The biggest social safety net in the US

[maize]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.People who hunt will bring over meat,and those who garden bring produce. Someone will pick up funeral expenses, in my community its likely to be a mens group that are too elderly to travel and have enough pension to help the needy out.

And lots of people fall through the cracks and children go hungry and disabled people suffer with no chance of dignity and people die unnecessarily.

 

Piecemeal charity is NOT going to come half as close to covering the gaping needs of society as a decent government run program can.

 

I am not sure what past you are envisioning where people were always taken care of by individual charity administered through their communities; digging into family and world history I do not see that that has ever been the case. Those who prospered prospered, those who had health troubles or had their homes accidentally destroyed by fire or their farms or businesses fail or were the wrong race or sex or ethnicity mostly lived lives of extreme hardship and poverty; their children were malnourished and undereducated and often died of unnecessary disease.

 

Yes some benefited from the generosity of others; if they were fortunate enough to have family and friends with enough to share, or if they were deemed pitiable enough and worthy enough to receive aid from wealthy individuals or from charitable oranizations.

 

Many didn't.

 

I believe that a society that has the means to provide life essentials in a dignified manner to all its members (as an entitlement that one does not have to grovel and beg for) has a moral obligation to do so. Only the government has the capacity to administer such a program fairly. Will it be perfectly equitable and efficient? No. But I think the saying "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" applies here.

 

Pure free market capitalism will always favor the powerful, healthy, and unencumbered. I do not trust human nature sufficiently to rely exclusively on the compassion of that set to overcome natural greed and judgmentalism and provide for the weak, the sick, the disabled, the young, the old, and those who are too busy caring for all of the above to put all their energy into furthering their own interests.

 

Government would not be needed if human nature were so generous and compassionate

Edited March 17, 2017 by maize

[Barb_]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.People who hunt will bring over meat,and those who garden bring produce. Someone will pick up funeral expenses, in my community its likely to be a mens group that are too elderly to travel and have enough pension to help the needy out.

I'm not being a smart Alec when I say, until you responded, I thought you meant this as satire.

 

There isn't enough spaghetti in my whole state to fund a child's cancer treatment. Not in this century.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[KarenC]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.People who hunt will bring over meat,and those who garden bring produce. Someone will pick up funeral expenses, in my community its likely to be a mens group that are too elderly to travel and have enough pension to help the needy out.

How in the world does one establish enough of an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment?

[Bluegoat]

At the behest of corporate donors who want to move their jobs to places without regulations and protections for the people they employ. It is still unrestrained capitalism at fault. And this is not the United States of America. It is the United Corporations of America.

 

Yes, I think that the big point here is that governments can restrain the worst excesses of capitalism, and in fact it isn't possible for them to just sit back as if the free market was something naturally occurring.  What it is and how it functions is something created by legislation, an artificiality. 

 

So when they define that space, how do they decide what the limits are?  One would think that a good government would govern in the best interests of the people, as a whole.  Unrestrained markets would mean things like slavery (no limits to what you can sell on the market), the ability to hire children for dangerous jobs, and for companies to dump waste into public lands.  No one really seems to think those freedoms should be allowed, they don't think of it as restraining capitalism, just what is good and right.  But those are all restraints

 

For some reason people don't realize that other kinds of restraints can also be compatible with good governance.

[Corraleno]

My sense is that there are many who refuse to take part in their community until they have a need. Others refuse to educate themselves,and instead conduct themselves in a manner which is costly to any community. its rather sad to see grandma planting extra rows while grandchild holds out the hand,for ex. And even sadder to see someone choose a nonhealthy lifestyle and go on insulin. Its complex, but in the end it is a community that decides where it wants to put its surplus. That community will be whatever the people think works best,according to their abilities. Its not going to be taxation without representation, Because that starves the workers, and without workers there is no surplus generated. Work has to leave the worker enough for his family.

 

In other words, the haves get to decide which of the have-nots are "deserving" of their help.

 

No assistance with healthcare for overweight diabetics — they should just stop drinking soda and eating donuts and start exercising. No free lunches for poor children if their parents aren't working hard enough — too bad they didn't choose better parents. But if you're the "right" kind of family, living in a way that the community approves of, and you have a financial emergency, then maybe if you're lucky they'll donate a few hundred dollars to help your child fight cancer. Because that's much more fair and efficient than giving all citizens equal access to decent healthcare.

[Murphy101]

People forget the reason our programs exist is exactly because the need was not being met on a private donations basis. It wasn't that long go that the disabled or elderly or displaced were left to die in the streets. Literally.

 

What will advance our civilization in terms of humanity's good?

 

Because if we are not investing in doing that, we will stagnate and die, culturally and for some literally.

 

Austerity without purpose is not a financial or social virtue, it's miserliness under the guise of myoptic bookkeeping.

[Murphy101]

It is more than that. The government has the threat of violence behind it to make people comply with how they think society should work. That's the defining difference between charity and taxes.

 

You can argue, of course, that people should be forced with the threat of violence to fund whatever you deem appropriate. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking it's charity or goodwill in any sense of the word.

 

I don't know if this whole thing has crossed beyond the philosophical into straight politics and will get shut down momentarily, but, anyway.

Meh. There's been an awful lot of history of violence from the people against their government that thought it held all the cards wrt threat of violence.

 

Do I think people should be forced under threat of violence to fund the society they live in? Things like medical care, food, education?

 

I would argue you are naive if you think they aren't already. The bottom line is the lower classes will eventually rip the carpet out from under the upper classes if they don't help fund the things we all agree humans usually need and usually cannot develop and fund solo. That's the entire purpose of government. To form a collective society to do such things for the members of that society.

 

This is how society has always worked. A government that does not benefit the people will eventually find it has a people of violence to govern and eventually it usually means the fall of the government.

[Guest]

I'm not being a smart Alec when I say, until you responded, I thought you meant this as satire.

 

There is enough spaghetti in my whole state to fund a child's cancer treatment. Not in this century.

I am not saying this is what should be done, but what currently is done, and what proponents of charity only would desire. Many of you mistake this for my personal opinion. Its not. I have just related what is the trend here, where the middle class was othered in the public schools and left rather than become enslaved. The only opinion I have expressed is that no one is going to work for nothing.

 

My other opinion is that there is enough spaghetti. No one goes to a spaghetti dinner expecting enough food for all..they are there to contribute and express support for a beloved member of the community. You and I will have to disagree what enough is.Me, I worked hard to get an education so that I could help solve complex problems like cancer. instead of thanks, my kids were othered out of public school. You dont know how hard I laughed when the BofE declared me elitist..I know what a painted house is, and I am happy to know that people that have the cancer my daddy did are now curable,because of spaghetti.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[creekland]

Sounds like it will be like the past,charity starts at home. Family and extended family does what they can..wealthier families contribute. We see this today with medical-- the 27 to 30 year olds simply haven't been in the work world long enough to establish an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment, and the family will run a spaghetti dinner to which people will contribute. someone will offer an office job until the patient can recover enough to get back in the work world In his line of work.People who hunt will bring over meat,and those who garden bring produce. Someone will pick up funeral expenses, in my community its likely to be a mens group that are too elderly to travel and have enough pension to help the needy out.

