Well Republicans in the House of RepresentativesThe People’s House…have now unveiled their budget proposal.

Naturally it is a travesty. I’m not going to waste my time analyzing every tidbit but summaries indicate that three areas are addressed that bode dire consequences.

First, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is again on the table. There have been approximately as many attempts at repeal as there have been people who have gained insurance under the law, somewhere above ten million.

Second they seek to slash SNAP and Medicaid by turning the programs into block grants for the states who will have full control as to how those funds will be spent.

Third, in a strange way to actually balance the budget they want to increase defense spending!

That’s according to the summary of those proposals to be found here.


There is one thing each of these proposals have in common.


First of all in the short time the Affordable Care Act has been in effect there are numerous documented cases of lives saved of people with severe illnesses or injuries who, prior to the law, were unable to procure health insurance coverage.

There have been credible estimates that, absent the ACA, as many as 45,000 Americans died each year due to lack of health insurance. For a discussion of those estimates and the reasoning behind them see this:

The basic argument is this. People without insurance often have no access to essential preventative health care and get no treatment for serious, potentially fatal illnesses until it is too late for treatment to save their lives.

I’ve used this high figure…or similar ones…previously in arguments in favor of the ACA. It is irrelevant whether it is 100% accurate or whether the number can be quantified.. Common sense tells us that people with no health insurance who are thus unable to access medical care have their physical health put at risk with ensuing death a definite possibility. And aren’t we told constantly by the right that all lives are precious?

So removing over ten million people from the rolls of the insured means more deaths.

Too, since the law prohibits insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, people with life threatening illnesses can now be assured of being able to procure insurance.

SNAP and Medicaid both provide assistance to millions that can lead to improved lives or even, as above, saved lives. Medicaid beneficiaries due to no or low-paying jobs or disabilities have low incomes which do not allow for the purchase of insurance. But there are studies and real life experiences that show that under Medicaid they can obtain needed care which, while saving lives as having regular insurance does as described earlier, also frequently enables them to be healthy enough to work and to thus contribute to the economy and pay taxes.

SNAP helps families put food on the table. Despite unsupported allegations to the contrary SNAP recipients make healthier food decisions than do other people.

Yet these block grants mean fewer  citizens receive the assistance they need. States already set the criteria for Medicaid eligibility which means a wide swing between states of the maximum income a person can have. This is especially troubling for SNAP since we’re talking entire families including children being negatively affected.

While death may not be such a direct consequence of fundamental change in food programs as in health insurance coverage,  cutting those programs makes life more difficult so if you’re against life are you then favoring death?

Ah, defense spending. Easy to love if you think we should put boots on the ground for every imagined offense against American security/pride/attempt to control other lands; preceded of course by the requisite multiple bombing runs. And the more hardware the better lest the military contractor element of the military/industrial complex have fewer funds to pay their employees, er Congressmen.

Somehow the fact that escapes Congress is that we are not now engaged in any wars as the term is generally understood, thus justifying huge cuts in what we spend on our military, still the most in the world,

Naturally the higher the military budget the greater the odds of military adventures whether though conventional bombers, drones, shelling from our mighty navy, or from those boots on the ground, unfortunately those boots clinging tightly to the feet of real live human beings whose chances of remaining that way are sunstantially diminished.

And while I have been concerned with American lives to this point our military misadventures also inevitably lead to removing lives of the citizens of other nations the majority of whom, in fact, do not have “Jihadist” painted on their foreheads as perfect targets for American snipers.

Now, will this budget get passed? Not very damned likely in my opinion as it will soon appear obvious that the budget will in no way truly eliminate deficits.

After all it was modeled on Paul Ryan’s prior efforts with the same goal but the reasonable projection that deficits would extend to at least 2043 or so.

I suspect the new budget proposal will prove to have any impact on deficits for a similar time, and by then I’ll probably be dead and thus unable to say, “I told you so!”

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • C J Marshall  On March 17, 2015 at 8:30 PM

    The GOP makes me sick to my stomach. Heartless assholes! But they all love war.

  • Little_Minx  On March 17, 2015 at 10:08 PM

    Small wonder. They’re bought ‘n’ paid for by war profiteers.

  • Devildog  On March 20, 2015 at 5:58 PM

    Nice to hear from you ladies again!

  • Devildog  On March 20, 2015 at 6:41 PM

    Sorry CJ. I’ve been told you are not ciejai. But you are a UMOC clone!

    • C J  On March 20, 2015 at 7:11 PM

      You are right Develdog, I tend to agree with inteligent people who study the issues thouroughly and cognitively reach the most logical and moral decission.

      • Devildog  On March 20, 2015 at 7:17 PM

        Absolutely! Without a doubt! You are to be envied!

        S/ heartless asshole, lover of war. To go face to face and put one between the eyes of a bad guy is the ultimate. To see one of your buddies get it is just se la Guerre.

        • C J  On March 20, 2015 at 7:28 PM

          If the cause is not worthy, then maybe the fighting will do us more harm than good, even if we do “win”….what ever that means anymore. We went into Iraq on false pretenses the second time just because dubbya wanted to act tough. After wasting $2.5 trillion over the past ten years, what do we have to show for the money or the thousands of lost lives. More fighting and greater instability! The outcome of an action always causes me to reassess the bases for the initial action. Thats what we need to do in all our foreign policy. Unless we eventually want to end up like the Romans.

          • Devildog  On March 20, 2015 at 7:59 PM

            Yes CJ, you studies the issue thoroughly and cognitively reached the most logical conclusion-“because dubbya wanted to act tough” when obviously he wanted to avenge his father’s failure.

            • C J  On March 20, 2015 at 8:19 PM

              Yea, vengence, what is that but acting tough; getting even; making amends. As you just pointed out dubbya’s motive was anything but logical and reasonable….it was vengence and the prodding of Rumsfeld and Cheaney and against the advice of Gen Colon Powell. George H. W. Bush was smart enough not to violate the agreements made with other countries which formed the multi-nation coalition that engaged ithe Iraqis in the first Iraq war after they attacked Kuwait. General Swartzkof was in total agreement with that decision becasue Swartzkof was a student of middle eastern history and new better than to occupy any country in that region because he new from the regions history that occupation would breed hatred and tensions amoung the tribal muslim factions and that in so doing, the USA could never win. Well, never win unless we would eventually come to subscribe to the lyrics of the old folk song;

              “And we know that peace can only be won”……

              “when we blow them all to kingdom come!”

              • Devildog  On March 21, 2015 at 12:20 AM

                CJ, I think you are UMOC using a pseudonym.

                • Little_Minx  On March 21, 2015 at 3:21 PM

                  Devildog doth protest too much, methinks.

                  • Devildog  On March 21, 2015 at 3:32 PM

                    Thanks Minx but what am I protesting?

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: