What Does The Medicare Savings Program Application Look Like: Fill & Download for Free

Many answers have extrapolated what a President Gore would have done if he won the 2000 general election but we need to explore the initial decision of the Bush v Gore case before the Supreme Court. Note: I’m not a lawyer so objective lawyerly corrections are welcome. As opposed to popular rhetoric, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Bush for logical reasons. In short, SCOTUS ruled that Florida was required to use the same accounting method for all counties, as opposed to what some wished (to only recount some counties using varying methodologies), and that doing otherwise would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. There was also the issue of whether or not the case required an answer to a political question (something fundamentally political in question and thus not appropriate for the court to make a legal ruling on). If SCOTUS ruled in favor of Gore, it would have set a new legal precedent regarding state-federal interactions and general election law. I can’t speak to how later cases would be affected by a Gore victory (hopefully experts will answer that in this question) but it would signify a change in how SCOTUS conducts business (i.e. the political question issue).Now, onto the details of a Gore Presidency…Candidate Gore’s Platform: As opposed to the lack of details in many political campaigns in the past few years, the Gore-Lieberman campaign offered many proposals. Thankfully http://4presidents.us has the text of the campaign’s platform site pages (this is gold for analytical folks like me). The points listed below are things he would have changed (as opposed to continuing to support). A Gore-Lieberman Administration would:Economy:Award new grants for universal broadband Internet coverage and accessBan soft money in political campaigns and create a fund to publicly fund political campaignsBoost spending for research and developmentBuild on Clinton’s Equal Pay Initiative (training for employers to comply with pay requirements)Encourage independent or assisted living of and employment for disabled individuals through new fundingEnsure that “third generation” wireless spectrum is available to telecommunications companiesExpand eligible businesses under the Family and Medical Leave ActExpand the safety net for farmers with augmented crop supportsGrow the number of housing vouchers and homeownership in urban areasIncentivize more individuals to get off welfare and begin working through grants and tax incentivesIncrease labor union protectionsIncrease the minimum wage by $1 over two yearsProvide funding for mass transit systems (such as light and high-speed rail)Strengthen child support collections and other fatherhood requirementsEducation:Establish universal voluntary preschool and boost Head Start fundingEventually fully fund educations for students with disabilitiesIncrease funding for non-traditional schools (such as charters)Offer grants to educate or reeducate workers and lengthen the period displaced workers receive Trade Adjustment AssistanceProvide funds to repair or rebuild schools, wiring classrooms for Internet accessQuadruple the number of students at 21st Century Leaning Centers and further support other after-school programsRaise teacher payRecruit 100,000 new teachersRequire student testing 3 times between 3rd grade and graduation, rewarding successful districts and turn around failing onesEnergy and Environment:Create a trust fund and tax credits to help consumers buy energy efficient goods and make buildings more efficient and weatherizedEncourage the development of alternative energy sources (such as solar)Establish a cap-and-trade carbon emissions system and incentivize companies to reduce pollution through creditsFund projects to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oilPrevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in sensitive offshore areasRestore the “polluter pays” funding mechanism for Superfund sitesFederal Spending:Create IRA-style savings accounts for retirement, managed by private firms and parallel to current Social Security benefitsEnsure employee pension portability and protections from changes by employersHave every agency functionally online, accepting applications, providing services, etc.Increase Social Security benefits for stay-at-home parents and widows/widowersPay down the national debt (with budget surplus funds)Shore up Social Security (by paying down the national debt with budget surplus funds) and create tax-free savings accountsForeign Policy and Defense:Change how the Pentagon operates for efficiency and cost savingsDevelop a limited national missile defense systemFully fund the military’s TRICARE health care systemRequire labor and environmental standards in international trade agreementsWork to improve health care access, the variety of services, and long-term benefits provided by the Veterans AdministrationHealth Care:Allow 55 to 65 year olds buy Medicare health insuranceCover up to 50% of prescription drug costs for seniors (up to $5,000 annually)Create an initiative to support families with disabled individualsDouble funding to find cures for cancer (spending increases for other diseases, especially HIV/AIDS)Encourage competition in Medicare insurance plansExpand Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) child and family eligibility and the ability to enrollExpand Medicaid coverage for nursing home expensesGive greater negotiating and cost