 

Ok.  Take my medical bills just for the benign brain tumor that didn't require surgery or any overnight stay.  They run close to 100K.  Fortunately for us, we belong to a Health Share and essentially paid nothing.  However, not everyone can belong to a Health Share for various reasons.  If we had insurance instead, we'd be out somewhere in the vicinity of 45K just for that (esp due to the $12,000 OOP per year, and then add in the difference in cost to us for insurance vs health share).  The medical facility wouldn't do the treatment at all without payment.  We know that for a fact.  They told us when we were educating them about how health shares worked.  It wasn't essential for life - sort of.  (Had I chosen not to do it, continued growth of the tumor would have led to death in the "prediction" part of the assessment, but not immediate death.)

 

So someone who didn't have the difference in $$... spaghetti dinners you say?   :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

And that's without needing an operation or chemo (since it was benign).  If that had been added in... costs would have been much higher.

 

There are options of begging for help - putting in requests for financial assistance - spelling out income, expenses, etc - and hoping one gets approved by charities.  Some do.  

 

Or for life threatening things, hospitals often have to write off costs.  These all lead to others getting charged more - leading to threads saying something to the effect of, "Can you believe this bill???"

 

To me, that's not a good system for anyone - except the healthy and wealthy perhaps.  It works for the lucky (including myself), but not the average person.

 

Or... are you thinking I "did" something unhealthy that caused me to draw the short straw - in my 40s - to get the brain tumor?  The first tumor in my family line - so not likely even a genetic cause?  If you know the cause, you should share with doctors, because they've told me they don't know what causes these things.

 

Or... are you thinking someone unable to have health share or cover the difference with insurance or not able to be a "winner" with begging doesn't deserve the right to treatment?  That's what would have happened under today's system.  I'm sure my school would have run fundraisers as we do those for others without adequate coverage.  We don't raise nearly enough for full coverage... FWIW.  And that's a school with oodles of contacts - not someone trying to muster help from just family.

[Bluegoat]

Clear language would be to say that when someone doesn't pay a tax (legally) it is a loss of tax revenue for the government. It is false language to say that it is a "cost" paid by the government.

 

A tax is a personal or corporate expense. A personal or corporate loss of income that has been "taken" by government in order to pay for government's expenses. It is NOT a government cost or expense.

 

"Corporate welfare" is a political term. The corporation earned revenue, and the government is taking some of it through taxation. The amount (%) it takes is up for debate and political policy. It is NOT a government expense nor cost.

 

ETA I haven't read all of the comments so I 'm commenting as a general thought.

 

I think this really depends on how you frame it.

 

Why not consider, for example, that the company in question actually starts in debt to the state, which provides all kinds on infrastructure the company uses.  The company needs to give a portion of what it makes to pay that debt.

 

The government could, however, choose to demand less in order to offer some sort of extra advantage to the company - maybe because it is an important strategic industry, or they want to avoid the company going elsewhere.

 

This happens on a large scale where it affects all businesses or persons in a group the same way, but also it can be negotiated individually.  They negotiate with Walmart to pay less tax if they create a certain number of jobs, or negotiate cheaper electricity with a Volvo factory built in the town.  They are essentially using those rates as trading chips in a negotiation, and they are a cost for the government.

[Murphy101]

I am not saying this is what should be done, but what currently is done, and what proponents of charity only would desire. Many of you mistake this for my personal opinion. Its not. I have just related what is the trend here, where the middle class was othered in the public schools and left rather than become enslaved. The only opinion I have expressed is that no one is going to work for nothing.

Oh thank goodness then.

 

Personally I think it is downright disgusting that in one of the wealthiest nations in the world a person would have to do a go fund me or spaghetti dinner in hopes of convincing enough people to give pity money to let themselves or their child have a chance of getting medical care to save their life. It turns my stomach to be honest. There's nothing great about a government putting citizenry in that situation on a daily basis out of some misguided concept of budgeting priority. To claim that government is also Christian nation just adds the sour taste of blasphemy to it for me.

[creekland]

Oh thank goodness then.

 

Personally I think it is downright disgusting that in one of the wealthiest nations in the world a person would have to do a go fund me or spaghetti dinner in hopes of convincing enough people to give pity money to let themselves or their child have a chance of getting medical care to save their life. It turns my stomach to be honest. There's nothing great about a government putting citizenry in that situation on a daily basis out of some misguided concept of budgeting priority. To claim that government is also Christian nation just adds the sour taste of blasphemy to it for me.

 

Ditto.  Our nation claiming to be a Christian nation really irks me, esp since I'm a Christian.  My Bible evidently has completely different content in it because it tells me to focus on helping those around me who need help - regardless of who they are - so everyone gets treated equally.  It has some choice words for those who prefer wealth for themselves over helping others.

 

Giving to charity is certainly part of my life, but when it comes to basics - as I mentioned before - even charities admit they can't do it all for everyone.  When it comes to medical issues, I don't think anyone should have to beg for charity - not in a first world nation.

[Corraleno]

People forget the reason our programs exist is exactly because the need was not being met on a private donations basis. It wasn't that long go that the disabled or elderly or displaced were left to die in the streets. Literally.

 

What will advance our civilization in terms of humanity's good?

 

Because if we are not investing in doing that, we will stagnate and die, culturally and for some literally.

 

Austerity without purpose is not a financial or social virtue, it's miserliness under the guise of myoptic bookkeeping.

 

I don't think it's even motivated by austerity or a genuine interest in fiscal responsibility. I think the real motivation behind a lot of what is happening is a desire to punish the poor for being poor — if they just worked harder instead of being so lazy and expecting "free handouts" then they wouldn't be poor. 

 

If you look at the rhetoric around a lot of the current moves to cut funding and services for the poor, it's all about "empowering" poor people to take "personal responsibility"— by requiring them to pay monthly premiums for Medicaid, slashing funding for programs that help very low income people attend college, eliminating government subsidies for health insurance, etc.

 

Basically, poor people just need to take responsibility for the fact that they're poor, and stop expecting to have the same rights to health and education as everyone else. And in order to "empower" them to do this, we're going to eliminate all the programs that might actually help them get out of the hole they were born into.

[Farrar]

How in the world does one establish enough of an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment?

 

This touches on something else about the healthcare debate that wasn't in the article that opened the thread, which is the cost issue. It's nearly impossible to get a single, real cost for medical services in the US. The costs are kept secret and bundled very differently than in nearly all other parts of the world.

 

None of the proposed health care fixes to date (except for single payer) have come up with a way to realistically control the costs.

 

Fifty years ago, I think you potentially could have an emergency fund to cover cancer treatment (such as it was). Or, to cover at the time treatable and expensive medical catastrophes anyway. Now there's not enough spaghetti in Italy for such things.

[Carrie12345]

Do you feel this sort of aid would be adequate to meet all the needs which government agencies currently fill?

 

What happens to people who are socially isolated?

 

My sense-- and I'm in an area with a middle-of-the-road cost of living, a fair number of wealthy folks, lots of middle-class, and pockets of real poverty-- is that no number of spaghetti dinners will fill the need. There are simply too many needs, of too many sorts.

