#cut medicaid

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

Encouraging the public to commit financial suicide.

Encouraging the public to commit financial suicide.

REASON Magazine is a Libertarian publication that disseminates false information in order to encourage Americans to vote against their best interests. Here is another example from this shameful publication. Congress can reduce the deficit by $7.7 Trillion in 10 YearsThe Congressional Budget Office projects that future deficits will explode. But there’s a way out.VERONIQUE DE RUGY, REASON…

[nat-20s]

Wild how Medicaid has been like. Significantly fucking better than any paid for private insurance I've ever had.

[swervesbootycall]

Granted I haven’t gone looking but I think we need more rizzless Optimus Prime representation. OP that just doesn’t know what he’s doing fuck wise. I see so many OPs that are somehow sex machines especially bayverse and all this breeding kink and sure of course I’m always a cyberslut for breeding but also what if he doesn’t know fuck from all and not in a melting wallflower way! In a ripped athlete who doesn’t know how to do anything down there way yeah we love a horny prime of course let him be horny and all I ALSO in ADDITION to the capable fuck fantasy primes incapable horny primes primes with limp bizcits primes with unlimp they don’t know what to do with! What do you mean I don’t right click! Yeah I can handle an axe what kind of weapon is a Cli- Toriss? Penis? Ah yes, I have heard it is mightier than the sword

[pathetic-gamer]

I'm one more maternal mortality rate increase away from saying any U.S. politician who votes for things like cutting Medicaid should be stripped of power and put on trial for crimes against humanity

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

By Sharon Parrott

It’s tempting to ignore a budget resolution released just days before the start of the fiscal year that it’s meant to guide, and amid the chaotic debate around a short-term extension of government funding to avoid a shutdown. But House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington’s proposed budget is important for what it illustrates about House Republicans’ disturbing vision for the country: health care stripped away from millions of people, higher poverty and hunger, capitulation to climate change, more tax cheating by high-income people, and large-scale disinvestment from the building blocks of opportunity and economic growth—from medical research to education to child care. It would narrow opportunity, worsen racial inequities, and make it harder for people to afford the basics. It reflects the wrong priorities for the country and should be roundly rejected.

Chair Arrington made clear in his remarks the intent to extend the expiring tax cuts from the 2017 tax law, which included large tax cuts for the wealthy. In addition, the budget resolution itself would pave the way for unlimited, unpaid-for tax cuts that could go well beyond those extensions. The extensions alone would give annual tax breaks averaging $41,000 to tax filers in the top 1 percent and cost more than $350 billion a year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The budget reflects none of these costs and fails to explain how—or whether—they will be offset.

A shocking share of the spending cuts Chair Arrington specifies target people with low and moderate incomes, including $1.9 trillion in Medicaid cuts and hundreds of billions in cuts to economic security programs, such as cuts to assistance that helps people afford food and other basic needs. Just last week the Census Bureau released data showing that poverty spiked last year, more than doubling for children. Rather than proposing policies that could reverse this deeply troubling trend, the budget proposal would deepen poverty and increase hardship.

The budget would also make deep cuts in the part of the budget that is funded annually through appropriations bills. Disingenuously, the budget resolution shows that these cuts total more than $4 trillion over ten years—but hides the program areas that would be cut, labeling them “government-wide savings.” But this year’s House Appropriations bills—which include substantial cuts—make clear that cuts would fall on a wide range of basic functions and services that support families, communities, and the broader economy, including Social Security customer service, support for K-12 and college education, funding for national parks and clean air and water, rental housing assistance for families with low incomes, and more.

Chair Arrington claims the budget’s deep and damaging program cuts are in the name of deficit reduction. But the failure to identify a single revenue increase for high-income people or corporations—and in fact, to potentially shower them with more unpaid-for tax cuts—is an extreme and misguided approach. Moreover, calling for a balanced budget in ten years is merely a slogan that has little to do with addressing our nation’s needs—and the budget resolution resorts to gimmicks and games to even appear to get there, including $3 trillion in deficit reduction it claims would accrue from higher economic growth it assumes would be achieved by budget policies.

A budget plan should focus on the nation’s needs and lay out an agenda that broadens opportunity, invests in people and families, reduces the too-high levels of hardship and financial stress faced by households across the country, and raises revenues for those investments. But the Arrington budget blueprint would shortchange much-needed investments and lock in wasteful tax cuts to the already wealthy for the next decade.

House Republicans are pursuing a damaging agenda at every turn—first threatening the nation with default, and now demanding deep cuts in an array of priorities in this year’s appropriations debate, risking a government shutdown, and proposing a budget blueprint that would take the country in the wrong direction.