saving authority to traditional Medicare plansMandate full child mental health coverage for private insurers and CHIPPass a Patients’ Bill of Rights (greater negotiation with insurance companies)Reach underserved populations by growing the National Health Service Corps and the Projects for Assistance in Transition from HomelessnessSeparate Medicare payroll taxes from the regular budget with a Medicare “lock box”Streamline and simplify Medicaid and food stamp enrollmentStrengthen community, public, and academic health and mental centersLaw Enforcement and Immigration:Expand the number of drug courts and their authority to order drug tests of offendersHire 50,000 new police officers, 10,000 community prosecutors, 500 ATF agentsImpose new gun regulations (including databases, background checks, and waiting periods)Restore benefits for legal immigrants (such as welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security)Taxes:In general, Gore aimed to expand or introduce new tax credits for working class families, stay-at-home parents, low-income earners, retirees, soon-to-be retirees, environmental causes, and innovative research. It is unclear how exactly the credits would be paid for other than his mention of the budget stimulus. He did not mention in writing raising tax rates.New Credits: a long-term care tax credit, a small business premium health care tax credit, an individual health insurance tax credit, a school modernization bond tax credit, the College Opportunity Tax Credit (college tuition and training), the New Markets Incentive (tax benefits for capital investments in distressed communities), business tax incentives for energy efficiency and environmental improvementExpanded Credits: the Earned Income Tax Credit, increase the Standard Deduction for marriage penalty relief, simplify estate tax exemptions for small businesses and family farms, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, Brownfields tax incentives (made permanent)Made Refundable Credits: the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (fully), the After-School Tax Credit (new and fully), the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit (partial) Note: refundable tax credits give money to households and businesses in excess of their tax liability so it is counted as new spending (not decreases in revenue) in the federal budget.The Political Environment: In 2001, a new Congress was sworn in along with the new President. Between the 106th and 107th Congresses, the Republicans maintained their majority of the House, while the Senate went from a 55-45 Republican majority to a 50/50 split. I assume that the new Congress would have this make up because the Bush v Gore case came just after the election, thus not influencing the lower elections.The nation faced some shorter-term issues in those first 6 months. Here they are along with the Bush-Gore differences (if any):Economic Downturn: Where Bush enacted his broad tax cuts, Gore would have pushed for economic stimulus. When Congress would disagree, he would put together a targeted tax package that reflect parts of this campaign platform (larger credits for the eligible, new cuts for small businesses). The plan would generally be supported, especially with budget surplus money burning a hole in the national pocket. Long-term result, Congress would still need to reauthorize these changes, potentially causing debates like that of the 2011 Fiscal Cliff negotiations.Education Reform Package: Though Bush and Gore had some overlap (using testing as a key means to measure student process and to barter with districts), Gore’s proposals were a bit more Obama-ish with the roots of Race to the Top and an ever-shrinking student-to-teacher ratio in classrooms. While there would be no No Child Left Behind as we know it, Gore would spend some of this initial political capital on a similar big move. I see two possibilities: Gore pushes a Democrat version of NCLB that grows teacher ranks and tries to retrain more workers OR he uses that capital on a completely different issue (knowing how Gore is now, I’d vote on a start to a cap-and-trade system, likely state-based, that tries to start to monetize carbon pollution – my money would still be on education reform).China Spy Plane “Crisis”: Remember this one? A U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese plane, forcing the U.S. plane to land in China. In President Bush world, we all tensely sat as the servicemembers were returned in not so a dissimilar fashion as the recent Iranian naval situation (i.e. “oh God, what are we gonna d—oh, they’re back already?”). I don’t see a different result with Gore as president. He would work the channels to get our boys back but not make any rash statements of going to war or whatnot.Budget Surplus: There would be a battle for the balance of the surplus. Republicans would want to cut taxes or at least give some back to folks whereas Gore (and Bill Clinton) wanted to pay down the debt and shore up Social Security. With tax cuts in a way being neutralized with Gore’s quasi-stimulus package, he would have some leverage to strengthen Social Security (I would say mostly because Republicans could just as easily use it as a campaign bright point as Gore come reelection).Then 9/11…A President Gore would seek a similar path as Bush in at least the first few months after the attacks. He would send whatever the military told him to on a conquest cruise through Afghanistan, he would authorize intelligence and law enforcement agencies to