#Premium Healthcare Plan

[healthgennie]

Building a Comprehensive Preventive Care Plan Your Path to Lasting Health

A Preventive Care Plan is your proactive approach to maintaining optimal health and well-being. By focusing on regular check-ups, early detection, and personalized wellness strategies, this plan helps you prevent potential health issues before they arise. Embrace a healthier future by understanding the importance of preventive care and how it can significantly reduce the risk of chronic diseases and improve your overall quality of life. Discover the benefits of a tailored Preventive Care Plan today and take the first step towards a healthier, happier you.

For Any Query : Call: +91-8929920932 WhatsApp: +91-8690006254 Book Now: https://www.healthgennie.com/doctor-consultation-plan Download App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.Hgpp.app&hl=en

[yo9urt]

falls down

[totalbenefits]

How income affects your Medicare drug coverage premiums

You could pay a higher monthly premium for Medicare drug coverage (Part D) depending on your income. This includes Part D coverage you get from a Medicare drug plan, a Medicare Advantage Plan with drug coverage, or a Medicare Cost Plan that includes drug coverage. This is true even if your drug coverage is through your employer. Download this bulletin to learn more about extra Medicare drug…

[lookingforcactus]

A big cost and concern for many seniors in the U.S. is the price of prescription drugs and other healthcare expenses—and this year, thanks to The Inflation Reduction Act, their costs may go down dramatically, especially for patients fighting cancer or heart disease.

I learned about the new benefits because my ‘Medicare birthday’ is coming up in a couple months when I turn 65. I was shocked that there were so many positive changes being made, which I never heard about on the news.

Thousands of Americans on Medicare have been paying more than $14,000 a year for blood cancer drugs, more than $10,000 a year for ovarian cancer drugs, and more than $9,000 a year for breast cancer drugs, for instance.

That all changed beginning in 2023, after the Biden administration capped out-of-pocket prescriptions at $3,500—no matter what drugs were needed. And this year, in 2024, the cap for all Medicare out-of-pocket prescriptions went down to a maximum of $2,000.

“The American people won, and Big Pharma lost,” said President Biden in September 2022, after the legislation passed. “It’s going to be a godsend to many families.”

Another crucial medical necessity, the shingles vaccine, which many seniors skip because of the cost, is now free. Shingles is a painful rash with blisters, that can be followed by chronic pain, and other complications, for which there is no cure

In 2022, more than 2 million seniors paid between $100 and $200 for that vaccine, but starting last year, Medicare prescription drug plans dropped the cost for shots down to zero.

Another victory for consumers over Big Pharma affects anyone of any age who struggles with diabetes. The cost of life-saving insulin was capped at $35 a month [for people on Medicare].

Medicare is also lowering the costs of the premium for Part B—which covers outpatient visits to your doctors. 15 million Americans will save an average of $800 per year on health insurance costs, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services.

Last year, for the first time in history, Medicare began using the leverage power of its large patient pool to negotiate fair prices for drugs. Medicare is no longer accepting whatever drug prices that pharmaceutical companies demand.

Negotiations began on ten of the most widely used and expensive drugs.

Among the ten drugs selected for Medicare drug price negotiation were Eliquis, used by 3.7 million Americans and Jardiance and Xarelto, each used by over a million people. The ten drugs account for the highest total spending in Medicare Part D prescription plans...

How are all these cost-savings being paid for?

The government is able to pay for these benefits by making sure the biggest corporations in America are paying their fair share of federal taxes.

In 2020, for instance, dozens of American companies on the Fortune 500 list who made $40 billion in profit paid zero in federal taxes.

Starting in 2023, U.S. corporations are required to pay a minimum corporate tax of 15 percent. The Inflation Reduction Act created the CAMT, which imposed the 15% minimum tax on the adjusted financial statement income of any corporation with average income that exceeds $1 billion.

For years, Americans have decried the rising costs of health care—but in the last three years, there are plenty of positive developments.

-via Good News Network, February 25, 2024

[askgildaseniors]

Social Security and Medicare are two programs that help support us as we age. Social Security provides financial support in retirement, while Medicare ensures access to healthcare services.

