#so no medicare coverage. at all.

[lunarflare64]

AUSTRALIA'S ME/CFS CLINICAL GUIDELINES ARE BEING UPDATED! THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED FUNDING FOR THE RESEARCH! FUCK YEAH!

[sidras-tak]

Accessibility takes too goddamn fucking long.

My brother was paralyzed in October 2023. We got him home from the hospital (in Texas, when we live in Iowa) in a clunky old hospital chair. He hated it. He was scared and angry and in pain and his life had just changed forever and he couldn’t do anything for himself in that wheelchair. His first goal (aside from learning how to transfer) was to get a wheelchair. My family was lucky enough to afford one so we thought it would be easy enough. Nope.

We couldn’t buy him a wheelchair. He needed a prescription. For a wheelchair. A doctor had to examine him and declare him in need of a wheelchair. It wasn’t good enough that he had scans and tests showing tumors cutting off his spinal cord. He needed his primary care doctor to examine him during a physical and write a prescription. He was making 2-4 transfers a day, tops. He had no energy to get to a doctor. Home health was in and out every day. He had no time to get to a doctor. He didn’t get a prescription for almost a month. Then it had to go through insurance.

We asked if we could skip insurance and just buy a wheelchair for him. Nope. They wouldn’t sell us one, not even at full sticker price. It needed to be approved by Medicare. We ordered a wheelchair, a nice one, a good shade of green, sporty, small. It would let him move around the house. He would be able to cook, to reach drawers and get stuff from the fridge and brush his teeth and put his contacts in at a sink. We were told it would take awhile, maybe two months. Silently we all hoped he would be around to see two more months.

He went on hospice care on a Saturday in March. On Monday, I was calling his friends to come see him before he died. I got a call on his phone. It was the wheelchair company. They were about to order his wheelchair, she said, but there was an issue with insurance— had he stopped being covered by Medicare? Well, yes. When he started hospice care, he got kicked off Medicare. The very nice woman I talked to told me to call her if he resumed Medicare coverage so she could order his wheelchair. He died less than 12 hours later.

We ordered that chair for him in early December. Medicare didn’t approve the order until March. He was dead before they got around to it. He wanted that fucking wheelchair so badly. The only reason he had any semblance of independence and any quality of life for the last five months of his life was because the wheelchair company lent him an old beater chair, a very used model of the chair he ordered. If I could go back and change one thing about his end-of-life, I would get him his dream wheelchair. He told me again and again he couldn’t wait to get it, so that he could feel like a person again. He made the best of what he had with that old beater chair, but it still makes me mad to this day. He was paralyzed. He needed a chair that afforded him dignity. We had the money for it. And yet, we were left waiting for five months, for a chair that wouldn’t even get ordered until the day he died.

[harmcityherald]

These medical marijuana white chocolate discs are the absolute best for helping calm my stomach or one before each meal. You may not notice right away but you will eat more and be able to hold food down better in the long run. Used in conjunction with protein shakes and other dietary supplements I believe these went a long way in helping me eat again after losing 85% of my stomach to cancer. Through radiation treatments and immunotherapy as well. All I would add is always discuss things honestly with your doctors. They can't make proper diagnoses without correct and pertinent data. Besides, many are interested to hear what may be the pros and cons of medical cannabis from your unique perspective. My Hopkins doctors are always interested to hear about anything that will help their patients. Some are just curious if it works for you or not. We all agree it is an area that needs more study.

[thatdiabolicalfeminist]

If they don't fix the debt ceiling problem by June 1st—and it looks like that's a real possibility—it's not clear if people will be getting their social security checks or Medicare coverage. This is so bad, I'm not sure if any of you are following this but we all probably should be.

I'm not gonna do a writeup myself because I'm brainfogged to hell and don't want to risk accidentally sharing inaccurate information but you should look for news articles on this.

[mariacallous]

Democrats are charging out of their national convention with enthusiasm and determination ― and in far better shape than seemed possible just a few weeks ago, when then-presumptive nominee President Joe Biden was headed for likely defeat.

Vice President Kamala Harris has wiped out Biden’s deficit in the polls, and now holds small but discernible leads over Donald Trump in both national and swing state surveys. She’s also expanded the electoral map, putting in play states such as North Carolina that seemed lost to Democrats when Biden was leading the ticket. As of this writing, Nate Silver’s predictive model suggests Harris is a 52.8% favorite to win.

It will take a few days for pollsters to figure out whether Harris got the traditional convention bounce, pushing her support even higher, or whether she got a version of it beforehand via the burst of activity and favorable press coverage around her campaign launch.