step up terrorist investigations, and he would pledge any and all domestic resources to rebuilding NYC and the pentagon. I also think that the US PATRIOT Act would pass, the anthrax mail attacks would still occur, and the U.S. would yet again be seen as a policeman (but this time a policeman with a cause). What I can’t say is if Gore would have employed torture. He would at least not boast about possibly doing it like Bush did, nor would he classify terrorists as enemy combatants and grant them rights under the Geneva Convention. To top all of this off, he would likely declare a war on terror, through I think it would be a bit keyed back and without the black-or-white declarations of Bush’s address to Congress in 2001.Now for a surprise. I don’t think that a President Gore would have created the Department of Homeland Security. He would have thrown tons of money at the FBI, CIA, NSA, and ATF to better coordinate their efforts but he would have had to play politics, even just after 9/11. Instead of appearing like a big government Democrat, he would hold back on creating drastically more bureaucracy in favor of building up existing agencies. He might have changed this policy after the 9/11 Commission report came out in 2004 or if other terrorist attacks occurred but initially I think he thinks of what resources were available to him for the previous eight years and acts on those capabilities instead of trying to make new ones. To pile on, I also think that he does not federalize airport security screeners, instead imposing a mandate on states to figure it out.In this respect, we’d still have whistleblowers like Edward Snowden because mass data collections would still occur (though I think that Gore would have changed some policies when he himself found out about them – something likely not happening during his administration). However, on the bright side, having no DHS would mean the Federal Emergency Management Agency would have remained independent and wouldn’t have experienced the brain drain it continues to suffer being weighed down by DHS bureaucracy and de-prioritization. This means that relief for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Gustov would look more like Hurricane Andrew recovery operations. The ripple effects here would be felt by many.Later in his term (I’m assuming he would get reelected after facing a possible Jeb Bush or Newt Gingrich challenge in 2004), Gore would push for and face a few more challenges:Drug Plans: Bush created the Medicare Part D program that helps the elderly get prescription drugs. This was also something Gore spoke about during his campaign so I would expect something similar to today’s Part D to be in a Gore-run world.Africa and AIDS: President Bush increased funding for AIDS relief in Africa more than any previous President. Though Gore called for something similar, I think it was a few steps behind Bush’s actions. Advantage Bush.Alito and Roberts No More: With the retirement of O’Connor and death of Rehnquist, Gore would have nominated left-of-center judges. This would likely have bearing on cases concerning campaign finance, handguns, and an infinite number of cases going forward. The court wouldn’t necessarily be a shoe in for left cases as the court tends to shift voting blocks for each case.China in the WTO: The People’s Republic would still gain access to freer trade with western nations but Gore called for greater consideration for labor and environmental practices in foreign trade negotiations so it’s interesting to see what he would do, especially as China gained membership in late 2001 as the U.S. was recovering from recession.Russo-Georgian War: In the twilight of his presidency, Russia would likely still have invaded parts of Georgia, claiming the tiny nation acted against ethnic Russian people and so on (remind you of Ukraine today?). Gore’s response would likely have been similar to Bush’s. Condemn Russia’s actions, supply humanitarian relief, but don’t offer any military assistance or the chance of U.S. servicemembers getting killed in the area.Great Recession: The last thing in the Gore presidency would have likely been a big economic shock like we what we felt in 2007. It might have been different (Gore wanted more homeownership, which could have worsened things, but he might have had a better federal balance sheet without the invasion of Iraq) but government financial and housing policies would have met with changing economic conditions and market distortions to equal a large amount of job loss and market volatility. Gore would have likely bailed out the large banks for fear of greater damage and he might have accompanied them with a stimulus not unlike President Obama’s, thus doubling down on more market intervention.In summary, I think that a President Gore would have conducted business differently than President Bush but both would marginally match each other’s actions in instances that were going to happen regardless who was in the White House or in control of Congress. Perhaps this is a good sign of how Americans are alike (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) but times were also very different at the start of the new millennium. The budget stimulus was thought to make things easier for everyone and, like winning the lottery, it might have been better if it never existed, making elected officials fundamentally address challenges without the need to throw too much money at problems.I wholly admit I missed a million things that went on during the Bush years.