Social Security offers income for retirees or those unable to work due to health reasons. It also extends support to families who've lost loved ones, providing survivor benefits.

Meanwhile, Medicare steps in to offer health insurance for individuals aged 65 and older, as well as those with certain disabilities or illnesses.

When it comes to enrolling, the Social Security Administration (SSA) partners with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to guide older Americans through the process. SSA sends out enrollment packages before your Medicare enrollment period begins, typically three months before you turn 65.

If you're already receiving Social Security benefits at age 65, you'll likely be automatically enrolled in Medicare. But if not, you'll need to apply through the SSA website.

Now, on to payments. Once enrolled, most individuals pay monthly premiums for Medicare Part B, that covers outpatient treatments. Social Security simplifies this process by deducting Part B premiums directly from benefit payments. If you have Medicare Advantage or Part D plans, you can also set up deductions from your benefits.

[simply-ivanka]

What Kamala Harris Believes

The Vice President’s political record reveals the views of a California progressive.

Wall Street Journal

Democrats are rapidly unifying behind Kamala Harris as their party nominee, yet the Vice President remains relatively unknown to most Americans. That means it’s important to look at her record to see what she believes.

As VP she’s closely identified with the Biden agenda, for better or worse, and she embraced that record in remarks on Monday. She said President Biden’s first term has “surpassed the legacy” of most Presidents who have served two.

So mark her down as endorsing the spending blowouts that caused inflation, the Green New Deal, entitlement expansions and student loan forgiveness. Until she says otherwise, we should also assume she’s in favor of Mr. Biden’s $5 trillion tax increase in 2025.

The Vice President’s four years as a Senator from California are another window on her worldview. She sponsored a bill to create a $6,000 guaranteed income for families making up to $100,000. Another Harris proposal: A refundable tax credit that would effectively cap rents and utility payments at 30% of income. Liberal economists panned the subsidy because it would drive up rents.

She co-sponsored legislation with Bernie Sanders that would pay tuition at four-year public colleges for students from families making up to $125,000. This is more honest than the Administration’s back-end student loan cancellation. But it would cost $700 billion over a decade and encourage colleges to increase tuition.

Another Bernie mind-meld: Single-payer healthcare. Ms. Harris co-sponsored his Medicare for All legislation paid for by higher income taxes. She tweaked Bernie’s plan when running for President in 2019 by extending the phase-in to 10 years from four and exempting households making less than $100,000 from the “income-based premium.” But it would still put government in charge of all American healthcare over time.

As a San Francisco Democrat, Ms. Harris shares the state’s hostility to fossil fuels. She used her power as California Attorney General to launch an investigation into Exxon Mobil over its carbon emissions. In 2019 she endorsed a nationwide ban on oil and gas fracking, which would cost tens of thousands of jobs and cause power outages like those that often occur in her home state. Expect this to be a GOP talking point in Pennsylvania.

One question to ask is whether the Vice President wants to restructure the Supreme Court. She said in 2019 she was “open” to adding more Justices, but that idea doesn’t poll well. Does she agree with Mr. Biden’s mooted plan to endorse “reforms” to the High Court that would make the Justices subject to Congressional supervision?

Mr. Biden famously put Ms. Harris in charge of border policy, and we know how that has turned out. Rather than push for border policy changes, her first instinct was to blame the rush of migrants on “root causes” in developing countries, including corruption, violence, poverty and “lack of climate adaptation and climate resilience.”

Climate change makes the U.S. border a sieve? Apparently so. “In Honduras, in the wake of hurricanes, we must deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation to the people,” Ms. Harris declared. “And in Guatemala, as farmers endure continuous droughts, we must work with them to plant drought-resistant crops.” These “root causes” take decades to address, and in the meantime she had nothing to say about actual border security.

Ms. Harris’s foreign policy views aren’t well known, or perhaps even well formed, apart from promoting Mr. Biden’s policies. While she has backed the Administration’s military assistance to Ukraine, she has equivocated about support for Israel. In March she chastised Israel for not doing enough to ease a “humanitarian catastrophe.” Leaks to the press say officials at the National Security Council toned down her speech’s criticism of Israel.