Either way, it’s hard to look back on the week in Chicago and deem it anything but a smashing political success, from the (still reverberating) call to arms by former first lady Michelle Obama to the (still circulating) sight of Gus Walz, son of vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim, tearfully telling the crowd “that’s my dad!”

Harris, for her part, gave what my colleague Jen Bendery’s story called the “speech of her life.” Plenty of other analysts rendered similar judgments.

With a passionate, near-flawless delivery, Harris introduced herself as the daughter of immigrants who valued virtue and hard work, promising to fight for the middle class and vowing to protect democracy. She wrapped herself metaphorically in the flag and what she thinks it represents to the nation’s non-MAGA majority. The laser focus on trying to win over swing voters was impossible to miss, in part because it was such an overriding theme all week ― whether through cultural symbolism (like having the aging veterans of Walz’s championship high school football team appear on stage) or more overt outreach (like having former House Republican Adam Kinzinger give a prime-time address).

But the appeal to the political middle had some telling substantive elements too.

Insofar as Harris and Democrats talked about policy, they focused on causes such as bringing down prescription drug prices, providing paid leave or helping families to pay for child care ― ambitions considerably more modest than the loftier, more progressive “Medicare for All” calls that dominated the last Democratic presidential campaign and to which Harris herself once pledged fealty. Harris also went out of her way to back a bipartisan immigration bill that would tighten security without creating a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already here, which is a provision progressives have frequently called essential.

The platform evolved, with party leaders scrubbing a call to end the death penalty ― quietly, until my colleague Jessica Schulberg found out about it. They also refused requests to feature a Palestinian speaker on the conflict in Gaza. That part wasn’t so quiet, or unanticipated. In fact, the prospect of protests and disruptions over Biden’s support for Israel had fueled speculation that Chicago 2024 was going to end up as tumultuous as Chicago 1968. But as HuffPost’s Daniel Marans and Jonathan Nicholson observed, the fissures never blew up into 1968-style conflicts ― not over Gaza, or any other issues for that matter. On the contrary, the Democrats seemed improbably and almost impossibly unified, with would-be progressive dissidents like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) sounding downright giddy about the Harris-Walz ticket.

What explains this unified enthusiasm? Three likely reasons come to mind. One in particular has a lot to do with how the party has changed in recent years ― and what it might be able to do if Harris manages to win.

Democrats In Array

One of these likely reasons is the threat Trump poses to individual liberties, the rule of law and democracy — threats progressives feel every bit as keenly as the more moderates in the party. These threats almost certainly seem even more menacing now after so many months watching Biden struggle.

Staring into the political abyss this way has been known to focus the mind.

Another possible factor is Harris’ identity. Electing the first woman president, not to mention the first Black woman and the first Asian woman, would have obvious symbolic value. But it would also have more practical effects — namely, bringing a new perspective to the presidency and making it easier for other women, and other nonwhite politicians, to make their own way to the Oval Office.

Progressives almost by definition care about these things, enough that it can help counterbalance appeal for politicians who see the ticket as less progressive than they might like. Barack Obama in 2008 benefited from just such a dynamic, as The New York Times’ David Leonhardt pointed out on Friday: “He was more moderate than some other Democratic candidates that year, yet he still excited many progressives.”

Harris notably hasn’t talked about herself as groundbreaker, and the campaign hasn’t made that possibility a focus in the way that, say, Hillary Clinton’s did in 2016. But that’s of a piece with Harris’ broader strategy since appeals tied to race or class can alienate some of the swing voters she’s trying to win. The voters who feel otherwise, meanwhile, don’t need reminders.

This brings us to the third, and potentially most important, theory for progressive enthusiasm: Democrats have gotten an awful lot done since Biden took office. An awful lot of it consisted of initiatives or reforms progressives have long championed. And most importantly, it all happened with progressives having a big seat at the table.

The most significant and visible of these accomplishments was the clean green energy investments of the Inflation Reduction Act, which add up (arguably) to the most important climate change legislation in history, plus the law’s health care provisions, which for the first time gave the federal government leverage over the prices of some high-priced drugs in Medicare.

But the list goes beyond that, to the appointment of aggressively pro-consumer and pro-labor officials at key federal agencies, and the burst of spending during the pandemic that (whatever its real or theorized effects on inflation) drove both unemployment and child poverty down to near-record levels.

All of these feel well short of the kinds of transformations progressives would prefer with, say, enactment of “Medicare for All.” But they had, are having or will have tangible, measurable effects on people’s lives — and are examples of the kind of achievements that might be possible if Harris wins and Democrats have control of both congressional houses again.

It so happens that these are also the kinds of achievements that animate up-and-coming party leaders, even if they are not members of the progressive wing — figures like Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, or Sen. Raphael Warnock of Georgia. Not coincidentally, all gave Harris rousing endorsements in prime- time speeches.

