family of 3 in 2005?

[jdoggiedogg.livejournal.com]

Is there a reality where Ralph Nader is president?

[brendand.livejournal.com]

Keep Dreaming.

[jdoggiedogg.livejournal.com]

isn't it sad that the election of an honorable man is a laughable proposition.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

Sadly, that's what this country's become.

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

and if so, what the reality of Al Gore being president would be like.

The biggest change: he would have ratified the Kyoto Protocols, sending American manufacturing, farming, and logging businesses (among others I'm sure would be affected) into rapid, irreversible downward spirals, from which the American economy would possibly never recover, since Americans have proven for decades now that they're far too hard-headed to adapt to something like the passing of viability for any given industry.

(These events would have come to pass already, had Gore been elected in 2000. Of this, I am 99.9% certain.)

It is possible that by now, America would have passed a nationalized health care bill. I doubt it would have yet been implemented, which would mean that we would still have a few years for the one or two clear-minded souls in America to get between the bill and its implementation. Nationalized healthcare, America-style, would lead to one outcome-- the already out-of-control costs of, and inflation in, the medical service industry would skyrocket. The double digit inflation we see now would easy become three- or four-figure inflation. Needless to say, the government would then have two choices-- either go bankrupt or abandon the project. While I do believe that Al Gore would be stupid enough to allow the country to go bankrupt over this scheme, the end result would be the same-- after a few years (five, maybe; we couldn't handle any more than that with the current budget adjusted for inflation), Americans, not the government, would be paying governmental prices for health care. At this point, no one in America-- with the arguable exception of Bill Gates-- would even be able to afford an office visit, and until the free market finally kicked back in and doctors and hospitals realized that in order to get any business at all they'd have to cut their prices by at least 99%, health care conditions in America would be roughly analogous to those during the Black Plague. (Granted, this would not necessarily be a bad thing in the bigger picture; Spencerian natural selectino would be forced into play, and with the lack of major wars in the past few decades, we, and the rest of the world, are in desperate need of some populatino control. Hmm, maybe I should have voted for Gore, instead of Browne in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004.)

I could continue...

(Disclaimer: I do not in any way mean this post to imply that I support the fucking moron currently in power. I believe that no matter which member of the "two party" system won the 2000 election, we'd have fallen into a state of emergency; it's just happening more gradually now than it would have then.)

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

"Populatino control"?? Is that a racial slur or a typo?

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

You ARE joking, right?

In case you're not: it's a typo, and a very common one.

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

I suppose now is not the time to mention that simply by giving up 28% of their wealth, the world's 500 richest people could wipe out all current Third World debt? Amortized over 10 years, that would be just under 3% of their wealth each year.

For that matter, my extrapolations indicate that it would take less than 5% of the income of the 2000 wealthiest to instantly double the income of those who live on $1 (or less) a day.

(Yes, I did the math. I used the 2004 Fortune 500 Wealthiest list, and used Excel to make extrapolations.)

Don't you know, they're talking 'bout a revolution? Sounds like a whisper...

[pgdudda.livejournal.com]

Ooops, one correction to the second paragraph: that should be "...5% of the wealth...", not "...5% of the income". My bad. :-P

[techno-shaman.livejournal.com]

Dont be afraid, luv.
Great good is coming of all this. =D
~Zephyr~