Why does socialism not work in the USA according to experts?Experts in what? Experts in telling people politically-biased things? Experts in… economics?Veritable oceans of ink have been spilled to make the case that the USA is a place that’s uniquely incapable of having anything to do with socialism. Yet at the same time, we’re constantly warned of creeping socialism, slippery slopes, the pathway to ruin. There are contradictions here.It’s helpful to note that the term Socialism describes a broad spectrum of economic theory and models for its application, and when the term is used in the USA (with regard to domestic policy), the left and right mean very different things when they use it. From the Sanders- left, they’re talking about capitalist policy borrowed from FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society, or alternately, capitalist policy that’s working well in modern Scandinavia. But the right conjures a very different vision (the one where the government takes all your property and lets you starve), which pretty much nobody wants, and virtually nobody is arguing for- and would have you understand everything the left wants in those terms.So, the left has it’s good-socialism (in which, grandma doesn’t have to live on cat food because social security) and the right has it’s bad-socialism (in which we all end up destitute, enslaved).Of course, the American right are keen to project their notion of socialism upon essentially any policy they don’t like (even if it isn’t properly socialist) by labeling it “socialist” and then arguing against their version of it (which neatly derails the subject away from the policy in question and allows them to bash away at their ‘bad-socialism’ straw-man). [Socialism? You mean like in Sweden?] ← Yep, we hear assurances from our friends on the right that Sweden and essentially all of Europe are some sort of Socialist hell- even though the folks living there will be quick to clarify that nope, they’re capitalists… who also regulate their economies to limit the downsides of capitalism (and they happen to have much lower poverty rates, lower unemployment, and somewhat higher standards of living than we do here in the USA).The upshot is that most of us in the USA don’t really clearly understand what “Socialism” is. We just know that our movement conservatives like to arbitrarily project ‘bad-socialism’ upon certain policies. For example:It’s labeled “socialism” when poor people get food stamps, but when big business receives corporate welfare it is deemed to be “investing”, or “incentives”.In both cases, public money goes into private pockets, and the difference is that folks on the right approve of the latter but not the former.It’s “socialism” when we talk about paying for universal health care with taxpayer funds, but it’s an “earned benefit” when taxpayer funds pay for the health insurance your employer provisions.In both cases, taxpayers subsidize health care.[1]It’s not “socialism” when we furnish infrastructure or invest in common wealth or services… right?In sum, we do a lot of things (we have social safety nets, progressive taxation, etc) that are labeled ‘socialist’ from the right, and we see endless screeds in Quora answers and in the comments section of online news articles about how these things are “Socialism”, how “Socialism has never worked”, that therefore we should not do any of these things.It goes a little bit like this:Assert [policy a, such as universal health care] is socialismAssert “The Soviets were socialists, and they killed millions of their own people! And then their economy collapsed because socialism!”Therefore, if we have [policy a] you will end up in a Gulag, and poor, just like the Russians did.Checkmate, liberals!This kind of argument is problematic by virtue of being a non-sequitur. Sure, it follows the logical-looking form of a Syllogism, but the equivalences wiring it together turn out to be false ones. The policies we’re talking about (social security, medicare, food stamps, progressive taxation, etc) aren’t the same thing as the totalitarian things the Soviets did. Thus we can’t very well argue that if we have medicare or food stamps (which aren’t soviet doctrine) that we’d end up with soviet results- but that is exactly what is being argued here.Speaking of Soviet results, the Soviets collapsed after spending too much trying to occupy Afghanistan. Good thing we’re not crazy enough to… oh. Damn. Likewise, Venezuela got to where it is after allowing a populist autocrat to dismantle democratic checks on his power and turn the country into a corrupt patronage machine.Having grown up conservative in the latter part of the Cold War, I grew up understanding Socialism in rightist terms- that it was the recipe to ruin, that the Russians were exhibit A in the case for us never ever doing anything like socialism here in America.But then, I learned about the New Deal, that it was our response to the prior conditions that had led to the Great Depression in the United