 

The reason so many government programs have developed is that there actually is real complexity in meeting needs. If government doesn't do it, then any other organization which truly fills the same needs would develop the same complexity. But how would any other organization get the necessary funding?

 

Forget socially isolated.

 

Think of all the posters in the median income thread - $20-30k for so many, $100+ for others. Are we really going to pretend they'd all have access to the same kind of neighborhood charitable help?!?!

[creekland]

Forget socially isolated.

 

Think of all the posters in the median income thread - $20-30k for so many, $100+ for others. Are we really going to pretend they'd all have access to the same kind of neighborhood charitable help?!?!

 

Among members of our health share, we (collectively) regularly pay for expenses in excess of 250K per incident.  They aren't uncommon.  How many of us could handle that kind of medical expense if we weren't eligible for health share and didn't have decent insurance from somewhere?

 

The uber wealthy can, but I'd venture to think it would be tough for those earning median incomes anywhere.

 

How many could raise that from fundraisers?  

[TeenagerMom]

Among members of our health share, we (collectively) regularly pay for expenses in excess of 250K per incident.  They aren't uncommon.  How many of us could handle that kind of medical expense if we weren't eligible for health share and didn't have decent insurance from somewhere?

 

The uber wealthy can, but I'd venture to think it would be tough for those earning median incomes anywhere.

 

How many could raise that from fundraisers? 

 

 

I have seen 2 different families struggle through childhood cancers in our local community.  One family has had a few thousand dollars raised for them. The other, a mere $500.............the family who has raised more has several family members throwing yard sales, etc.  the 2nd family has had very little support.

 

through 2 years of fundraising.

 

Fortunately we live in a state that expanded Medicaid and has CHIP so their kids haven't died from lack of treatment.

 

Kids.  with Cancer.  and their families can barely afford the expenses to drive the 3 hours to the children's hospital for treatment with the funds that have been raised.

 

ETA: I don't live in poor community either.  The local high school has a freaking jumbotron on the football field and a mini brand new college campus as the high school.

Edited March 17, 2017 by TeenagerMom

[FaithManor]

Alright, I've gotta go make coffee. Luck 'o the Irish to you all. Don't forget to wear green ðŸ€

Wearing green!

 

If the answer is "our poor aren't bad as Somalia's poor so therefore its okay to cut programs" then please someone beam me out of this country. I am so tired of this red herring.

[FaithManor]

Among members of our health share, we (collectively) regularly pay for expenses in excess of 250K per incident.  They aren't uncommon.  How many of us could handle that kind of medical expense if we weren't eligible for health share and didn't have decent insurance from somewhere?

 

The uber wealthy can, but I'd venture to think it would be tough for those earning median incomes anywhere.

 

How many could raise that from fundraisers?  

Yah, I'm thinking the families whose babies turn out to need 30 days of ACTH aren't going to be able to "gofundme" $750,000.00.

[SKL]

People always need to add words that nobody said.  A completely unhelpful and also unkind practice.

[mommaduck]

Just curious how many here agree with Tom Price's statement that, "At the end of the day, it’s better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it’s a lousy way to live anyway, and I’m sorry to say it out loud, but it’s the truth,†

[creekland]

I have seen 2 different families struggle through childhood cancers in our local community.  One family has had a few thousand dollars raised for them. The other, a mere $500.............the family who has raised more has several family members throwing yard sales, etc.  the 2nd family has had very little support.

 

through 2 years of fundraising.

 

Fortunately we live in a state that expanded Medicaid and has CHIP so their kids haven't died from lack of treatment.

 

Kids.  with Cancer.  and their families can barely afford the expenses to drive the 3 hours to the children's hospital for treatment with the funds that have been raised.

 

ETA: I don't live in poor community either.  The local high school has a freaking jumbotron on the football field and a mini brand new college campus as the high school.

 

Different school for sure (no jumbotron here), but similar scenes being played out.  If it weren't for CHIP many of our kids (at school) with serious health issues would have to turn to charity or fundraising I suppose.  As it is, we still help with fundraisers to help offset the other expenses involved - like a family member having to take time off from work or driving expenses, etc.

[TechWife]

My sense is that there are many who refuse to take part in their community until they have a need. Others refuse to educate themselves,and instead conduct themselves in a manner which is costly to any community. its rather sad to see grandma planting extra rows while grandchild holds out the hand,for ex. And even sadder to see someone choose a nonhealthy lifestyle and go on insulin. Its complex, but in the end it is a community that decides where it wants to put its surplus. That community will be whatever the people think works best,according to their abilities. Its not going to be taxation without representation, Because that starves the workers, and without workers there is no surplus generated. Work has to leave the worker enough for his family.

 

How will the community decide who receives the surplus? More importantly, what happens when a community has no surplus?  

[Jen500]

Just curious how many here agree with Tom Price's statement that, "At the end of the day, it’s better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it’s a lousy way to live anyway, and I’m sorry to say it out loud, but it’s the truth,†

 

WTF?!? That's horrible.

[Farrar]

Just curious how many here agree with Tom Price's statement that, "At the end of the day, it’s better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it’s a lousy way to live anyway, and I’m sorry to say it out loud, but it’s the truth,†

 

Snopes says he didn't say that:

http://www.snopes.com/tom-price-cancer-patients/

 

I think we need to rethink how we spend money on treatments and how we prolong lives in ways that people don't always want (the ICU thread a week or so ago touched on Atul Gawande and some of those issues). People in many other countries spend less on less invasive, cutting edge procedures, and live longer on average because the model of care is very different.

 

But whenever you try to talk about it, people scream, "Death panels!"

[TechWife]

My other opinion is that there is enough spaghetti. No one goes to a spaghetti dinner expecting enough food for all..they are there to contribute and express support for a beloved member of the community. 

 

It's not about the spaghetti. It's about how much money people have to pay for the spaghetti. My son's PICU bill was over $98K. At $10 a plate, that's more than 9,800 plates of spaghetti, assuming the ingredients were donated.  Do you know a grocery store or wholesaler that could donate that much inventory on a regular basis? Do you know that many people who would come to a spaghetti dinner? I sure don't. That number exceeds the population of some towns in our country. How many plates of spaghetti can people eat, anyway? Wouldn't it be more time and cost efficient to donate the money instead of getting the spaghetti? Who would be in charge of taking the money and making sure it got where it needed to go? What would happen if not enough money came in? The idea of funding cancer treatment through spaghetti dinners is just nuts. 

[FaithManor]

Snopes says he didn't say that:

http://www.snopes.com/tom-price-cancer-patients/

 

I think we need to rethink how we spend money on treatments and how we prolong lives in ways that people don't always want (the ICU thread a week or so ago touched on Atul Gawande and some of those issues). People in many other countries spend less on less invasive, cutting edge procedures, and live longer on average because the model of care is very different.

 

But whenever you try to talk about it, people scream, "Death panels!"

I do agree with this. We do very little in the years from 18-60 for the most part in the country to assist with living healthy and catching things early thus extending life in a good way. Insurance would rather NOT spend money on preventatives, and then hope when you get sick it takes you out fast so their lay out is low.