She lambasted the Trump Administration for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Gen. Qassem Soleimani, claiming it could lead to bigger war in the Mideast. The killing chastened Iran’s rulers instead, at least until the Biden Administration began to ease sanctions and tried to repeat the 2015 nuclear deal.

It will be especially important for the press to ask Ms. Harris about her national security views. If her handlers control her as much as White House advisers have Mr. Biden, we’ll know they’re afraid that the Vice President might not be able to handle the scrutiny.

A fair conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Harris is a standard California progressive on most issues, often to the left of Mr. Biden. Perhaps as she reintroduces herself to the public in the coming weeks, she will modify some of those views. She would be wise to do so if she wants to win.

Given the rush by Democrats to anoint Ms. Harris as their nominee, the press has a particular obligation to tell the public about who she is and what she really thinks. Does she believe California is a model for the country?

[darkmaga-retard]

The US government highly favors migrants over citizens. California’s Senate passed a bill that will permit illegal migrants to secure housing loans at 0% interest with a 0% downpayment. They will receive grants of up to $150,000 to use toward the home. California citizens are handing these people free healthcare, debit cards, phones, and now home ownership. How do the Democrats justify this blatant scheme?

I spoke with an acquaintance who happens to be moving to California. She was on board with the program and agreed with the Democrat’s handling of the migrant crisis. “Where else are they going to live? It will make it easier for them to find housing, and immigrants are such a vital piece of our economy.” She fails to understand the economic implications behind such a move and is disillusioned about the overall demographic of migrants, as most did not come to the US to work because that was never a requirement.

Banks make US citizens go through hoops to secure housing. You must show solid employment for two years, good credit, and a low debt-to-income ratio. The banks review every single asset someone owns and their potential for future income to ensure that the potential homeowner will be able to repay. It is a long and tedious process unless you pay in cash, which few can do. Then they ask for up to 20% on a downpayment and slap on an 8% interest rate, give or take. Property taxes and insurance premiums rise every year without fail. The banks will gladly foreclose a property if they do not receive payment when it’s due. US citizens who worked their entire lives and actually paid into the corrupt system are unable to secure housing. California, in fact, has the highest homeless population in the nation.

How will these migrants pay property taxes? How will they pay for property insurance, which often surpasses the cost of property taxes? What happens when the local municipality goes bust, and no one can pay the bank? There was absolutely no consideration regarding how these migrants with no proven work history or potential future earnings could make payments. The government cannot afford to buy homes for every migrant family. There is no plan in place to finance this initiative properly because the money does not exist. California’s deficit already stands at $47 billion and continues despite Governor Newsom raising taxes at every turn.

“With many legal residents not able to afford a home, should we really be giving free cash to illegal immigrants? Every dollar that goes to an illegal immigrant is one less dollar available to legal residents including veterans, teachers, and families,” said California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, R-San Diego, in a statement. “California already spends��$5 billion per year on free healthcare for illegal immigrants—will it ever be enough for Democrats’ political agendas?”

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Aug 07, 2024

"Republicans would rather protect their billionaire friends at the expense of everyone else," said the chair of the Joint Economic Committee

Budget proposals released by congressional Republicans in recent months lay bare the party's desire to slash taxes for wealthy Americans and large corporations at the expense of key government programs and services, including nutrition assistance, environmental protection, and Medicaid.

That's according to an analysis released Wednesday by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee (JEC), which examined budget plans the GOP has released as Congress works to craft and pass government funding bills for the coming fiscal year.

The JEC specifically cites a Fiscal Year 2025 budget proposal published in March by the Republican Study Committee, a panel comprised of three-quarters of the House GOP caucus.

The plan, the JEC Democrats noted Wednesday, "claims to balance the budget by cutting Medicare spending, raising the retirement age for Social Security, capping funding for Medicaid and CHIP, and cutting the rest of non-defense discretionary spending by 31% across the board."

"This would drive up health costs for American families by increasing premiums for [Affordable Care Act] healthcare plans and getting rid of protections for people with pre-existing conditions," the new analysis says. "It would also prohibit Medicare from negotiating down prescription drug costs."