But that too is part of the story about unity: The party’s “moderate” wing today feels pretty strongly about using the federal government to make people’s lives better, just as it does about protecting the freedoms Trump threatens. They may emphasize it differently — focusing more exclusively on the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy manufacturing jobs, for example, and a bit less on its environmental impact. They still land in the same place on policy.

Whether these good feelings would carry through enough to enact a legislative agenda is obviously a separate question and one that is very secondary to the question of whether Democrats even get that opportunity.

The presidential race is still a toss-up, or maybe even a bit worse than that for Harris if the polling now is missing Trump votes the way it did in 2016 and again in 2020. Republicans remain by most accounts a slight favorite to hold at least one house of Congress.

But Harris is coming out of Chicago on a roll, with a party behind her as she reaches out to the swing voters she needs to win. That’s a pretty good place to be.

[she-is-ovarit]

I am on government insurance (Medicaid). Out of pocket, my psychologist's rate is $225 an hour. He went through a decade or more of school, obtained a PhD, and graduated with student loan debt. He didn't state how much, but I can imagine it's likely in the hundreds of thousands considering he still has this debt and graduated with his PhD in the early 2000s.

He shared with me that out of that $225 rate, he obtains about $25 from one Medicaid client's insurance company. The insurance company pockets the rest. My friend, another therapist, has a similar story. She makes $75 off of Medicaid clients usually when her rate out of pocket is $200.

Most therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists are no longer accepting Medicaid/Medicare insurances because of this reason, which people who are poor are on. Over half of mental health professionals are no longer accepting insurance, period. I think we all understand that low-income people and low-income communities struggle the most with mental health issues, and if you are a person of color in the US you are more likely to be low-income. If you are a domestic violence survivor turned homeless because you left your significant other, you are also more likely to be on Medicaid. If you are a first generation student, you are most likely on Medicaid. If you are formerly incarcerated, you are most likely on Medicaid. And so on.

Additionally, if you are a human being of the female sex, you are far more likely to seek out therapy than someone of the male sex. Overwhelmingly men don't seek out therapy unless their female significant partner pleads with them, pressures them, or gives them an ultimatum which influences them to make an appointment. What does this mean when the vast majority of mass shooters, rapists, pedophiles, and domestic violence abusers are male?

Figure 2. Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who had received any mental health treatment, taken medication for their mental health, or received counseling or therapy from a mental health professional in the past 12 months, by sex: United States, 2019

Pair all of these details with the fact that mental health professionals are in such high demand right now, that even with private insurance the wait list is anywhere from three to six months out. Insurance agencies are business, and the corruption inherent. Many focus on prioritizing coverage for acute crisis rather than treating long term underlying conditions (which in turn prevents acute crises), don't provide coverage for co-occurring conditions, are advertising that more providers are accepting their insurance than there actually are, and are solely driven by financial interest.

I wonder how much domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, poverty, hate crimes, generational trauma, and overall suffering within individuals and in their societies can be reduced by valuing mental health and holding insurance companies accountable for their financial exploitation.

We talk about the US healthcare crisis without talking about the US mental health crisis.

[kp777]

By Frederick H. Decker

Common Dreams

Nov. 29, 2023

National news media often broadcast misinformation when discussing the debt of the United States government, erroneously targeting Social Security as the main culprit whether intentionally or from genuine ignorance.

The coverage of the federal debt by news media generally considered credible often mirrors, unfortunately, the falsehoods heard from Republican lawmakers in blaming Social Security as a major driver of the federal debt. Such misleading news coverage was embedded in a recent segment aired during the week of Thanksgiving on the PBS NewsHour, which is an hour I watch regularly to typically be informed by sound journalism. But in the segment at issue here, I witnessed misinformation broadcast to the public that could shape public opinion into thinking, quite erroneously, that Social Security needs gutting because it is the culprit increasing the federal debt. It isn’t.

This particular segment on the federal debt on PBS NewsHour was introduced on Tuesday November 21 by coanchor Amna Nawaz stating how the “U.S. government remains open this Thanksgiving week, thanks to a temporary funding deal Congress passed last week.” But when that temporary funding starts expiring in January, Nawaz added, “conservatives are signaling they won’t pass another funding deal without addressing a bigger issue, the swelling U.S. national debt.”

Then coanchor Geoff Bennett and correspondent Lisa Desjardins, standing before a screen with varying charts, discussed the growing interest paid on the federal debt. As Desjardins put it, “just the interest on our debt is so large [in the past year] that it is almost [the size of} the entire Department of Defense budget.” That statement may be true, but that was not the punchline of the segment.

Social Security hasn’t reduced available general revenue nor been the reason why politicians are not funding programs for younger constituencies.