[californiaquail]

uh oh sisters i'm going to lose my health insurance

[the-thoughts-in-my-silence]

hi this is my venting/depression blog NOT my main

my main : @radio-silence-fan

i will mostly be reblogging posts like A LOT

TW depression/depressing stuff

TW sh

TW cutting

TW suicidal thoughts/intentions

[whatareyoureallyafraidof]

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[scalpelsister]

im being very brave (making adult phone calls)

[emperornorton47]

Be angry

[lesbiangummybearmafia]

Current mood... due to pms or state of my life or both I'm not sure.

[boreal-sea]

Look.

I have made you a chart. A very simple chart.

People say "You have to draw the line somewhere, and Biden has crossed it-" and my response is "Trump has crossed way more lines than Biden".

These categories are based off of actual policy enacted by both of these men while they were in office.

If the ONLY LINE YOU CARE ABOUT is line 12, you have an incredible amount of privilege, AND YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT PALESTINIANS. You obviously have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency, and you do not give a fuck if a ceasefire actually occurs. You are obviously fine if your queer, disabled, and marginalized loved ones are hurt. You clearly don't care about the status of American democracy, which Trump has openly stated he plans to destroy on day 1 he is in office.

EDIT:

Ok fine, I spent 3 hours compiling sources for all of these, you can find that below the cut.

I'll give at least one link per subject area. There are of course many more sources to be read on these subject areas and no post could possibly give someone a full education on these subjects.

Biden and trans rights: https://www.hrc.org/resources/president-bidens-pro-lgbtq-timeline

Trump and trans rights: https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/trump-on-lgbtq-rights-rolling-back-protections-and-criminalizing-gender-nonconformity

The two sources above show how Biden has done a lot of work to promote trans rights, and how Trump did a lot of work to hurt trans rights.

Biden on abortion access: https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html

Trump on abortion access: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-trump-republican-presidential-election-2024-585faf025a1416d13d2fbc23da8d8637

Biden openly supports access to abortion and has taken steps to protect those rights at a federal level even after Roe v Wade was overturned. Trump, on the other hand, was the man who appointed the judges who helped overturn Roe v Wade and he openly brags about how proud he is of that decision. He also states that he believes individual states should have the final say in whether or not abortion is legal, and that he trusts them to "do the right thing", meaning he supports stronger abortion bans.

Biden on environmental reform: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-restores-protections-for-three-national-monuments-and-renews-american-leadership-to-steward-lands-waters-and-cultural-resources/

Trump on environmental reform: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html

Biden has made major steps forward for environmental reform. He has restored protections that Trump rolled back. He has enacted many executive orders and more to promote environmental protections, including rejoining the Paris Accords, which Trump withdrew the USA from. Trump is also well known for spreading conspiracy theories and lies about global climate change, calling it a "Chinese hoax".

Biden on healthcare and prescription reform: https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2023/06/09/biden-administration-announces-savings-43-prescription-drugs-part-cost-saving-measures-president-bidens-inflation-reduction-act.html

Trump on healthcare reform: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/07/politics/obamacare-health-insurance-ending-trump/index.html

I'm rolling healthcare and prescriptions and vaccines and public health all into one category here since they are related. Biden has lowered drug costs, expanded access to medicaid, and ACA enrollment has risen during his presidency. He has also made it so medical debt no longer applies to a person's credit score. He signed many executive orders during his first few weeks in office in order to get a handle on Trump's grievous mishandling of the COVID pandemic. Trump also wants to end the ACA. Trump is well known for refusing to wear a mask during the pandemic, encouraging the use of hydroxylchloroquine to "treat" COVID, and being openly anti-vaxx.

Biden on student loan forgiveness: https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-announces-additional-77-billion-approved-student-debt-relief-160000-borrowers

Trump on student loan forgiveness: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2024/06/20/trump-knocks-bidens-vile-student-loan-forgiveness-plans-suggests-reversal/

Trump wants to reverse the student loan forgiveness plans Biden has enacted. Biden has already forgiven billions of dollars in loans and continues to work towards forgiving more.

Infrastructure funding:

I'm putting these links next together because they are all about infrastructure.

In general, Trump's "achievements" for infrastructure were to destroy environmental protections to speed up projects. Many of his plans were ineffective due to the fact that he did not clearly outline where the money was going to come from, and he was unwilling to raise taxes to pay for the projects. He was unable (and unwilling) to pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill during his 4 years in office. He did sign a few disaster relief bills. He did not enthusiastically promote renewable energy infrastructure. He created "Infrastructure Weeks" that the federal government then failed to fund. Trump did not do nothing for infrastructure, but his no-tax stance and his dislike for renewable energy means the contributions he made to American infrastructure were not as much as he claimed they were, nor as much as they could have been. Basically, he made a lot of promises, and delivered on very few of them. He is not "against" infrastructure, but he's certainly against funding it.