A separate proposal from Republicans on the House Budget Committee claims it would finance "large tax cuts for the wealthy by both slashing key services and assuming that their tax giveaways lead to unrealistic levels of economic growth," the Democratic report says.

"Analyzing this budget with more reasonable economic assumptions instead shows that budget would likely require the government to eliminate most federal services within a decade," the report adds.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the chair of the JEC, said in a statement Wednesday that "Republicans' extreme proposals are dangerous for America."

"While Democrats are fighting to invest in families, Republicans would rather protect their billionaire friends at the expense of everyone else," said Heinrich. "Kicking 42 million kids off of health insurance, gutting federal investments in public safety, denying veterans hospital care, and getting rid of [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits that help people afford groceries is unconscionable. Americans deserve better."

The analysis from JEC Democrats comes as Republican nominee Donald Trump attempts to posture as an ally of the working class despite his history of assailing labor protections and backing tax cuts for the rich.

Trump has called for an extension of the tax cuts he signed into law in 2017—changes that overwhelmingly benefited wealthy Americans. An extension of the tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the deficit of the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The former president's advisers have also reportedly discussed reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, a change that would give the largest 100 U.S. companies a tax cut of $48 billion per year.

Trump has floated proposals that are ostensibly geared toward helping working-class Americans, including exempting tips from taxation—a proposal specifically aimed at hospitality workers—and eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits.

But earlier this week, UNITE HERE—a union that represents hospitality workers—endorsed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris over the Republican candidate, warning that "another Trump presidency would mean four chaotic years of defending against his attacks on unions, working people, immigrants, women, and others."

As for Trump's proposal to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, an analysis by the Tax Policy Center's Howard Gleckman found that the move would reduce "Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance (HI) revenues by $1.5 trillion over the next decade," harming the programs' finances while providing "little or no benefit" to lower-income households in 2025.

"Less than 1% of the lowest-income households (those making about $33,000 or less, would get any tax cut at all," Gleckman observed. "But about 28% of middle-income households would get a tax cut. Among the top 0.1 percent, about 20 percent of households would get a tax cut."

Gleckman found that "in dollar terms, the biggest winners would be those in the top 0.1% of income, who make nearly $5 million or more."

[mcspocky]

Trump's Healthcare Proposal: Higher Premiums for Preexisting Conditions

[morlock-holmes]

Also, part of healthcare in America is gambling with your health.

"If you're relatively healthy, you might want to consider a low-premium, high deductible plan"

Meaning (generalizing from the marketplace prices I've seen) you'll save about $5,000 a year if you don't have any emergencies and lose about $9,000 if you do.

Don't worry, I'm sure nobody would choose these plans because they don't have an extra $5,000 a year to throw at monthly premiums even though they're likely to need serious medical care in the near future...

Not to mention, I'm sure nobody just decides to forgo the premiums at all and just not have insurance because of the cost...

[healthgennie]

The Essentials of a Comprehensive General Healthcare Plan

Discover the fundamentals of a Comprehensive General Healthcare Plan. Learn how a holistic approach to health management can ensure you receive the necessary care and support for overall well-being. Explore key components, benefits, and how to tailor a plan that fits your needs.

For Any Query : Call: +91-8929920932 WhatsApp: +91-8690006254 Book Now: https://www.healthgennie.com/doctor-consultation-plan Download App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=io.Hgpp.app&hl=en

[so-much-for-subtlety]

I have a high deductible health plan which means that my monthly premium is low, but I have to pay for healthcare myself until a certain limit where insurance kicks in (at first it will pay 70-80% and then at another limit it will pay 100%).

For the first time ever it looks like I’m going to hit either one or both of those limits this year, which kind of rationalizes me to get as much as possible out of my plan.

I have things I’ve been putting off for years that I think I’m gonna get seen this year, I’m gonna be like the million dollar man where they can rebuild me stronger! faster! better!

[coochiequeens]

No one is entitled to biological offspring and how can they include surrogacy in the Act without implying that couples are entitled to women to be surrogates?