 

We do have a pretty low "happiness" quotient by any standard of measurement as a nation compared to other developed countries.

 

In my dna donor's case, he is one of those "Death panels" screamers. The reality is that he is terminally ill by any medical standard ever established, is miserable, sick constantly, dying a slow and painful death, but he wants every possible invasive, expensive treatment because he thinks he is going to be "cured'. The lack of education or thinking and planning about this years ago is a HUGE problem now. That said, this is a problem with that generation I think. They go to church with a ton of people in that age range who think the same way. And ya...that costs a LOT of money for no rational reason.

 

There has to be a middle ground. I think achieving it should not be by rationing care to the elderly or gravely, chronically ill, but instead starting out with a better foundation for future generations in which we care about quality of life issues for all of the adult years, and have more education about end of life planning, and help getting good, therapeutic counseling on the subject.

 

He keeps saying, "I don't want to be a burden." Meanwhile he will not go on hospice, refuses to go to a nursing home, refuses, refuses, refuses, and is literally killing my mother to care for him while dh and I figure out how to support them because they are going bankrupt, but we have two kids in college and one more entering in 2018, and at some point, DH should leave the rat race before he is in bad health himself! Does DNA donor care??? No.he.does.not. This is a huge issue for Gen X because with medical advancements, their parents are hanging on by threads for years and years when previous generations did not, and still raising families while trying to dig out of the recession knowing that they have to save for retirement themselves. If anything, I see lower life spans for my generation because the stress of this is going to kill a lot of us young. Case in point. My brother. He has had a stroke and a heart attack in the last five months entirely, 100% stress induced by my parents. 100%, and they just keep on pressuring him.

 

So some how there needs to be a rational discussion about this end of life stuff. I am not for government mandated, but I am all for government facilitated options. Big difference.

[FaithManor]

It's not about the spaghetti. It's about how much money people have to pay for the spaghetti. My son's PICU bill was over $98K. At $10 a plate, that's more than 9,800 plates of spaghetti, assuming the ingredients were donated.  Do you know a grocery store or wholesaler that could donate that much inventory on a regular basis? Do you know that many people who would come to a spaghetti dinner? I sure don't. That number exceeds the population of some towns in our country. How many plates of spaghetti can people eat, anyway? Wouldn't it be more time and cost efficient to donate the money instead of getting the spaghetti? Who would be in charge of taking the money and making sure it got where it needed to go? What would happen if not enough money came in? The idea of funding cancer treatment through spaghetti dinners is just nuts. 

Hear hear!

 

This whole fundraising to pay medical bills ideal is HORRIBLE! And it is not based in even a smidge of reality.

 

Let's see, we did a county wide fundraiser - spaghetti dinner with breadsticks, salad, fruit, and tea plus coffee and lemonade. After expenses, it raised $700.00 for 4H. $700.00.

 

I can't hardly get an annual physical for $700.00 much less pay a major medical bill with it!

[Innisfree]

Just curious how many here agree with Tom Price's statement that, "At the end of the day, it’s better for our national budget if cancer patients pass away more quickly, it’s a lousy way to live anyway, and I’m sorry to say it out loud, but it’s the truth,â€

Jaw dropping.

 

I had not seen that. Thank you for posting it.

 

ETA: glad to see that was wrong.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Innisfree

[Pam in CT]

re not enough spaghetti in Italy..

 

It's not about the spaghetti. It's about how much money people have to pay for the spaghetti. My son's PICU bill was over $98K. At $10 a plate, that's more than 9,800 plates of spaghetti, assuming the ingredients were donated.  Do you know a grocery store or wholesaler that could donate that much inventory on a regular basis? Do you know that many people who would come to a spaghetti dinner? I sure don't. That number exceeds the population of some towns in our country. How many plates of spaghetti can people eat, anyway? Wouldn't it be more time and cost efficient to donate the money instead of getting the spaghetti? Who would be in charge of taking the money and making sure it got where it needed to go? What would happen if not enough money came in? The idea of funding cancer treatment through spaghetti dinners is just nuts. 

 

 

As well, no family member of any seriously ill patient should be thrust into the position of working the spaghetti tables, slapping on the game face as they circulate, expressing their gratitude in the moment and writing 9,800 thank you notes thereafter.  Because they have a seriously ill family member to tend to.

 

(I realize we're using the spaghetti dinner as a metaphor here.  But the parents and spouses and adult children of people needing serious care deserve to attend to their loved ones needing care; they shouldn't have to sally forth and fund-raise on top of everything else they're doing.  

 

Not to mention that not all patients needing care have such advocates.  As my own parents age, I've become ever more conscious just of the complexity and management-intensity of our medical systems, even for those fortunate enough to have Medicare as my parents do or other decent coverage.)

[poppy]

It's 2017 and we are debating the need for a social safety net.  In one of the richest countries in the world. 

From a policy and public health perspective, no, GoFundMe / church helping out only the "worthy" needy isn't adequate. 

And from a moral standpoint... I can't believe we're actually having this conversation.

[FaithManor]

I don't think it's even motivated by austerity or a genuine interest in fiscal responsibility. I think the real motivation behind a lot of what is happening is a desire to punish the poor for being poor — if they just worked harder instead of being so lazy and expecting "free handouts" then they wouldn't be poor. 

 

If you look at the rhetoric around a lot of the current moves to cut funding and services for the poor, it's all about "empowering" poor people to take "personal responsibility"— by requiring them to pay monthly premiums for Medicaid, slashing funding for programs that help very low income people attend college, eliminating government subsidies for health insurance, etc.

 

Basically, poor people just need to take responsibility for the fact that they're poor, and stop expecting to have the same rights to health and education as everyone else. And in order to "empower" them to do this, we're going to eliminate all the programs that might actually help them get out of the hole they were born into.

Yes this.

 

And I believe one of the biggest reasons for it is the "American Dream". If the poor are not at fault for being poor, if it could happen to anyone good or bad, if the rain potentially falls on everyone the same, then the reality is that the dream is a lot of dumb luck, and not something attainable for everyone who works hard, plans ahead, makes sacrifices for the future. Every tax dollar that goes to helping someone else is one that can't be used to pursue the dream.

 

To admit that is rather bad to the American identity these days, so the delusion keeps spinning.

[Murphy101]

I don't think it's even motivated by austerity or a genuine interest in fiscal responsibility. I think the real motivation behind a lot of what is happening is a desire to punish the poor for being poor — if they just worked harder instead of being so lazy and expecting "free handouts" then they wouldn't be poor.

 

If you look at the rhetoric around a lot of the current moves to cut funding and services for the poor, it's all about "empowering" poor people to take "personal responsibility"— by requiring them to pay monthly premiums for Medicaid, slashing funding for programs that help very low income people attend college, eliminating government subsidies for health insurance, etc.

 

Basically, poor people just need to take responsibility for the fact that they're poor, and stop expecting to have the same rights to health and education as everyone else. And in order to "empower" them to do this, we're going to eliminate all the programs that might actually help them get out of the hole they were born into.