States. Back then, even republicans agreed we liked having things like Social Security, Medicare, public education, and well-funded state universities. I still like these things, (I like my banks regulated, my monopolies limited, my deposits insured, and I’ve paid into social security and medicare my whole life, glad to know I’d one day be eligible for the benefits and until then, they’re keeping seniors alive and healthy) and it made zero sense to me when I started hearing Republicans talk about them in terms of socialism, slippery slopes, and economic death spirals.Huh. So if those things are socialism, is socialism really a bad thing? Or if they aren’t socialism, are they still bad policy? Because the evidence of the world around me is that these kinds of policies all have one thing in common: Every wealthy country does these kinds of things, and no country has become wealthy or developed without them:There’s a curious fact about the wealth and growth of nations that you rarely see mentioned: No country has ever joined the modern, high-productivity, rich-country club without massive doses of redistribution, and universal government programs for social support and financial security. Not one. Ever.You can get a rough feel for the scale of those programs here (the OECD countries pretty much constitute the “rich-country club”):There are a zillion other measures you could plot, but they paint roughly the same picture. In this measure, the richest countries all devote fifteen to thirty percent of GDP to social spending. As Bruce Bartlett pointed out recently, Germany — a darned “conservative” country that is thriving today, and which rode out our recent economic Great Whatever better than almost any other country — started building its welfare state more than 150 years ago.Now contrast these countries to all the countries that have eschewed those freedom-sapping, serf-ifying government programs, and that have emerged as thriving, prosperous utopias of liberty.Name one. Why hasn’t it happened? Not even once.~[Why Welfare and Redistribution Saves Capitalism from Itself - Evonomics]It’s probably helpful to understand, when talking about Socialism in the context of American politics, that we’re not really talking about Socialism per se. Instead, it’s a proxy for the New Deal (which empowered the government to regulate particularly abusive or corrupting corporate behavior, and which established such redistribution programs as Social Security). Of course, this was pivotal in the USA’s becoming a wealthy nation, and it also upset the apple cart that had been so good to the folks on top at the time. They went from untouchable, virtual royalty, to being subject to regulation, just like everyone else. This, they hated.Well, they tried to fight back almost immediately- but their initial efforts failed to un-do these new regulations, they were seen as being patently self-serving:For much of the 1930s, organizations such as the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) had been searching in vain for ways to rehabilitate a public image that had been destroyed in the Great Depression and defamed by the New Deal. In 1934, a new generation of conservative industrialists took over NAM with a promise to “serve the purposes of business salvation.” The organization rededicated itself to spreading the gospel of free enterprise, vastly expanding its expenditures in the field. As late as 1934, NAM spent a paltry $36,000 on public relations. Three years later, it devoted $793,043 to the cause, more than half its total income. NAM now promoted capitalism through a wide array of films, radio programs, advertisements, direct mail, a speakers bureau and a press service that provided ready-made editorials and news stories for 7,500 local newspapers.Ultimately, though, industry’s self-promotion was seen as precisely that. Jim Farley, chairman of the Democratic Party, joked that another group involved in this public relations campaign—the American Liberty League—really should have been called the “American Cellophane League.” “First, it’s a DuPont product,” Farley quipped, “And second, you can see right through it.” [2]Movement conservatives would iterate through the years, using different approaches to recall those halcyon days with varying degrees of success and failure. They would eventually co-opt religion (and give rise to televangelism as political vehicle) among other things. Ultimately, they’re talking about Rolling Back the 20th Century, while pretending to talk about Socialism.Footnotes[1] Unspeakable Realities Block Universal Health Coverage In America[2] How Corporate America Invented Christian America

