Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by JWBear

I am truly saddened and appalled at the number of people here who would so cavalierly let people die! Sickening!

Seriously: that is what you think is going on here?

Seriously?

Get your head out of your ass. No one here has represented that they cavalierly want anyone with HIV/AIDS to suddenly lose their source of medication that keeps them alive. You are not the only one here that knows people with HIV/AIDS or has lost friends to the same disease. This is not just a "gay" disease: it affects everyone.

But some of us see outside of our own little individual worlds to see that there are others out there that need help.

[JWBear]

I sincerely hope that those of you who have no problem with the state cutting ADAP, and condemning many thousands to their deaths, have never had to watch someone they love die for no reason other than the inability to afford medical care. I hope you have never fallen in love with someone only to watch them whither and die as you watch helplessly. I hope this because it's easier to think you support these cuts out of ignorance of the human suffering that will result, rather than out of knowing but uncaring indifference.

I would ask you to find the parents of a child dying of AIDS and tell them, to their face, that their child needs to die because "We have to cut something". Tell the single mother that she will never be able to see her child grow up because it's not the government's place to pay for her medical care. Look into the eyes of a man who's only hope for life is the medications he can only have because of ADAP. Watch the fear and despair in his eyes as he realizes he has just been condemned to die a long and unpleasant death while the Governor and his cronies smoke their cigars and pat themselves on the back for "winning" one against the "other side".

There is something terribly wrong with a society where the lives of those less fortunate can be sacrificed on the altar of Less Government.

Go ahead and continue sitting in your comfortable middle class houses, in your comfortable middle class neighborhoods, living your comfortable middle class lives where you never have to decide between paying rent or buying medications - because you can't afford both (or either). Go right ahead and keep discussing these cuts with all the dispassion of just another political chess game. As for me... I'm done here.

[Kevy Baby]

The funny thing is that no one here has said they "have no problem with with the state cutting ADAP"

[innerSpaceman]

Yep, no one here has said that, JW. What some of us have said is that the cuts are going to be painful, no matter where they come from

I for one, have said this particular cut is so deplorable, it must be a ploy for outrage or an expression of pique on behalf of a governator who lost big at the recent election.

It's so horrible I can't believe it's true, but Monday is the day we find out ... and I'm shocked to learn this may be truth and not a badly-conceived ploy to shock constituents.

That being said, I still think whatever cuts are going to be made are going to be horribly painful to some people. But this seems among the most painful possible cuts and I am against it with ever fiber of my being.


JW, please re-read this thread. I don't believe anyone has expressed the remotest inking of support for this humanitarian disaster.

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

There are plenty of other people that have been diagnosed with deadly diseases. If we had a state run health care system, then we'd need to cover them. We do not. How do you pick and choose which diseases we should provide coverage for?

I think that the issue of which diseases to cover is for another discussion (and boy is it s doozy!!) however my reasong would be this:

We are presently covering HIV/AIDS for whatever reason (I guess because state govt voted to do so) so therefore shouldn't we continue to do so based on the fact that, if the state withdraws that funding and the Fed govt wont pick up the program and fund it themselves, then the drugs will no longer be available for most people and they will die.

I am surprised there aren't more non-life supporting programs that could be trimmed. First and foremost the State's Politicians Wages, Retirement packages, etc.

Stoat adds: We're very sorry to see the state of CA is so far into their list of "trimmable/expendable funds" that they are up to Life-Support programs already !!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by lashbear

We are presently covering HIV/AIDS for whatever reason (I guess because state govt voted to do so) so therefore shouldn't we continue to do so based on the fact that, if the state withdraws that funding and the Fed govt wont pick up the program and fund it themselves, then the drugs will no longer be available for most people and they will die.

I am surprised there aren't more non-life supporting programs that could be trimmed. First and foremost the State's Politicians Wages, Retirement packages, etc.

That's the thing - I really don't know what has been saved and what has been cut. If they really are cutting 40% then I wouldn't be surprised if they are getting to the bone of basic requirements for running the state.

That's why I'm at the benefit of the doubt stage. Unless I want to go and read the entire budget I feel that I'm uneducated in this decision and that it's quite possible that this program saves less lives than other programs that are not being cut. Horrible as it is, it's possible.

As I've been saying all along, if JW or anyone else wants to actually read the budget and let us know what wasteful programs are being saved to cut this needed one, I'd love to hear it, and I would totally support rescuing this life-saving program, or donate towards charities which perform the same functions.

[lashbear]

I find it quite telling that of the 7 updated threads listed this morning, 3 of them were discussing the State of California's failures:
The California Budget Woes and Me
Schwarzeneggar Proposes to End HIV/AIDS Services
Post Prop H8 Fallout

[Alex]

To clarify, I did not say that they're cutting 40% of the budget but that I think they're trying to cut around 40% of the discretionary budget.

I'm trying to find the current numbers but in 2003, 63% of the budget was mandatory. Meaning that if the state government is functioning it is obligated to spend that much. This includes Prop 98 primary education funding, Medi-Cal, pensions, debt servicing, etc.

The remaining budget is discretionary and this is where almost all budget cuts will have to be made. According to the LA Times the current projected budget shortfall is $24 billion.

The 2003 total discretionary spending was $33.4 billion. So if that number is the same (and I'm guessing it is smaller now since we've already been through a couple budget cuts since then) and they were forced to actually balance the budget entirely through budget cuts (which won't happen since a lot will still come through accounting tricks and revenue adjustments that aren't covered by Prop 13) that would actually require a 72% cut in discretionary spending.

2003 discretionary spending was:
Higher Education (UC and CSU) - $5.3b
Corrections - $5.2b
Health & Social Services - $12.9b
All other discretionary - $10.0b

So, unless political suicide is committed by completely defunding higher education and prisons and absolutely everything else discretionary (and still being a few billion short of balanced), significant cuts are going to have to come out of the Health & Social Services piece of the pie. And I think it is probable that almost every possible cut in that segment will have someone standing behind it saying "cut this and people will die."

That is not to say that I think this particular program is a reasonable target. My gut reaction is that it is not. But like I said above I simply don't have enough knowledge about the entire system to have more than a gut reaction and I suspect that we're in for quite a season of "oh my god, this is the most vile thing Sacramento budgeters have ever tried to do, why do they hate humanity so?" Heck, this thread is already the second one (see also: closing state parks).


(As a side note, notice the "debt servicing" I mentioned as part of the mandatory budget. In 2003 we spent more on interest - $3.8 billion - than on the entire UC system - $2.8b.)

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Alex

Meaning that if the state government is functioning it is obligated to spend that much.

I think this mess is good evidence that the state government is not actually functioning. Perhaps it should be replaced with something that does.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I think this mess is good evidence that the state government is not actually functioning. Perhaps it should be replaced with something that does.

Would be lovely, though short of a revolution, I don't see them starting from scratch.