The NewsHour segment ended mirroring the Republican Party’s mantra that Social Security is the major driver of the federal debt. As Desjardins concluded “the three largest drivers of the debt are in reality” Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt, with each in the chart displayed indicated as accounting respectively for 21.2%, 12.9%, and 10.5% of total federal expenditures. Desjardins added, “Really what’s happening here is Congress is not addressing the big drivers of the debt at all.”

In a recent piece with misinformation embedded in its title alone, “Why We’re Borrowing to Fund the Elderly While Neglecting Everyone Else,” columnist Catherine Rampell also implied that borrowing to fund Social Security benefits will, as she wrote, “continue to crowd out future spending obligations in years ahead” on programs for the young like “pre-K, or child care, or paid parental leave, or a more generous child tax credit.”

One problem in such depictions exemplified by the NewsHour and in Rampell’s article is that Social Security, specifically, is funded almost exclusively by its own revenue source. Not by borrowing, as Ms. Rampell implies without providing supportive evidence for that contention (because there isn’t any). Nor funded by general revenue as likely many believe when seeing typical charts on federal spending (like that shown in the segment aired on PBS NewsHour) that include Social Security expenditures, which are not at all funded by general revenue but, rather, by its separate targeted payroll and income taxes.

Actually, as I have written about previously, Social Security is today the entity owning the most debt, $2.7 trillion in Treasury securities (Monthly Treasury Report, Table 6, Schedule D as of October 31, 2023). More than the two foreign governments owning the most U.S. debt, Japan today owning U.S. securities valuing $1.1 trillion and China with under $1 trillion.

Surpluses in Social Security revenue by law have to be invested in U.S. securities. And revenue surpluses have over the years been the norm in the program. Thus, Social Security for years, in essence, funded the debt with its surplus revenue, not caused it.

Social Security hasn’t reduced available general revenue nor been the reason why politicians are not funding programs for younger constituencies as Ms. Rampell alludes to in her piece. Tax cuts during the Trump and Bush administrations, however, did help do that. Growth in deficits and debt, as analysis by the Center for American Progress indicates, has largely been driven by those tax cuts. Tax cuts reducing general revenue applicable to programs like the earlier expanded child tax credit that, before expiring, lifted more children out of poverty.

The Social Security program has nevertheless, according to reports by the Board of Trustees overseeing the program, recently incurred shortfalls in its dedicated revenue stream. In 2022, a 4% shortfall noted in the trustees’ current report (Table II.B1, page 7). And those recent shortfalls have been met simply by just cashing in some U.S. securities the program acquired over the years with revenue surpluses.

But true enough, within current parameters of the program, the trustees predict the program’s reserves (i.e., securities) will be depleted by 2033. Then relying solely on Social Security’s separate tax revenue, it is predicted only 77% of benefits due will be payable. That’s not being totally broke, but it would have an adverse effect on the income many elderly depend upon.

Raising the Social Security retirement age to purportedly reduce costs also has adverse effects that, as I discussed earlier, the Congressional Research Service among others have outlined. For one, among those of lesser means who also on average have lower life expectancies, increasing the retirement age would reduce their lifetime Social Security benefits collected disproportionately relative to reductions among higher income earners with typically longer life expectancies. Increasing the retirement age would, furthermore, disproportionately harm those retiring early due to work-related health impairment suffered most prevalently in blue-collar occupations.

A different option some propose to increase revenue is eliminating the cap on the income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. In 2024 the limit on income taxed will be $168,600. Income above that limit would not currently be taxed.

However Social Security is made solvent for the future, one thing is quite clear. Social Security has not been the reason for incurred and increasing U.S. debt.

[scientia-rex]

Good morning! I have a question. When I look up info about vitamin D, I come across many claims that people generally don't get enough of it. In a recent episode of Maintenance Phase, however, the hosts called it a "scam" or overblown, at least (I don't remember the exact wording). So, like, what's the deal with vitamin D? Do Americans get enough of it?

Probably, mostly. At the very least, people should be tested before starting repletion. It probably has a role in osteoporosis treatment and prevention, BUT how much to take and what form and when is HOTLY debated and frequently conclusions are changing.