Exactly how it comes across to me too. And when I point this out, I'm accused of being irrational and only promoting "feel good" policies. Which is bizarre to me bc usually I'm accused of being heartless by insisting on logic reasoning. Oddly enough I have never had a conflict between logic and compassion.

 

I suppose if one thinks it's best to just let darwin theory take over and "solve" these problem a la law of the jungle, then logic and reason seems to conflict, but that's a very short sighted rationality they are using bc that plan doesn't work in the long term best interests of humanity or society.

[TechWife]

It's 2017 and we are debating the need for a social safety net.  In one of the richest countries in the world. 

From a policy and public health perspective, no, GoFundMe / church helping out only the "worthy" needy isn't adequate. 

And from a moral standpoint... I can't believe we're actually having this conversation.

 

It's sad that the conversation needs to happen, I agree with you. But, it has to happen. I don't think it's ever happened on a nationwide scale before. Maybe that's what we should strive for - prompting a national conversation? 

[FaithManor]

It's 2017 and we are debating the need for a social safety net.  In one of the richest countries in the world. 

From a policy and public health perspective, no, GoFundMe / church helping out only the "worthy" needy isn't adequate. 

And from a moral standpoint... I can't believe we're actually having this conversation.

Kind of staggers the imagination, doesn't it!

 

But I hear this all.the.time. where I live.

 

I think the worst are my parents though. They are just "damn the poor" all the time. Complaining about "welfare queens" blah, blah, blah.

 

Meanwhile, they have taken out more in health care from medicare than they ever paid in, more in social security than they paid in, take advantage of property tax assistance programs so they don't have to pay their property tax, and will stiff the bank of a good $100,000 when they go bankrupt.

 

However, they are the special snowflakes. It isn't their fault. They after all, "worked for a living." Sigh......

[SKL]

Regarding how any person or community is going to come up with that much money:

 

Personally I think the bigger problem is how the bills get jacked up so high.  Even the whole nation could not cover our medical costs at the "non-negotiated" (i.e. BS non-market) rates.  Which was discussed on another thread.  We need to address the problem of medical billing directly.

 

Insurance or taxpayer-funded calamity coverage would be a lot more manageable if the costs were not artificially inflated to the nth degree.

[Murphy101]

re not enough spaghetti in Italy..

 

 

 

As well, no family member of any seriously ill patient should be thrust into the position of working the spaghetti tables, slapping on the game face as they circulate, expressing their gratitude in the moment and writing 9,800 thank you notes thereafter. Because they have a seriously ill family member to tend to.

 

(I realize we're using the spaghetti dinner as a metaphor here. But the parents and spouses and adult children of people needing serious care deserve to attend to their loved ones needing care; they shouldn't have to sally forth and fund-raise on top of everything else they're doing.

 

Not to mention that not all patients needing care have such advocates. As my own parents age, I've become ever more conscious just of the complexity and management-intensity of our medical systems, even for those fortunate enough to have Medicare as my parents do or other decent coverage.)

My husband is an only child. His mom is the youngest of five, but some have already died and or moved far away. His dad is one of two, and the other isn't close. I'm an only child for all intent and purpose. Exactly what family do people think we are going to hit up for help, pray tell? The sandwich generation is really screwed. They are supposed to help their aging parents, their millennial kids, and somehow make sure their own provisions are stocked for when they need help too. It should be clear that's simply not realistic long term for most people bc it's easy to see how quickly and devastatingly quick that "system" of care could fall apart for anyone due to no fault of their own.

[Murphy101]

Regarding how any person or community is going to come up with that much money:

 

Personally I think the bigger problem is how the bills get jacked up so high. Even the whole nation could not cover our medical costs at the "non-negotiated" (i.e. BS non-market) rates. Which was discussed on another thread. We need to address the problem of medical billing directly.

 

Insurance or taxpayer-funded calamity coverage would be a lot more manageable if the costs were not artificially inflated to the nth degree.

Without insurance the cost would be exponentially more manageable and reasonable. Hence the more afford care in other countries with universal healthcare even when they are using things made and developed in the states.

[Guest]

I am actually one right-leaning political party member who believes in a social safety net and in keeping social security as a government program. I lived in a developing country that didn't have a safety net, and I tell people that they don't really want to live in a 100% capitalistic country with no safety net. I can't stand when people want to throw out all help for those in old age, the disabled, etc.

 

I feel stuck between millionaires and billionaires on the left and right who are setting up things so that they and their friends benefit while us little, ordinary people in the middle are trying to avoid destitution and ruin. What we really need is a social movement fighting for the middle, and not the socialist left vs the capitalistic right.

There's two of us at least. I support a safety net, but it's the broadness I contest, because you can only pop so many non-payers on the backs of a single tax payer and have it be fiscally feasible - it's a birth rate issue. Something has to give beyond a certain point in the curve. I'd rather keep it to the disabled, impoverished elderly, and children and then we can talk about targeted needs from there.

 

I'd prefer phasing out social security in a stepwise fashion for people my age and younger, though. It isn't workable to do anything with it for people within two decades of retirement who don't have the time or means to restructure their retirement, though, and there is still a place for it as a senior benefit for specific members of the population who cannot work.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Barb_]

We've reached that part of the show where I remind you all to call your senators and congressional representative to express your feelings about these programs. On the politics social group, Techwife posted an exhaustive list of programs that are up for elimination. If you want to save any or all of them, now is the time to let your feelings be heard.

[Barb_]

Here is the list in it's entirety. Credit for the work goes to Techwife:

 

Trump's budget blueprint has been announced. Here's a quick rundown.

 

He is proposing the elimination of several agencies and programs. Here is the list and I've added a brief explanation from each group's website to explain what they do:

 

Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy - advances high-potential, high-impct energy technologies that are too early for private sector investment; projects have the potential to radically improve US economic security and environmental well being.

This is to the Dept. of Energy what DARPA is to the Dept. of Defense.

 

African Development Foundation - support and invest in African owned and led enterprises which improve lives and livelihood sin poor and vulnerable African communities

 

Appalachian Regional Commission - mission is to innovate, partner and invest to build community capacity and strengthen economic growth in Appalachia. The Appalachian region includes all of West Virginia and parts of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina Tennessee and Virginia.

 

Chemical Safety Board - investigates industrial chemical accidents to determine the conditions and circumstances which led up to the event and to identify the cause or causes so that similar events might be prevented.

 

Corporation for National and Community Service - connects Americans of all ages and backgrounds with opportunities to give back to their communities and their nation; manages Senior Corps, AmeriCorps and Learn and Serve America.

 

Corporation for Public Broadcasting - oversees the federal government funding of public broadcasting (public radio, tv, online & mobile services): mission is to ensure universal access to non-commercial, high content and telecommunications services.

 

Delta Regional Authority - works to improve regional economic opportunity by helping create jobs, build communities and improve th lives of those in the region. Region includes Alabama, Arkansa, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee.

 

Denali Commission - an independent federal agency designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and economic support throughout Alaska

 

Economic Development Administration - fosters regional economic development efforts in communities across the nation; supports development in economically distressed areas of the US through investments that foster job creation and attract private investment.

 

​Institute of Museum and Library Services - mission is to inspire libraries and museums to advance innovation, lifelong learning and cultural civic engagement; provides leadership through research, policy development and grant making.