Biden was able to pass that bipartisan bill after taking office. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Plan that Trump tried to prevent from passing during Biden's term contains concrete funding sources and step by step plans to rebuild America's infrastructure. If you want to read the plan, you can find it here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/build/guidebook/. Biden has done far more for American infrastructure than Trump did, most notably by actually getting the bipartisan bill through congress.

Biden on Racial Equity: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/01/26/960725707/biden-aims-to-advance-racial-equity-with-executive-actions

Trump on Racial Equity: https://www.axios.com/2024/04/01/trump-reverse-racism-civil-rights https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-37230916

Trump's racist policies are loud and clear for everyone to hear. We all heard him call Mexicans "Drug dealers, criminals, rapists". We all watched as he enacted travel bans on people from majority-Muslim nations. Biden, on the other hand, has done quite a lot during his term to attempt to reconcile racism in this country, including reversing Trump's "Muslim ban" the first day he was in office.

Biden on DEI: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/06/25/executive-order-on-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-workforce/

Trump on DEI: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tried-to-crush-the-dei-revolution-heres-how-he-might-finish-the-job/ar-BB1jg3gz

Biden supports DEI and has signed executive orders and passed laws that support DEI on the federal level. Trump absolutely hates DEI and wants to eradicate it.

Biden on criminal justice reform: https://time.com/6155084/biden-criminal-justice-reform/

Trump on criminal justice reform: https://www.vox.com/2020-presidential-election/21418911/donald-trump-crime-criminal-justice-policy-record https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/05/trumps-extreme-plans-crime/678502/

From pardons for non-violent marijuana convictions to reducing the federal government's reliance on private prisons, Biden has done a lot in four years to reform our criminal justice system on the federal level. Meanwhile, Trump has described himself as "tough on crime". He advocates for more policing, including "stop and frisk" activities. Ironically it's actually quite difficult to find sources about what Trump thinks about crime, because almost all of the search results are about his own crimes.

Biden on military support for Israel: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/biden-obama-divide-closely-support-israel-rcna127107

Trump on military support for Israel: https://www.vox.com/politics/353037/trump-gaza-israel-protests-biden-election-2024

Biden supports Israel financially and militarily and promotes holding Israel close. So did Trump. Trump was also very pro-Israel during his time in office and even moved the embassy to Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem the capitol of Israel, a move that inflamed attitudes in the region.

Biden on a ceasefire: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2024/06/05/gaza-israel-hamas-cease-fire-plan-biden/73967659007/

Trump on a ceasefire: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-israel-gaza-finish-problem-rcna141905

Trump has tried to be quiet on the issue but recently said he wants Israel to "finish the problem". He of course claims he could have prevented the whole problem. Trump also openly stated after Oct 7th that he would bar immigrants who support Hamas from the country and send in officers to American protests to arrest anyone supporting Hamas.

Biden meanwhile has been quietly urging Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire deal for months, including the most recent announcement earlier in June, though it seems as though that deal has finally fallen through as well.

[two-calicos-in-a-trenchcoat]

I hope which ever random Alabama medicaid agency employee packed the box im currently working on is having a fucking amazing day

I am kissing you on the mouth random Alabama medicaid employee

[leadmeastraylittlefairy]

.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

CLARIFICATION: Paul’s office says that under his spending plan, Social Security will be exempt from cuts.

Conservative Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he will force the Senate to vote this week on cutting total federal spending by 5% in each of the next two years, a proposal that could put popular programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act under scrutiny. Paul told reporters Tuesday that he would insist on a vote on his amendment in exchange for yielding back time on the Senate floor and giving leaders a chance to pass the debt-limit bill before the nation faces default next week.

Paul’s proposal, which he is calling a “conservative alternative” to the deal negotiated by President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), poses an uncomfortable vote for Senate Republicans, one which it divides their conference.

A “no” vote opens GOP Senators to criticism from conservatives who say that policymakers who exempt mandatory spending programs from reform are not serious about balancing the budget.

A “yes” vote risks alienating seniors who are worried about seeing their Medicare benefits cut or veterans who now receive more federal aid through mandatory spending through the PACT Act, which Congress passed last year.

A press release issued by Paul’s office Tuesday didn’t mention any exception for Social Security, and Paul while speaking with reporters that day also did not say Social Security would be exempted. After an initial version of this story was published, a spokesperson for Paul clarified that Social Security would be exempted.

“He was referring to on-budget spending, which excludes Social Security. His Penny Plan has never touched Social Security and it’s not allowed under the budget rules,” said Kelsey Cooper, referring to a past budget resolution sponsored by Paul to cut spending. “His Penny Plan has also never specified cuts to Medicare or any other program — it only gives topline numbers.”

When he spoke with reporters on Tuesday, Paul said his plan didn’t specify what programs Congress should cut to balance the budget in five years but that it would pressure lawmakers to look at a range of entitlement programs to achieve $545 billion in cuts over two years.