Just to take you on a spin through the most recent Cochrane reviews (THESE ARE NOT SINGLE STUDIES, in case any of the research-naive out there want to get pissy about them; look up what a Cochrane review actually is before trying to shit on it; also note that I did NOT say this will cover every fucking person and every hypothetical they can come up with, jesus CHRIST):

No role for vitamin D in asthma

Insufficient evidence to recommend it in sickle cell

Raising vitamin D levels in cystic fibrosis patients is not beneficial

No evidence of benefit of vitamin D in MS

Supplementing vitamin D in pregnancy may have small benefits but also risk of harms

No clinically significant benefit from vitamin D supplementation in chronic pain

Insufficient data on vitamin D in inflammatory bowel disease, but no evidence of benefit

No evidence of benefit of vitamin D supplementation in liver disease

Vitamin D does not appear to prevent cancer in general population

No evidence for benefit in supplementation of vitamin D in premenopausal women to prevent bone density loss

Possible small mortality benefit of D3, but not D2, in elderly patients, but also increased risk of kidney stones and hypercalcemia

Vitamin D alone ineffective, but combined with calcium may be effective, in preventing bone fractures in older adults

Insufficient evidence for vitamin D improving COVID-19 outcomes

Now, vitamin D plus calcium in people who have post-menopausal bone density loss does seem to prevent fractures. This is why doctors routinely recommend it. However, dosage and formulation are still debated as data are insufficient, and uncertainty still large.

So, do you need to supplement? Probably not. There is some fairly weak evidence that vitamin D supplementation may help with depression, but I would argue that it's going to be most relevant in people with pre-existing deficiencies, which Medicare is just hellbent on not letting me test for anymore. They've narrowed the coverage codes for testing so now even know vitamin D deficiency isn't considered a good enough reason to test. So Medicare has very clearly decided it's not relevant, for whatever that's worth, I spit on their graves, etc. Of course, then you get into the question of what counts as a deficiency, which we also really don't know.

And to be clear, I wasn't looking through the Cochrane review results with an angle--those are most of the first page of search results on their site, with the only one skipped being similar to another one I mentioned, and I stopped when I got bored. These should not be paywalled, as I am not logged into anything and I can read it all, so try clicking the side menu on the right if you have trouble getting into the weeds.

If anything, running through this little exercise has made me less likely to recommend vitamin D supplementation, so do with that what you will.

[simply-ivanka]

Press Failure Inflates the Debate

Coverage of the Harris campaign is biased.

Worse than that, it’s malpractice.

By William McGurn Wall Street Journal

Presidential debates typically don’t determine the outcomes of elections, notwithstanding the large television audiences they draw and the dramatic moments they produce. But Tuesday night’s dustup between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris may be different.

Press failure has inflated it into the seminal event of the Trump-Harris race. Because reporters haven’t insisted that Ms. Harris answer basic questions, the debate, moderated by ABC News, may provide the only moment in the 2024 election when Americans get to see how Ms. Harris performs under pressure.

This failure would be appalling at any time, but the circumstances of Ms. Harris’s campaign turn simple media bias into journalistic malpractice. The vice president secured the top slot on the Democratic ticket without having to contest a single primary—and therefore without having to lay out and defend her record. This leaves her largely unknown to American voters, a situation Ms. Harris is now exploiting to reinvent herself as a moderate challenger rather than a woke incumbent.

In addition, Ms. Harris is a mother lode of unanswered questions on most of the issues that once defined her. This includes her previous support for everything from defunding the police and banning plastic straws to getting rid of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and starting from “scratch,” stances she now apparently disavows.

An appearance by Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) on ABC’s “This Week” in August shows how the press lets her off the hook. When Mr. Cotton brought up Ms. Harris’s support for eliminating private health insurance, which the Medicare for All policy she espoused in 2019 would do, host Jonathan Karl interjected that Ms. Harris has said she no longer holds that position. Mr. Cotton pushed back. “She has not said that,” he correctly pointed out. “Anonymous aides,” he said, may have said that she no longer holds the position she once did, but we haven’t heard it from the candidate herself.

Ditto the big CNN interview, for which Ms. Harris brought along running mate Tim Walz to cut in to the time she would have to take questions. Moderator Dana Bash did make a show of asking why Ms. Harris flipped on fracking. But she wasn’t pressed on her biggest non-answer of the evening—“My values have not changed.”

It’s unlikely Ms. Bash or CNN would accept such an evasion from Mr. Trump or his running mate, JD Vance. When Mr. Vance did his own interview with Ms. Bash, she rightly grilled him on abortion and comments he made about Mr. Walz’s characterization of his service in the Minnesota National Guard. But it’s worth watching the two interviews to see the very different tones Ms. Bash took toward Mr. Vance and Ms. Harris.

In short, Ms. Harris is getting a pass. Bad enough that 56 days from the election, she still isn’t giving interviews or holding news conferences. The far greater scandal is that a free press isn’t demanding that she do so.

It’s hard to fault Ms. Harris. Her strategy is a sign that she knows her liabilities. Her campaign is trying to get through the next eight weeks avoiding events where she might have to answer an unscripted question or explain details of, say, inflation. Team Harris knows they don’t go very well for her.