 

Inter-American Foundation - channels development assistance directly to the organized poor in Latin America and the Caribbean; provides grant support to grassroots groups and NGO's; encourages partnerships among community organizations, business and local government directed at improving the quality of life for poor people and strengthening democratic practices.

 

US Trade and Development Agency - helps companies create US jobs through the export of goods & services for priority development projects in emerging economies. Links US businesses to export opportunities by funding project preparation that develop sustainable infrastructure and foster economic growth in partner countries.

 

Legal Services Corporation - provides financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans; promotes equal access to justice by funding 134 legal aid programs in every state, DC and US territories; offices in every congressional district.

 

Minority Business Development Agency - creates jobs through the growth and global competitiveness of minority-owned businesses in the US; coordinates and leverages public and private sector resources to provide access to capital, contracts and markets.

 

National Endowment for the Arts - gives Americans the opportunity to participate in the arts, exercise their imaginations and develop their creative capacities. Supports arts learning, affirms our rich & diverse cultural heritage & promotes equal access to the arts in every community across America.

 

National Endowment for the Humanities - serves and strengthens our republic by promoting excellence in the humanities and conveying the lessons of history to all Americans. The Endowment accomplishes this mission by awarding grants for top-rated proposals examined by panels of independent, external reviewers.

 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation - the US government's development finance institution; mobilizes private capital to help address critical development challenges and in doing so advances US foreign policy and national security priorities; helps US businesses gain footholds in emerging markets at home and abroad; operates on a self-sustaining basis at no net cost to American taxpayers.

 

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness - coordinates the federal response to homelessness; works with Cabinet Secretaries and other senior leaders across 19 federal member agencies. Organizes and supports governors, mayors, continuum of care leaders & other local officials; Opening Doors Initiative.

 

Non-agency program eliminations:

 

21st Century Learning Centers part of the Dept. of Ed.; supports the creation of community learning centers that provide academic enrichment opportunities during non-school hours for children, particularly students who attend high-poverty and low-performing schools; offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children.

 

Chesapeake Bay Project Funding - funding to restore ecosystem; partially funded by federal gov't; has other funding sources

 

Choice Neighborhoods Program - HUD; supports locally driven strategies to address struggling neighborhoods with distressed public or HUD assisted housing through a comprehensive approach to neighborhood transformation; designed to catalyze critical improvements in neighborhood assets, including vacant property, housing, services and schools.

 

Community Development Block Grant Program - part of HUD; works to ensure decent affordable housing, provide services to the most vulnerable in our communities, and to create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses; provides grants to communities to meet their unique needs; includes housing, job development; loans for section 8 developments, disaster recovery, neighborhood stabilization, US-Mexico border areas. Some news outlets are saying that this impacts Meals on Wheels, there is no mention of that on the CDBG website.

 

Community Development Financial Institution Grants - part of Dept. of Treasury; serves mission-driven financial institutions that take a market-based approach to supporting economically disadvantaged communities

 

Community Services Block Grants - Dept. of Health & Humans Services; provides funds to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities; supports projects that lessen poverty in communities; Address the needs of low-income individuals including the homeless, migrants and the elderly; Provide services and activities addressing employment, education, better use of available income, housing, nutrition, emergency services and/or health

 

Essential Air Service - Dept. of Transportation; guarantees that small communities that were served by certified air carriers before airline deregulation maintain a minimal level of scheduled air service; currently subsidizes commuter and certified air carriers to serve approx. 60 communities in Alaska and 115 in the contiguous states that otherwise would not receive any scheduled air service.

 

Global Climate Change Initiative - This one was a little hard to pin down - this is what I found: Dept. of State; supports the U.S. commitment to contribute its share of $30 billion over the 2010-2012 period for "fast-start" funding to help developing countries address climate change while maintaining development gains.

 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative - efforts to protect and accelerate efforts to protect & restore the Great Lakes ecosystem; targets biggest threats to the ecosystem and works towards long term goals.

 

HOME Investment Partnership Program - HUD; provides formula grants to States and localities that communities use - often in partnership with local nonprofit groups - to fund a wide range of activities including building, buying, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership or providing direct rental assistance to low-income people. HOME is the largest Federal block grant to state and local governments designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households.

 

Low Income Energy Assistance Program - Health and Human Services; helps keep families safe and healthy through initiatives that assist families with energy costs; provides federally funded assistance in managing costs associated with home energy bills; energy crises; weatherization and energy-related minor home repairs

 

McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program - USDA; helps support education, child development and food security in low-income, food-deficit countries around the globe; provides for the donation of US agricultural commodities, financial and technical assistance to support school feeding & maternal and child nutrition projects.

 

NASA's Office of Education -supports NASA's strong historical role in education at all levels with linkages to NASA research as a central part of our focus; supports the work of the Mission Directorates by coordinating projects for students, faculty, and institutions that broaden the base of those who compete for NASA research awards; these efforts will help create and sustain the scientific and engineering workforce of the future; emphasizes sharing the results of NASA missions and research programs with wider audiences by using science discoveries and research applications as vehicles to improve teaching and learning at all levels.

 

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation (NeighborWorks America) - HUD; seeks to promote reinvestment in urban, suburban and rural communtites by local financial institutions working cooperatively with residents and local government; funds 325 organizations, monitors their progress and provides grants and consulting services.

 

Northern Border Regional Commission - Federal-State partnership for economic and community development within the most distressed counties of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York (this may be an agency, but I think it's a program, hard to tell).

 

 

Self-Help Home Ownership Opportunity Program - HUD; awards grant funds to eligible national and regional non-profit organizations and consortia to purchase home sites and develop or improve the infrastructure needed to set the stage for sweat equity and volunteer-based homeownership programs for low-income persons and families.

 

State Energy Program - Dept. of Energy; provides funding & technical assistance to state and territory energy offices to help them advance their clean energy economy while contributing to national energy goals; provides leadership to maximize the benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy in each state through communications and outreach activities & technology deployment & by providing access to new partnership resources.

 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants Program - Dept. of Education; part of Title II A - The Every Student Succeeds Act; provides resources to state and school districts to support teacher, paraprofessionals, principals and other educators; focus on earmarking funds for professional development. This one was a bit tricky to figure out due to a change in program name, this is the article that helped me figure it out some.

 

TIGER Transportation Grants - Dept. of Transportation; provides grants to fund road, rail, transit and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives.

 

United States Institute of Peace - works to prevent, mitigate and resolve violent conflict around the world by engaging directly in conflict zones and by providing analysis, education and resources to those working for peace.

 

Weatherization Assistance Program - provides grants to states, territories and some Indian tribes to improve the energy efficiency of the homes of low income families.

 

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars - the nation's key non-partisan policy forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue to inform actionable ideas for the policy community; scholars and experts research topics of national and international relevance; bridges between academia and public policy to develop solutions to nation's problems and challenges; through public meetings and events, broadcast media, social media print and online publications and a wide range of outreach activities the Wilson Center is engaged in the global dialogue of ideas. Democracy is but on the notion of an informed and active citizenry. The Wilson Center provides the fuel that makes this possible - knowledge in the public interest; the Center provides you with the tools and opportunities to join the national conversation.