Asked whether he would reach his target of an annual 5% annual cut to all federal spending “by going through entitlements,” Paul responded: “We get there by putting a top line number of what it would take for the entire budget.”

“The committees would have to determine where the cuts would be. So there still would be for room for people to disagree and debate over exactly where they want the cuts but there would be an absolute topline number for the entire budget that over the next two years would be on the way to balance in five years,” he explained.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and other health care programs account for nearly 50% of all spending. As a result, it is very difficult to balance the budget without touching such programs. The Postal Service would also be exempt from his plan because along with Social Security it is classified as “off budget” spending, according to a Senate GOP aide.

Republicans have spent months running away from the accusation President Biden leveled at his “State of the Union” address that they want to cut Medicare.

If Paul were able to force a vote on his measure, they would find themselves having to vote on deep, across-the-board funding cuts that would likely affect a range of popular mandatory spending programs that are largely excluded from discussions about fiscal reform.

McCarthy took Social Security and Medicare cuts off the table early in the year. Some conservatives think that was a mistake. Paul says that under his proposal, “there would be an absolute top-line number for the entire budget that over the next two years would be on its way to balance in five years.”

He says the McCarthy-Biden plan, which was approved in a bipartisan vote by the House on Wednesday night, falls short of making a meaningful dent in the federal deficit because “they’re only really looking at non-military discretionary” spending, which accounts for only 17% of the federal budget. He argued that mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest drivers of the debt. “Mandatory spending is enormous. It’s over half of the spending every year; it’s going up at 5% a year,” Paul said. “This specular deal that we’ve gotten tries to slow down spending on nonmilitary discretionary [spending,] so it does nothing,” he added with a dose of sarcasm.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another outspoken critic of the Biden-McCarthy deal, says mandatory spending programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid do “have to be considered” as part of any meaningful deficit reduction deal. Lee said a 5%, across-the-board reduction in federal spending will be criticized as “abrupt” or “draconian,” but he argues the consequences of letting the debt continue to grow by a couple trillion dollars every year are scary.

“If you want to talk at draconian and abrupt, look at what happens the moment our borrowing costs because of our profligate spending practices and because of interest rates and other factors … returns to the historical average of 5%,” he said.

“Our annual interest payments will very quickly go up well over a trillion dollars a year,” he warned. “It could easily exceed … our entire defense budget, and within a few years, we could see our total interest on debt outlays even coming to exceed our entire discretionary spending outlays.”

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), who will also vote against the debt limit bill, said federal spending as a percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product has gone into “the stratosphere.”

“You got to make those hard decisions like any real leader would do,” he said.

He says Social Security and Medicare, which he called “the drivers” of the debt, should be on the negotiating table “in terms of saving it.”

“Sooner or later, the programs that drive the structural deficits” such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid “will have to be looked at, and everybody knows that here,” Braun said.

Paul’s proposal is expected to pick up only around 20 votes, because many Senate Republicans don’t want to their favorite programs, in particular defense spending, to face steep cuts.

Biden and Senate Democrats have hammered the GOP relentlessly over the 12 Point Plan to Save America, which Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) introduced last year and calls for a sunset of all federal legislation after a period of five years. Scott said he never intended to sunset Medicare or Social Security, but that didn’t stop Democrats from using the plan as a bludgeon. Scott amended it earlier this year to create specific exceptions for Social Security, Medicare, national security and veterans benefits.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who supports the debt limit deal, said Paul and other conservatives are correct that “you can’t balance the budget solely on discretionary spending.”

“I don’t see how, in the context of raising the debt ceiling, that you could have gotten anything more than Kevin McCarthy got,” Cramer said.

But he said McCarthy probably took Social Security and Medicare off the table too early in the debate. Asked if that was a mistake, Cramer said, “yeah, I think it was.” But he argued it might have been the right political move.

“You have this crazy political game going on where everybody out-Social Security the other people instead of being straight up and honest with the American public and say, ‘We won’t do any harm to anybody’s existing Social Security, and we’re going to have a forward-leaning solution,’” he said.

Cramer acknowledged Congress “missed the opportunity, so to speak” to make big fiscal reforms to Social Security and Medicare but he said the “threat of default is so big” that it limited how bold Republicans could be in making demands.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said in the past that split party control of government provides a good opportunity to enact big, controversial reform, acknowledged Wednesday it’s been very tough to make any headway on Social Security or Medicare reforms.

“It’s been challenging over the years to get both sides to look at the very large picture,” McConnell told reporters.

But he praised the McCarthy-Biden deal for cutting spending, after Congress increased it by more than $2.7 trillion through two partisan reconciliation bills in 2021 and 2022, under Democratic control of Congress.

“At least we’re going in a different direction,” he said.