Take the recent rollout of her economic platform, most notable for her call for a federal ban on “price gouging.” Even the Washington Post called her plan full of “populist gimmicks.” And former Obama administration economist Jason Furman told the New York Times that it is “not sensible policy.” Message taken: Better to stick to fuzzy, feel-good themes like “joy” or to call Mr. Trump a felon.

It isn’t the first time a Democratic presidential candidate has benefited from a domesticated press. One reason Ms. Harris is her party’s nominee is that the press covered up President Biden’s mental decline. By the time the June 27 debate with Mr. Trump exposed Mr. Biden’s condition for all the American people to see, it was too late for primaries. It was much the same in 2020, when the New York Post broke the story of Hunter Biden’s laptop three weeks before the election. Because the computer contained evidence of Hunter’s sleazy overseas business dealings while his dad was vice president, the press buried it.

Today the received wisdom is that sooner or later Ms. Harris will have to give interviews and press conferences like a normal candidate. Perhaps. But she has a decent shot at winning the White House because her campaign is running out the clock before anyone can ask her a tough question.

On Tuesday night at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump will have at it for 90 minutes. Ironically the low expectations for Ms. Harris may be an advantage. All she has to do is not humiliate herself and her performance will be hailed as a triumph.

If the press corps did its job, we’d all know more of what we need to know about Kamala Harris and what kind of president she’d make. But because it won’t, it’s all on Donald Trump to do that job himself.

[batboyblog]

Seeing the post about Jasmine, I can literally feel an ulcer grow within me. Are people actually this fucking stupid? Spreading VERY blatant and easily debunakable misinformation? Are they MALICIOUSLY trying to sabotage shit? Also the antisemitism only grows stronger. You literally have spoken in support of Palestine multiple times and yet these people start to froth at the mouth when they find out you're Jewish, these people have the reading comprehension of a fucking brick!!! And seeing the quote by Malcom X... Literally that's the most disgusting shit to act like you're a white liberal when Jews are not seen as white, are seen as lesser than white, the lack of self-awareness this person has is stunning. Sorry to make such a long post but what the fuck, seriously what the fuck is people's problem.

what the fuck is people's problem is a great question that I really wish I had an answer for.

I mean on the antisemitism front I suspect that the thrill of bullying transcends ideological views, just because you say you're a socialist doesn't mean you're also a good person. Just means you have justify your behavior through a new lens, so its fine to accuse Pete Buttigieg of being a sexual pervert like some conservative Catholic, if you're doing it as a "joke" because he's "Neo-liberal" or whatever, or post snakes at Elizabeth Warren, or or etc etc as long as you come up with an excuse its fine to be horrible as long as you do in the name of leftism! or whatever.

as to the wider question? why blow up chances to make progressive change by supporting nonsense candidates who are just unfunny versions of Vermin Supreme? hm I don't know, but I suspect that for a lot of them, politics aren't really real to them. It's like ideological football for them, the most important thing is to "be right" and "win the argument" over in reality, we have to sometimes work with people we loath, sometimes we have to put up with shitty things to get what we really want, and always always always its slow work. Listen, in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt put forward the idea of a national health service, over 100 years later we're still fighting for universal health care. Now we've made important steps, everyone over 65 those who need it most, have health coverage through Medicare, others have been added to Medicare, we have Obamacare which regulates the health markets and helps people get affordable coverage and more people are covered now than every before. But people like we're talking about would rather than was Nothing for anyone, that everyone was not covered at all, than take an answer that helps people but isn't perfect.

Just isn't my style really, idk I just can't help but think about all the people whose lives got saved by Obamacare and just, what we should have let them die? progress builds it doesn't just appear nothing just happens, so each term you move closer, but each time a Republican gets it, they undermine, undo, go backward. I mean for example, Trump literally wants to get rid of the job in government that advices all the many federal departs on how to be greener and replace it with a guy who's job it'll be to push departments to use more oil and gas.... literally thats a thing, what a perfect example of what a Republican Presidency is about, going backward. Then when we have a Democrat rather than making progress they have to undo all the damage to get to baseline and then start improving.

I also think there's a small group of cynical grifters, when Democrats/liberals/people on the left whatever we want to call them, are scared and frustrated and upset, ie when a Republican is in power and elections are years away, they invest, money, time, energy into things to try to feel like they're making a difference or that they're heard, or validated. Left wing podcasts boom, left wing groups that are good at social media boom, people can become kinda stars and make money. Now many of those people drift off to normal life when there's a safe Democrat not doing horrifying shit every day, the money dries up. So the cynical crowd 1. tries to undermine Democrats to keep that feeling of frustrated hopelessness alive in listeners so they keep toning in and 2. they want Republicans to win! of course! its good for them!