[Barb_]

Biggest winners and losers in the proposed budget:

 

 

WINNERS

 

Defense

INCREASE: $52.3 billion, 10 percent

The $639 billion defense proposal should go over well with hawks such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who notably advocated for a $640 billion budget. The huge increase restores $52 billion to the Department of Defense and $2 billion more to other defense programs “in a repeal of defense sequestration.†Cyber security is significantly highlighted as a key area to improve as the U.S. builds a “more lethal joint force.†The budget also funds efforts “to strike ISIS targets, support our partners…disrupt ISIS’ external operations, and cut off its financing.†(Yes, the “ISIL†acronym is now officially replaced by “ISIS.â€) The defense windfall also addresses warfighting readiness and shortfalls in munitions, personnel and maintenance.

 

Veterans Affairs

INCREASE: $4.4 billion, 5.9 percent

Representing a key area where then-presidential candidate Trump promised investment, the budget increases discretionary funding for VA health care by $4.6 billion while also investing in IT advancements to improve efficiency. It also provides monetary support for VA programs that serve homeless and at-risk veterans.

 

Homeland Security

INCREASE: $2.8 billion, 6.8 percent

This portion of the budget is almost all about Trump’s “big, beautiful wall†on the Mexican border and other border enforcement priorities. It gives $2.6 billion for “high-priority infrastructure and border security technology†including funding to construct a “physical†border wall. The budget supplies $314 million to recruit, hire and train 500 new Border Patrol Agents and 1,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel and support staff. About $1.5 billion is provided for expanded detention and removal of illegal immigrants, while $15 million is set to go to mandatory nationwide implementation of the E-Verify system. Cuts include $667 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency programs that weren’t authorized by Congress and underperforming Transportation Security Administration programs.

-------------------------------------

LOSERS

 

Health and Human Services

DECREASE: $15.1 billion, 17.9 percent

Most of the cuts come from two areas – the National Institute of Health and the Office of Community Services. Eliminating discretionary spending for OCS saves $4.2 billion while NIH spending reduction checks in at $5.8 billion. A major reorganization of NIH, including an elimination of various programs and activities, is also on tap. A Federal Emergency Response Fund is created to quickly respond to health outbreaks, with the Zika virus specifically cited.

 

State

DECREASE: $10.9 billion, 28.7 percent

The budget eliminates the Global Climate Change Initiative and ceases payments to United Nations climate change programs. Funding for the U.N. and affiliated agencies is also reduced overall, as is foreign aid. The State Department’s Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs get cuts, as do multilateral development banks, “including the World Bank.†But the budget isn’t all cuts. Citing the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, money is provided to maintain “robust funding levels for embassy security,†and $3.1 billion is provided for security assistance to Israel. Economic development assistance programs are reoriented “to countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.†and resources are provided to fulfill a $1 billion vaccine pledge.

 

Education

DECREASE: $9.2 billion, 13.5 percent

The budget eliminates numerous grants and programs, while safeguarding the Pell Grant program. Federal Work-Study is reduced and also reorganized to better be allocated to those undergraduate students most in need. More than 20 categorical programs “that do not address national needs†are reduced or eliminated.

 

Housing and Urban Development

DECREASE: $6.2 billion, 13.2 percent

HUD’s rental assistance program is reformed and funding is eliminated for lower priority programs and Section 4 Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing. Cutting the Home Investment Partnerships Program saves $1.1 billion and wiping out the Community Development Block Grant program saves $3 billion.

 

Agriculture

DECREASE: $4.7 billion, 20.7 percent

Numerous loan and grant programs are eliminated, staffing at USDA Service Center Agencies is reduced and funding for USDA statistical capabilities is cut. Rural Business and Cooperative Service discretionary activities are eliminated and major new Federal land acquisitions for the National Forest System get the axe.

 

Labor

DECREASE: $2.5 billion, 20.7 percent

The budget reduces funding for ineffective or duplicative job training grants and focuses Bureau of International Labor Affairs on ensuring that “U.S. trade agreements are fair for American workers.â€

 

Transportation

DECREASE: $2.4 billion, 12.7 percent

A proposal to shift air traffic control from the FAA to a non-governmental organization is initiated while federal funding is capped on the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Investment Program. Several grants are eliminated.

 

Energy

DECREASE: $1.7 billion, 5.6 percent

A trio of energy research programs are cut in favor of private sector research. The Weatherization and Assistance Program and the State Energy Program are eliminated in attempts to reduce Federal intervention in State-level issues.

 

Commerce

DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 15.7 percent

The budget consolidates aspects of the Economics and Statistics Administration within other statistics agencies. It eliminates two agencies: the Economic Development Administration and the Minority Business Development Agency. There are also $250 million in cuts to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants.

 

Interior

DECREASE: $1.5 billion, 11.7 percent

Programs such as discretionary Abandoned Mine Land grants are discontinued because they overlap with existing programs. Funding for major acquisitions of Federal land is reduced. Better budgeting is put in place for wild land fire suppression. About $1 billion is invested in “safe, reliable and efficient management of water resources.â€

 

Justice

DECREASE: $1.1 billion, 3.8 percent

Despite the bottom-line getting cut overall, there are plenty of increases at Justice, including in counterterrorism and counterintelligence activities. Funds are also provided to target the “worst of the worst criminal organizations and drug traffickers.†To combat illegal immigration, the budget provides for the hiring of 75 additional immigration judges, 60 additional border enforcement prosecutors, 40 deputy U.S. Marshals and 40 attorneys. Bankruptcy filing fees are increased in an effort to produce an additional $150 million.

 

Treasury

DECREASE: $519 million, 4.1 percent

The budget eliminates grants, shrinks the Federal workforce and “empowers the Treasury Secretary … to end taxpayer bailouts.â€

 

OTHER AGENCIES

 

Environmental Protection Agency

DECREASE: $2.6 billion, 31 percent

While not technically a full-blown Cabinet department, the EPA also is slated for major cuts, including the elimination of over 3,000 positions.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/winners-and-losers-in-trumps-budget-blueprint.html

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[Catwoman]

Barb and TechWife -- I'm only online for a minute so I didn't get a chance to read the whole list, but did you include Meals on Wheels on that list? I saw a news story about it this morning and it sounds like it's another program they would like to cut.

 

I can't imagine why Meals on Wheels would ever be taken away. :(

[Barb_]

It's in one of the block grant sections. I'm about to leave for a baseball game so I hope techwife sees this and answers you.

[mommaduck]

Snopes says he didn't say that:

http://www.snopes.com/tom-price-cancer-patients/

 

I think we need to rethink how we spend money on treatments and how we prolong lives in ways that people don't always want (the ICU thread a week or so ago touched on Atul Gawande and some of those issues). People in many other countries spend less on less invasive, cutting edge procedures, and live longer on average because the model of care is very different.

 

But whenever you try to talk about it, people scream, "Death panels!"

 

Thank you. I was unaware. It's a horrid thing for anyone to say, but, unfortunately, there's not much that would surprise me anymore when it comes to those currently seated.