A trio of Democratic senators are introducing a "Right to IVF Act" that would, among other things, force private health insurance plans to cover assisted reproduction treatments such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), egg freezing, and gestational surrogacy.

The measure provides no exception or accommodations for religious objections, all but ensuring massive legal battles over the mandate should it pass.

The "sweeping legislative package" (as the senators describe it) combines several existing pieces of legislation, including the Access to Family Building Act and the Family Building Federal Employees Health Benefit Fairness Act sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D–Ill.), the Veteran Families Health Services Act from Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.), and the Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act from Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.).

Booker's contribution here is probably the most controversial. It requires coverage for assisted reproduction from any health care plan that covers obstetric services.

A Reverse Contraception Mandate

Remember the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate, which required private health insurance plans to cover birth control (allegedly) at no cost to plan participants? It spawned some big legal battles over the rights of religious employers and institutions not to offer staff health plans that included birth control coverage.

Booker's Access to Infertility Treatment and Care Act is a lot like the Obamacare contraception mandate, except instead of requiring health care plans to cover the costs of avoiding pregnancy it would require them to cover treatments to help people become pregnant.

The bill states that all group health plans or health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance must cover assisted reproduction and fertility preservation treatments if they cover any obstetric services. It defines assisted reproductive technology as "treatments or procedures that involve the handling of human egg, sperm, and embryo outside of the body with the intent of facilitating a pregnancy, including in vitro fertilization, egg, embryo, or sperm cryopreservation, egg or embryo donation, and gestational surrogacy."

Health insurance plans could only require participant cost-sharing (in the form of co-pays, deductibles, etc.) for such services to the same extent that they require cost-sharing for similar services.

What Could Go Wrong?

It seems like it should go without saying by now but there is no such thing as government-mandated healthcare savings. Authorities can order health care plans to cover IVF (or contraception or whatever) and cap point-of-service costs for plan participants, but health insurers will inevitably pass these costs on to consumers in other ways—leading to higher insurance premiums overall or other health care cost increases.

Yes, IVF and other fertility procedures are expensive. But a mandate like this could actually risk raising IVF costs.

When a lot of people are paying out of pocket for fertility treatments, medical professionals have an incentive to keep costs affordable in order to attract patients. If everyone's insurance covers IVF and patients needn't bother with comparing costs or weighing costs versus benefits, there's nothing to stop medical providers from raising prices greatly. We'll see the same cost inflation we've seen in other sectors of the U.S. healthcare marketplace—a situation that not only balloons health care spending generally (and gets passed on to consumers one way or another) but makes fertility treatments out of reach for people who don't have insurance that covers such treatments.

Raising costs isn't the only issue here, of course. There's the matter of more government intervention in private markets (something some of us are still wild-eyed enough to oppose!).

Offering employee health care plans that cover IVF could be a good selling point for recruiting potential employees or keeping existing employees happy. But there's no reason that every employer should have to do so, just because lawmakers want IVF to be more accessible.

It's unfair to employers—big or small, religious or non-religious—to say they all must take on the costs of offering health care plans that cover pricey fertility treatments. And Booker's bill contains no exceptions for small businesses or for entities with religious or ethical objections.

A lot of religious people are morally opposed to things like IVF and surrogacy. This measure would force religious employers to subsidize and tacitly condone these things if they wanted to offer employees health care plans with any obstetrics coverage at all.

As with any government intervention in free markets, there's the possibility that this fertility treatment mandate would distort incentives. IVF can certainly be an invaluable tool for folks experiencing infertility. But it's also very expensive and very taxing—emotionally and physically—for the women undergoing it, with far from universal success rates. The new mandate could encourage people who may not be good candidates for IVF to keep trying it, perhaps nudging them away from other options (like adoption) that might be better suited to their circumstances.

'Access' Vs. Whatever This Is

Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, many Americans have worried that the legal regime change would pave the way for outlawing things like contraception or IVF, too. Encoding into law (or legal precedent) the idea that fertilized eggs are people could have negative implications for these things, even if many conservative politicians pledge (and demonstrate) that IVF and birth control are safe. In response, some progressive politicians—perhaps genuinely concerned, perhaps sensing political opportunity (or why not both?)—have started talking a lot about the need to protect access to IVF across the country.

As much as I agree with this goal, I think IVF's legality is better off as a state-by-state matter. That said, the "protect IVF nationwide" impulse wouldn't be so bad if "protecting access" simply meant making sure that the procedure was legal.

But as we've seen again and again over the past couple decades, Democrats tend to define health care and medicine "access" differently.

The new Right to IVF Act would establish a national right to provide or receive assisted reproduction services. In their press release, the senators say this last bit would "pre-empt any state effort to limit such access and ensur[e] no hopeful parent—or their doctors—are punished for trying to start or grow a family." OK.

But that's not all it would do. The bill's text states that "an individual has a statutory right under this Act, including without prohibition or unreasonable limitation or interference (such as due to financial cost or detriment to the individual's health, including mental health), to—(A) access assisted reproductive technology; (B) continue or complete an ongoing assisted reproductive technology treatment or procedure pursuant to a written plan or agreement with a health care provider; and (C) retain all rights regarding the use or disposition of reproductive genetic materials, including gametes."

Note that bit about financial cost. It's kind of confusingly worded and it's unclear exactly what that would mean in practice. But it could give the government leeway to directly intervene if they think IVF is broadly unaffordable or to place more demands on individual health care facilities, providers, insurance plans, etc., to help cover the costs of IVF for people whom it would otherwise be financially out of reach.

This is the distilled essence of how Democrats go too far on issues like this. They're not content to say "People shouldn't be punished for utilizing/offering IVF" or that the practice shouldn't be illegal. They look at authoritarian or overreaching possibilities from the other side (like banning or criminalizing IVF) and respond with overreaching proposals of their own.

The proble with increasing access to IVF is what happens when the couple needs a surrogate to have biological offspring? Will they beg and pester the women in their lives? Will the affordable IVF compensate surrogates fairly?

[sugdenlovesdingle]

The monthly premium for my health insurance now: €139,20

The monthly premium for my health insurance from January 1st (if I don't change anything): €144,90

Welcome to the Netherlands - where we have healthcare for all*

*all who can afford to drop €200+ a month on their premium so it actually covers the things they need.

The insurance I have now is the basic deal that everyone has to have + dental. I'm considering dropping that and pray I don't get a cavity next year.

The basic plan doesn't cover the insoles I need to walk without pain. I should get new ones fitted every year but that's 250 euro and I don't have that much money to spare - ever - so I'm still wearing the ones from last year and the year before.

And on top of all that you have to pay €385 of your healthcare costs a year yourself no matter what. Rich or poor, you have to pay the 385.

In short - fuck this country, fuck the vvd, fuck everyone who voted for these assholes, fuck everyone who is planning on voting for them, and fuck everyone who is planning on voting for Omtzigt because he's just as bad.

Nieuwe bestuurscultuur me reet!

[insert-witty-user-name-here]

50+ Good Things from the Biden Administration

Just a list of 50+ good things the Biden Administration has done in the last 4 years because I’ve been hearing too much rhetoric that it doesn’t matter who you vote for. It does make a difference. 

Increased access to healthcare and specifically codified protections for LGBTQ+ patients against discrimination. (x) 

Strengthened women's reproductive rights by increasing access to reproductive health care, improving confidentiality to protect against criminalization for patients receiving reproductive care, and revoked Medicaid waivers from states that would exclude providers like Planned Parenthood, and more. (x)

Expanded healthcare and benefits for veterans through the PACT Act (x)

Cemented protections for pregnant and postpartum workers through the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. 