[mush-dooms]

MISSOURI VOTERS!!!

ABORTION RIGHTS ARE OFFICIALLY ON THE MO BALLOT THIS NOVEMBER 5

I know tumblr dot com doesn't give a shit about rural, deep red states, but this is HUGE. Missouri has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the US, allowing exceptions only "to save the pregnant person's life" or "to prevent serious risk to the pregnant person's physical health," and even these have stipulations requiring a mandatory 72-hour waiting period and counseling, parental consent for minors, as well as banning Medicare and insurance from providing abortion coverage

WE CAN CHANGE THIS

Ammendment 3 would change the Missouri constitution, effectively reestablishing reproductive freedom. More specifically, this includes "the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions."

Ammendment 3 also only allows for future legislation restricting abortion access after fetal viability. While this is less than ideal, you have to understand that this is Missouri we're talking about, a state where Trump won in 2020 by a 15% margin. Republicans have already tried (and failed!!!) to have Ammendment 3 removed from the ballot-- they're scared, but we HAVE TO SHOW UP.

A "Yes" vote on Ammendment 3 is in favor of amending the MO constitution and restoring the right to choose what happens to OUR bodies.

WE HAVE A CHANCE TO FIX THINGS

- - - - -

Voter Resources:

October 9 is the deadline to register to vote, and you can do so here: https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/goVoteMissouri/register

Find a polling place: https://voteroutreach.sos.mo.gov/portal

Register for absentee voting:

Online: https://www.vote.org/absentee-ballot/missouri/

By Mail: https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/goVoteMissouri/howtovote

Confirm your registration status: https://voteroutreach.sos.mo.gov/portal/

Accepted Forms of Voter ID (required in MO): https://www.sos.mo.gov/voterid

REBLOG TO SPREAD AWARENESS

[every1sno1fangirl]

Happy Hifuumo Friday everyone!

Yesterday I had the last infusion I'm going to get on my parent's insurance. It's kind of scary; I'm going to make triple sure that the paperwork is going through so I continue to have coverage.

This stuff is kinda life-changing and saving.

Like in hindsight, I basically almost died once because of something that wasn't diagnosed as a flare.

I won't go into detail, but I was getting a blood transfusion for three days straight because I only had a third as much as you need to live inside me.

That's not good!

It's been years since that happened though, or that I've felt pain from it at around 7+/10 instead of the 2-4 I do most often now.

And I hate that it might be taken away from me. I don't know what Medicare coverage will be like.

I'll supposedly stay with my providers...

But I have no idea how true that is or how much it'll suddenly cost.

And I have yet to hear back from my job still either; At this point I need to suck it up, update my resume, and send out applications.

And that's scary in its own right. But I have to at this rate.

I don't think I'll be able to go to school in January. Not with what I still have to pay and save for. But sometime next year, I'm going to do that. I owe it to myself to improve my situation.

I owe it to the people who care about me, which is why I am not Doomering.

Even though all of this stuff is really scary and uncertain and unknown.

It only gets worse if I try to close my eyes to it and look away. I've learned that enough from my mom, who is one of the reasons I'm in the mess I am. It doesn't work.

I need to be better than that.

Too many people care about me for me to do anything else. And I care about them too much in turn.

Life's stacked against me, but I hope that resolve is enough.

I love you all, I hope you have a good day/night!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Cohn at HuffPost:

The first-ever negotiations between the federal government and pharmaceutical companies have led to agreements that will lower the prices of 10 treatments, reducing costs for the Medicare program and for some individual seniors, the Biden administration announced early Thursday morning. This round of negotiations began in 2023 and took place because of the Inflation Reduction Act, the law that Democrats in Congress passed on a party-line vote and that President Joe Biden signed two years ago. The new prices are for drugs covering a variety of conditions, including diabetes and inflammatory illnesses, and are set to take effect in January 2026. The negotiation process is going to happen each year, with a new set of drugs each time. If all goes to plan, that means the scope of drugs subject to negotiated prices will grow each year, while the savings will accumulate.

“When these lower prices go into effect, people on Medicare will save $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs for their prescription drugs and Medicare will save $6 billion in the first year alone,” Biden said in a prepared statement, citing figures that analysts at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calculated and published on Thursday. “It’s a relief for the millions of seniors that take these drugs to treat everything from heart failure, blood clots, diabetes, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and more ― and it’s a relief for American taxpayers.” Of course, those numbers refer to aggregate savings on drug spending. Figuring out what they will mean for individual Medicare beneficiaries is difficult, because so much depends on people’s individual circumstances ― like which drugs they take, or which options for prescription coverage they use. It also depends on knowing the actual, real prices for these drugs today, after taking into account the discounts that private insurers managing Medicare drug plans extract from manufacturers. Those discounts are proprietary information that the federal government cannot release.

