Shutdown

[Slut4u]

I'm reading that the government is shut down and people aren't going to receive food stamps.  Basically everything that relies on a government check is ?

Admittedly I don't know how HIV meds are funded. I know they're enormously expensive-enough so that an average person would have trouble paying for it on their own.

I know that there's assistance. Some of it is charitable. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it is government.

So my question is: If people aren't eating because there is no $$ then how is there $$ for HIV funding?

[Philatanus]

Too many are relying on the government! That can not be a good thing.

 

Women with children, men with children, granted, however, all others should be fending for themselves. 

 

[phillygwm]

18 minutes ago, Philatanus said:

Too many are relying on the government! That can not be a good thing.

Women with children, men with children, granted, however, all others should be fending for themselves. 

 

I agree with this, up to a point.  When it's literally life and death, the government should provide a safety net.  Especially in the US, where costs of meds aren't as regulated as elsewhere.   PrEP, for instance, used to cost me about $200-300/month.  I can afford that but a lot of people can't.  HIV would spread much faster than it does now if people had to go without, which is clearly not in the public interest.

In terms of HIV but also many other diseases, where this really hits home is research, which is largely funded by NIH and other orgs.  That's been decimated.  With HIV, some meds (admittedly, not the cutting edge stuff) are relatively inexpensive especially when produced overseas for those markets.  Even so, lots of people in the Third World can't afford it.  The foreign aid that the US recently cut will be a death sentence for a lot of those people unless other funders step in.  All of this predates the government shutdown and will continue well after it's resolved.

Edited yesterday at 05:27 PM by phillygwm

[Philatanus]

Life and death, in WAR!

There are way too many able bodies doing nothing and just looking for a handout. 

As for foreign aid, why should the USA, (I am in Sweden) fund the world? Why should hard working American Taxpayers (that is whom is paying for all), be fitting the bill? Does not make any sense.

As for safety net, Welfare! In Sweden, Welfare consists of rent, hospital visits, electricity, and a stipend of around $500.00 for food clothing and necessities.  Every month when applying, one must also enclose their bank statement, jobs they have searched for, and be in a program that helps them find a job. If they do not attend the program or are lax in anything, they lose their benefit for that month.

Welfare is to help you for a while, not be dependent on it for life. 

 

 

 

 

[ellentonboy]

If you live on SSI or SSD for AIDS  (and you contracted the disease in your 20s)  your check is generally about $1,000 a month, but it does vary state by state.  Your income up to the point you applied for disability benefits also comes into factor, if you had a high paying job you receive more.   There is also other  income you can receive from an employer who may have had a disability payment clause in an eployee's benefits  package.  When I say AIDS, I mean those who have been deemed eligible to receive SSD or SSI, not just someone who has tested positive.

Now may I ask, who can live on $1,000 plus EBT in almost any part of the US?  It's tough.  I am just posting about the AIDS community, not about all those who receive EBT.

Food panties can help supplement, but the most I have heard of any single man receiving SNAP benefits is about $298.  Try buying groceries with that kind of budget.  You take away SNAP and that person has some severe food insecurity.

[hntnhole]

There are a number of social-service agencies around that offer hiv-preventative medications (as well as the lesser bugs).  One highly-regarded agency is the "Mistr" program,(intentionally misspelled), which anyone can apply for.  They'll want some financial information, of course, since their entire purpose is to save the health care for those that actually need it.  They send the pills in the mail, and provide a monthly testing kit that is mailed back for their testing purposes.  And, for most, it's completely free.  

[hntnhole]

On 11/2/2025 at 1:41 PM, Philatanus said:

Welfare is to help you for a while, not be dependent on it for life. 

 

What about the elderly, the indigent, those with health problems, and the plethora of other issues old folks are afflicted with?  How are those issues addressed by the government?  

I can understand how those who can work, but choose not to could be not included, but are the retired seniors, after a lifetime of contributing, they're cut off as well?  

[tobetrained]

@hntnhole I'll let @Philatanus respond if he wishes to your specific question.

But can I poke you on that, from the other side: where do you stop? how do you fund? How do you reduce waste or unnecessary care?

A part of the high costs to medical insurance and care in the US is the volume of patient demand against a backdrop of limit care providers (supply). Government support and assistance programs make that care even more expensive by blindly supporting even more care.

See: long wait times in countries with UHC, and even here.

How do you balance the reality of finite care against patient load for providers? Without a mechanism, costs just spiral*.

As a remember, ACA plans would be much lower -- almost to the price level of plans with the now-ended subsidy -- had Democrats not greatly expanded the definition of "basic care." Even the definition of "disability" has been grossly expanded in recent years.

Maybe if we get back to a more reasonable definition of "basic care" there can be a better way forward. We pay for this in the end, either to providers/insurers or to the government via taxes. And now these programs are fully funded by new debt as our annual budget is/has been in deficit, which added interest on top of the cost itself.

* I don't know the details, but the South Korean system has UHC but cover no more than 50% and a more strict definition of basic care than ours. This limits cost and unnecessary care due to less demand per person. I don't know the details of that nor supplemental insurance market there. Democratic politicians balk endlessly at that.