Improved access to nursing homes for those who receive Medicaid services and established, for the first time, a national minimum staffing requirement for nursing homes to ensure those in their care receive sufficient support.  (x) 

Lowered healthcare costs for those with Medicare which capped insulin for seniors at $35 a month, made vaccines free, and capped seniors’ out of pocket expenses at the pharmacy through the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Fully vaccinated 79% of American adults against COVID-19 (I know this is old news now this is a big deal) 

Banned unfair practices that hide housing fees from renters and homebuyers when moving into a new home (x) 

Reduced the mortgage insurance premium for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgages and clarified that inflated rents caused by algorithmic use of sensitive nonpublic pricing and supply information violate antitrust laws. (x) 

Increased protections for those saving for retirement from predatory practices. (x)

Helped millions of households gain access to the internet through the Affordable Connectivity Program. (x) 

Restored net neutrality (net neutrality is a standard which ensures broadband internet service is essential and prohibits interna providers from blocking, engaging in paid prioritization, and more.) (x)

Increased protections for loan holders as well as increased access to loans (x)

Cut fees that banks charge consumers for overdrawing on their accounts. (x)

Reaffirmed HUD’s commitment to remedy housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (which was– surprise, surprise– halted under the Trump administration). (x)

Rejoined the Paris Climate Accords.  

Listed more than 24 million acres of public lands across the country as environmentally protected and has channeled more than $18 billion dollars toward conservation projects. (And revoked the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline amongst others). 

Invested $369 billion to reduce greenhouse emissions and promote clean energy technologies through the Inflation Reduction Act. Through the tax incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act, renewable energy (such as wind, solar, and hydropower) has surpassed coal-fired generation in the electric power sector for the first time, making it the second-biggest source of energy behind natural gas. (x)

Strengthened protections against workplace assault through the Speak Out Act. (x) 

Increased protections for workers during the union bargaining process (x)

Is making it easier for passengers to obtain refunds when airlines cancel or significantly change their flights, significantly delay their bags, or fail to provide extra services when purchased. (x)  

Invested $1.2 trillion into roads, waterlines, broadband networks, airports and more allowing for more bridges, railroads, tunnels, roads, and more through the Inflation Reduction Act (which also added 670,000 jobs). (idk about you but I like driving on well maintained roads and having more rail options).  

Strengthened overtime protections for federal employees (x)

Raised the minimum wage for federal workers and contractors to $15. (x)

Strengthened protections for farmworkers by expanding the activities protected from retaliation by the National Labor Relations Act and more. (Previously anti-retaliation provisions under the National Labor Relations Act applies mostly to only U.S. citizens) (x)

Invested $80 billion for the Internal Revenue Service to hire new agents, audit the wealth, modernize its technology, and more. Additionally, created $300 billion in new revenue through corporate tax increases. (x) 

Lowered the unemployment rate to 3.5% — the lowest in 50 years. 

Canceled over $140B of student debt for nearly 40 million borrowers. (x)

Strengthened protections for sexual assault survivors, pregnant and parenting students, and LGBTQ+ students in schools through an updated Title IX rule. This updated rule strengthens sexual assault survivors rights to investigation– something that had been gutted under the Trump administration, strengthens requirements that schools provide modifications for students based on pregnancy, prohibits harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and more. (x)

Revoked an order that limited diversity and inclusion training. (x)

Cracked down on for profit colleges. (x)

Reaffirmed students’ federal civil rights protections for non-discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender in schools. Specifically, the Department of Education made clear students with disabilities’ right to school, limiting the use of out of school suspensions and expulsions against them. (x) (x) 

Enhanced the Civil Rights Data Collection, a national survey that captures data on students’ equal access to educational opportunities. These changes will improve the tracking of civil rights violations for students, critical for advocates to respond to instances of discrimination. 

Provided guidance on how colleges and universities can still uphold racial diversity in higher education following the Supreme Court decision overturning affirmative action. (x) 

Issued a federal pardon to all prior Federal offenses of simple possession of marijuana. Additionally, the DEA is taking steps to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III substance instead of a Schedule I, limiting punishment for possession in the future. (x) 

Changed drug charges related to crack offenses, now charging crack offenses as powder cocaine offenses. This is a big step towards ending the racial disparity that punishes crack offenses with greater severity than offenses involving the same amount of powder cocaine. (x) 

Lowered the cost of local calls for incarcerated people through the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act as well as increased access for video calls (especially impactful for incarcerated people with disabilities). (x) 

Enacted policing reforms that banned chokeholds, restricted no-knock entries, and restricted the transfer of military equipment to local police departments. (x)