Great news: The Biden Administration, pharmaceutical companies, and Medicare have negotiated hefty price reductions for 10 high-cost drugs, including Januvia, FIASP, and Entresto.

[pjharvey-moved]

ultimately i’m not that interested in getting into any kind of political discussion on tumblr bc i don’t think the way any social media is allows for much nuance and people like to act like tumblr is better but it isn’t. i’m not a liberal i’m a police abolitionist and a socialist and in high school my calling myself a socialist was immensely alienating to most people i knew. i’m disgusted by how little biden has budged on his approach to gaza and honestly shocked that he’s aware that arab american and black voters are turning away from him because of his stance on gaza and still has continued to send money and ammunition to israel to assist them in destroying an entire culture, bombing hospitals, bombing schools, and murdering children. and while biden’s administration has actually probably been the most trans friendly administration we’ve had he has very much neglected the black voters who were responsible more than any other group for securing him the election. i also don’t think that a fascist revolution would do anything but make all the problems my country faces and the horrors we are putting the people of palestine through so much worse on a level that is difficult to even fathom. a full nationwide abortion ban would become very likely with a trump victory (and possibly a ban on most contraception), as well as an end to medicare coverage for anyone unemployed, a nationwide ban on trans healthcare, and total immunity from prosecution for police

[davidzoltan]

Governor Tim Walz, I am proud of you for raising such a clearly loving and passionate son. He has done proud by you, but I am sorry that his disability has been used as a weapon against others, especially by those that aren't as interested in charting an equitable future for him and all his disabled colleagues, myself included, around the country.

Vice President Kamala Harris, your campaign and those in the party you now, by default, lead, have put a young man with at least one disability central to your attacks on our mutual enemies, and yet the policies in your speech last week do not reflect disability justice.

For starters, the only explicit policy you mentioned that touches on the needs of disabled people are "protecting Social Security and Medicare". We don't need it protected. We need it expanded. We need to be making explicit that equity for disabled people means lifting the tax cap on Social Security completely and instituting a progressive Social Security tax. That expansion of income must then be used to ensure a Living Wage For Social Security rather than keeping us in abject poverty. Also, ending policies that result in well over four in five applications for SSDI to need to go through a lengthy and draining appeal process.

It also means backing Improved Medicare For All. If you aren't willing to extend that far, then at the very least, it is time to introduce a public option to ensure that we are able to expand benefits through a larger insurance pool including more benefits for disabled folks, control prescription and other medical prices for more people, and bring us another step closer to universal coverage.

Next, it should go without saying that any policy that needlessly increases the likelihood of creating disabilities for people is ableist from the start. That means a more hawkish war footing is counter to disability justice. We already have the most lethal fighting force in the world many times over. If the military were a tenth of its size, it would still be the most lethal even then while also greatly expanding available funding for programs that help every American, disabled folks included.

And in the specific, you must impose an arms embargo on Israel to stop the genocide in Gaza. I'd go a step further and demand that you also impose a funding embargo as funding a genocide is hardly any better than enabling one with weaponry. We have all seen the reports and the tragic media that show the Palestinians disabled by Israeli forces using American weapons. And as a Jew as well as a disabled American, I say not in my name.

And that's just to speak to top level of items in your speech. There needs to be an entire disability justice analysis of the platform you're still writing and a disability justice plank as part of that platform.

I hope you will listen. I am forced to vote for you right now as the alternative would literally either kill me or force me to flee the country. But I currently have none of the joy that your campaign seeks to create. I volunteer my labor often (because I can't be hired by any campaign lest I put the very federal and state benefits that keep me alive in danger), and I would be willing to discuss with your team further so that hopefully we can seek a better path forward together.

But for now, the least you owe Tim's son and every disabled person that has seen themselves in the mouths of Democrats everywhere without supporting our needs is to show solidarity with us in the days to November 5th.

[ghostblackberry]

Help Me Meet My Deductible

Hey, so United Healthcare is a little bitch and didn't disclose that their dual special needs plan, which is supposed to be for American that are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid has a fucking deductible this year. Something went wrong with the Medicaid part of my coverage on top of it all. I live on around $550 a month and can't pay the $240 deductible for my meds.

I don't have my antidepressant or inhaler and am almost out of my heart medicine. I've already had two panic attacks since the pharmacy let me know something was wrong on Friday. Going without my heart med will land me in the Emergency Room, the co-pay for which I cannot handle.

This isn't something my area church will help with and I won't have the money myself until April 3rd. At that point, I will, at minimum, be feeling very very sick. Please help.