“Why do people in America die due to lack of health insurance if it is illegal for a hospital to not treat you due to a lack of ability to pay?”The following is a not uncommon scenario that I have personally seen played out multiple times over the years.Hardworking average American with an average American job, production assistant, department store employee, office manager, paralegal, etc. Pays bills on time, perhaps able to afford to live alone, with a roommate or partner…perhaps a single parent juggling everything but making it work. Diagnosed with an illness in the prime of life, usually we hear most about cancer but it isn't always cancer…could be a heart problem or lupus, an unusual infection or a hit and run while crossing the street. Something happens and Hardworking average American is spanked with a more complicated illness or injury that imparts a more lengthy recovery. Hardworking average American has insurance, because they're employed…hardworking! Insurance is one of the benefits of employment. Perhaps they share the cost of the policy, their employer deducts $250 a month from their paycheck and covers the remaining $600 monthly cost of the policy as part of their benefits package. Hardworking average American doesn't quite live paycheck-to-paycheck, but it's close. Maybe they've managed to save one month of expenses. But as any good American, Hardworking average American lives a life of revolving debt: monthly car payment, car insurance, 3 or more credit cards + various store charge cards, student loans, paying off dental work that insurance didn't cover, payment plan for their iPhone XXX as well as the monthly service plan plus all the regular monthly utilities and rent. If there's anything left over sometimes they get to eat! Keep in mind, good Americans sometimes breed, if recklessly or without a partner our Hardworking average American will also have the cost of daycare or after school care plus all other costs related to a child or perhaps a monthly payment for child support to the baby mama. I have likely left off several regular monthly bills and for that I apologize.What happens when a person like the above Hardworking average American gets sick with major illness, suffers a major injury or perhaps is diagnosed with a long-term condition that may take some time to stabilize? First, they call out sick to work. When those 5 or 7 days are used up they use whatever vacation time they haven't yet used, could be 3 days, could be none. Then they use whatever unpaid days off benefits they may be allowed, maybe 5 days or could be none. As they cannot work they either lose their job or with quick thinking and if their employer qualifies they can go on up to 4 months leave without pay. No pay means the employer can't deduct the $250 for their cost of their health insurance so they must arrange to pay that promptly. If the employer isn't qualified to grant the 4 month family leave without pay they also are promptly off the hook for the $600 they contribute monthly towards Hardworking average American's health insurance…but don't worry! Hardworking average American can pay it himself through a program called COBRA. COBRA allows the employee to pay the full cost of the policy for between 18 and 36 months, the amount of time has to do with the length of employment, how many employees the company has, whether it's a leap year... So, if he thinks of it or someone has told him about COBRA, he can arrange with his employer to pay the monthly total $850, or more, there might be administration fees. When his one month's savings runs out and he can't pay his rent or bills or health insurance cost he might qualify for State Disability which might provide as much as $1,500 a month for a maximum of a year. But it likely takes weeks to months to kick in if he qualifies and when it does it's not enough to cover rent and health insurance both. Wait! What about Social Security? Hardworking average American has paid into Social Security since his first job! And isn't Social Security supposed to include Medicare? Unless one's kidneys have failed and dialysis is required one must be unable to work due to disability or illness for 2 years before you can even apply for Social Security. I've heard they deny everyone the first time around and that anyone approved has been approved during the appeal process. Then they qualify for Medicare. That is, after 2 years on Social Security they can then persue Medicare. So Social Security can take up to 4 years from the application, then he might get to buy Medicare after another 2 years so as long as 6 years after onset. If there's someone looking after him and if he's still alive after the possible 6 year wait.You asked how Americans die due to lack of insurance when hospitals cannot turn people away for lack of ability to pay. The regulation is that a hospital ER is not allowed to establish the ability to pay prior to offering emergency treatment. Once the patient is stable they can transfer him to a county facility or release him instead of admitting him. They are not required to provide follow up care. And when hit with a major illness or extensive injury if one cannot work and thus cannot maintain their insurance they very quickly become uninsured and unable to continue treatment.And that is how Hardworking average Americans die due to lack of insurance.