Established the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD) which will better track police officer misconduct. This database will vet federal law enforcement candidates who have a history of misconduct from being rehired and will make it easier and faster to charge police officers under the Death in Custody Reporting Act. (x) 

Added disability as a protected characteristic alongside race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. Under the law, police officers are prohibited from profiling people based on these characteristics. …It sadly happens anyway but now there’s an added legal protection which means a mechanism to convict police officers should they break the law. (x) 

Required federal prisons to place incarcerated individuals consistent with their chosen pronouns and gender identity. (x) 

Expanded gun background checks by narrowing the “boyfriend” loophole to keep guns out of the hands of convicted dating partners, strengthening requirements for registering as a licensed gun dealer (closing the “gun show loophole”), and more through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.  (x) 

Increased mental health programs within police departments to support officers experiencing substance use disorders, mental health issues, or trauma from their duties. (x)

Lifted Trump era restrictions on the use of consent decrees. The Justice Department uses consent decrees to force local government agencies (like police departments) to eliminate bad practices (such as widespread abuse and misconduct) that infringe on peoples’ civil rights. (x) 

Improved reporting of hate crimes through the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act (x) 

Nominated the first Black woman to sit on the Supreme Court 

Confirmed 200 lifetime judges to federal courts, confirming historic numbers of women, people of color, and other judges who have long been excluded from our federal court system. (64% are women, 63% are people of color) 

Designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) status for immigrants from Cameroon, Haiti, ​​El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sudan, and more. (x) 

Ended the discriminatory Muslim and African bans (x). 

Provided a pathway to citizenship for spouses of U.S. citizens that have been living in the country without documentation. (x) 

Expanded healthcare to DACA recipients (x) 

This one is… barely a win but not by fault of the Biden Administration. The Department of Homeland Security as of Feb 2023 has reunited nearly 700 immigrant children that were separated from their families under Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy. From 2017-2021, 3,881 children were separated from their families. About 74% of those have been reunited with their families: 2,176 before the task force was created and 689 afterward. But that still leaves nearly 1,000 children who remain tragically separated from their families from under the Trump Administration. (x)

(okay this one is maybe only exciting for me who’s a census nerd) Revised federal standards for the collection of race and ethnicity data, allowing for federal data that better reflect the country’s diversity. Now, government forms will include a Middle Eastern/ North African category (when previously those individuals would check “white”). Additionally, forms will now have combined the race & ethnicity question allowing for individuals to check “Latino/a” as their race (previously Latine individuals would be encouraged to check “Latino” for ethnicity and “white” for race… which doesn’t really resonate with many folks). (x) (I know this sounds boring but let me tell you this is BIG when it comes to better data collection– and better advocacy!).

Rescinded a Trump order that would have excluded undocumented immigrants from the 2020 Census which would have taken away critical funds from those communities. 

Required the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages by passing the Respect for Marriage Act, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Reversed Trump’stransgender military ban. 

Proposed investments in a lot of programs including universal pre-k, green energy, mental health programs across all sectors, a national medical leave program for all workers and more. (x) 

Last… let’s also not forget all the truly terrible things Trump did when he was in office. If you need a reminder, scroll this list, this one mostly for giggles + horror, for actual horror about what a Trump presidency has in store, learn about ‘Project 2025’ from the Heritage Foundation. I know this post is about reasons to vote FOR Biden but let’s not forget the many, many reasons to vote for him over Trump. 

So, there it is, 50+ reasons to vote for Biden in the 2024 Election. 

Check your voter registration here, make a plan to vote, and encourage your friends to vote as well. 

All in all, yeah… there’s a lot of shitty things still happening. There’s always going to be shit but things aren’t going to change on their own. And that change starts (it certainly doesn’t end) with voting. 

Go vote in November. 

[lazywitchling]

My employer: "As part of our healthcare plan, we're now offering free access to Calm's entire premium content!"

Me: "Bare minimum of employee mental health, but okay. That's cool I guess."

The website: "Get Calm for your business! We send you stats on how your employees are using our app!"

Me: "HAHAHAHAHAHA yeah no absolutely not."