[Barb_]

Barb and TechWife -- I'm only online for a minute so I didn't get a chance to read the whole list, but did you include Meals on Wheels on that list? I saw a news story about it this morning and it sounds like it's another program they would like to cut.

 

I can't imagine why Meals on Wheels would ever be taken away. :(

Actually I looked it up and it would fall under the Community Block Grant program.

 

Here is the blueprint if anyone wants to read it:

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/16/blue.pdf

 

A lot of the local programs we were talking about up above are funded by these block grant programs. It's how they get federal funding to the local level without clogging it up with restrictions and regulations. It's some of the most Democratic, straight to the people money in the budget

Edited March 17, 2017 by Barb_

[Catwoman]

Actually I looked it up and it would fall under the Community Block Grant program.

 

Here is the blueprint if anyone wants to read it:

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/03/16/blue.pdf

 

A lot of the local programs we were talking about up above are funded by these block grant programs. It's how they get federal funding to the local level without clogging it up with restrictions and regulations. It's some of the most Democratic, straight to the people money in the budget

Thanks, Barb -- I appreciate that info! :)

[Corraleno]

There are also a LOT of programs on the chopping block that don't show up on the list because they are sub-units of larger departments. For example, Americorp will be totally eliminated even though they bring in more in matching funds than they get from the government. Pell grants are staying (for now), but $4 billion in funds previously allocated to Pell are being removed, the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program for very low-income students is being completely eliminated, and work-study funds are drastically cut. 

[unsinkable]

I'm quoting you from another thread, and my reply to your other post, along with your post containing the same erroneous information in this thread.

 

This issue is a very serious one, of grave concern, and it truly does no good to anyone to not get the facts correct.

 

Solutions cannot occur otherwise.

 

Your "facts" are incorrect.

 

 

 

While I think CEO compensation at places like GM and HP are ridiculously high, I don't have the kind of problem with it that I have with Drug companies, Medical Tech companies, and hospitals. There is a moral issue. This kind of compensation being used to drive up healthcare costs to the moon and back kills people. Plain and simple. It kills. A not insignificant number of people cannot afford high deductibles, $1000+ a month for premiums, claims that don't get processed or are rejected over STUPID criteria, and the like.

 

So someone thinks they should make $14.5 million causing other people to die.

 

Not a fan of said person. Kind of wonder about that Dante's Inferno thing......

 

If you want to drive up the cost of a car or an iphone, so be it. Drive up the cost of a pacemaker? Ya....I have a moral issue.

 

The company that makes ACTH which is a hormone that stops infantile spasms and saves lives was purchased in the late 1950's from a German company for less than $60,000.00. Approximately 6000 infants per year need it. The 30 day treatment plan? Wait for it!

 

$750,000.00

 

It costs less than $100 per shot to manufacture, actually right around $25.00. They charge $21,000-25,000 per shot depending on region. There isn't an insurance company in the land that will pay that, and kids would die without it so non profits like St. Jude's, the Shriners, etc. fund raise so hospitals can offer it to their patients. 1000% percent mark up. And they've been doing this for decades.

 

Times 6000 children, 4.5 billion on a drug that was already developed and tested that costs them $25.00 per dose to manufacture.

 

Dante didn't know he needed to add a layer called "drug company executives step this way so you can mine granite with a teaspoon in the flames for all eternity"!

 

After raising prices on epi pens to the moon, the CEO took a HUGE pay increase. How nice for her! :smash: :smash: :smash: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

I don't give a darn anymore about "free market" or capitalism. It isn't all its jacked up to be.

XXXXXXXX

 

Here is my post from the other thread with the accurate numbers and information:

 

 

Your numbers are way off if you are talking about Infantile Spasms and Questcor. Questcor (now Mallinckrodt) DID raise the price of Acthar (ACTH) an astronomical amount. They also bought the rights to a competing drug (Synacthen Depot, and raised that price an outrageous amount, too), and that purchase got them in trouble with the FTC.

 

However, the average treatment with Acthar now costs about $125,000, not $750,000. Acthar is usually only used for a limited time bc of the very serious side effects associated with its use. Questcor tries to justify the expense by saying it is an orphan drug with very few cases diagnosed per year in US. (I think Questcor has said less than 1000 cases per year).

 

Infantile Spasms ARE very rare, and very serious. It is a horrible, heart-breaking disesase. Epilepsy sites usually state about 2500 cases per year. It is hard to catch at first and I've heard it said most pediatricians might see a couple cases in their lifetime of practice.

 

Questcor claims that patients that cannot pay are given the drug for free, and that they also help with patients' co-pays (according the national media accounts).

 

The situation is complex bc in the 1990s the then-manufacturer wanted to discontinue the drug but didn't because it is the first line drug of choice for IS. It was losing millions of dollars a year producing the drug when it sold to Questcor in 2001. Questcor raised the price of Acthar upon acquisition, into the hundreds of dollars a vial, but still claimed to be losing money. It was in 2007 that the price made huge jump to $28000 (it is higher now) a vial. It hasn't been decades at this price.

 

Anyway, this is a serious enough situation without using false erroneous facts. It doesn't help to spread misinformation.

XXXXXXXXXXX

 

This number is wrong, and it misrepresents what happened with the drug:

 

 

 

Yah, I'm thinking the families whose babies turn out to need 30 days of ACTH aren't going to be able to "gofundme" $750,000.00.

Edited March 18, 2017 by unsinkable

[Janeway]

I would argue that it isn't the government's job to help create jobs that are obsolete. It is, however the government's job to provide a safety net while people are training for new skills or are injured and unable to work or are past the point of starting over or raising small children and must choose between leaving them alone or homelessness.

 

Jobs become obsolete. They just do, it stinks. I know someone who graduated with a degree in cartography in 1991, just as computers were taking off. He's still paying off student loans for a useless degree while working as a hotel manager with very few benefits. My grandad moved out of Appalachia in 1960--they led their families and friends to move to Florida because that's where the jobs were. The family and friends he left behind are still there, many poor and most Trump votors. Their kids are leaving because there's no more mill work and no more furniture factories. The world moves on, life changes. Tou can't preserve a way of life that no longer exists. This isn't the big picture, its myopic.

People are calling jobs that are not obsolete, they are just being outsourced...obselete. My husband, who has a degree in computer science and over 20 years experience and went to a top university, got told that he just needs to accept that no one wants Americans as software engineers so he just needs to retrain for something else, such as ...this person suggested...an HVAC technician. Not ok. The only thing he has against him is that in the current work environment for tech/computer people, a lot of employers are able misuse and mistreat their Visa employees and they can get away with bringing them in which leaves the Americans in those fields unable to get jobs for fair wages. Most people in my husband's field that I know are either unemployed, working for less than they were 10 years ago, or working 60-70+ hour weeks to stay competitive with the non-Americans who are working and willing to take labor violations. I am tired of hearing all these jobs are obsolete when in reality, very wealthy elite CEOs and such of these tech companies gave a lot of money to one particular candidate so that they could continue to get even richer off the broken backs of people who are unable to defend themselves from the extensive labor violations. Edited March 17, 2017 by Janeway