Upstairs, Downstairs In The Age Of The Pandemic

Who gets released early and who gets COVID-19?

Bill Cosby thinks Pennsylvania should release him from prison because some of the other inmates are infected with COVID-19. He claims the state is trying to execute him. Pennsylvania has been temporarily releasing some vulnerable and nonviolent prisoners, but not sex offenders like Cosby. Some states are letting prisoners out early and some aren't. And there's no national standard for who gets out and who doesn't. "Celebrity criminals" like former Trump fixer Michael Cohen and Mafia boss Vincent Asaro are allowed to confine themselves in their swank digs... while others, guilty of lesser crimes, are allowed to become exposed to the deadly disease. In a hellish Ohio prison in Marion, Ohio that holds around 2,500 inmates, 1,828 detainees and 108 staff members have tested positive for the coronavirus.

Betsy Sweet, the progressive candidate for the Maine Senate seat occupied by Susan Collins, reminded her supporters yesterday that it was 4/20-- and a time to send a strong message on marijuana. "Early on," she wrote, "I fought hard to ensure that people had access to marijuana for medical reasons. It became increasingly clear that the war on drugs was really a war on the poor and communities of color. These are the people who are going to jail for possession and recreational use, filling up our prisons and creating a lifetime of negative consequences for them." She is certain that it's "time to legalize marijuana nationally. I believe all individuals incarcerated on marijuana charges should have their records expunged-- a crucial and necessary next step. We need to give these folks their lives back." The idea that being arrested for possessing some weed could be a death sentence, is horrifying.

CNN reported yesterday that "Prison and jail populations across the United States are becoming a breeding ground for the coronavirus, sickening thousands of inmates and detainees as well as the staff and employees that work in the facilities." Jail situations are even more shocking, since well-off detainees who haven't been convicted of anything can get out on bail while poor inmates are... condemned.

In Illinois, a fourth detainee of Cook County Jail died Sunday, a press release from the Sheriff's Office said.

To help fight the spread of the virus the jail released almost a fourth of its population. Of the roughly 10,000 detainees previously housed in Chicago's Cook County Jail only 4,200 remain in custody.

Part of the decrease can be attributed to bail reform, which cut the jail's initial population by almost half. But 1,300 more inmates were released in the last month.

"We want to make sure that we're creating conditions whereby people who don't need to be there aren't there and the people who are there have optimal conditions for their health and safety," Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx said.

...A total of 215 detainees in custody of the jail are currently positive, including 21 who are being treated at local hospitals, according to the release. It also said 180 have already recovered.

But detainees aren't the only ones infected. A total of 191 correctional officers have tested positive and 34 other Cook County Sheriff's employees have also tested positive for coronavirus, the release said.

Billionaires who have led lives of seriously anti-social criminality, of course, are the least likely of anyone to face any consequences, including being exposed to coronavirus. Bloomberg News' Olivia Carville reported that rich Americans are activating pandemic escape plans-- not from prison but from the rest of us. "As coronavirus infections tore across the U.S. in early March," she wrote, "a Silicon Valley executive called the survival shelter manufacturer Rising S Co. He wanted to know how to open the secret door to his multimillion-dollar bunker 11 feet underground in New Zealand. The tech chief had neve­r used the bunker and couldn’t remember how to unlock it, said Gary Lynch, general manager of Texas-based Rising S Co. 'He wanted to verify the combination for the door and was asking questions about the power and the hot water heater and whether he needed to take extra water or air filters,' Lynch said. The businessman runs a company in the Bay Area but lives in New York, which was fast becoming the world’s coronavirus epicenter. 'He went out to New Zealand to escape everything that’s happening,' Lynch said, declining to identify the bunker owner because he keeps his client lists private. 'And as far as I know, he’s still there.'" Too bad there are no one-way flights to the moon or Mars.

For years, New Zealand has featured prominently in the doomsday survival plans of wealthy Americans worried that, say, a killer germ might paralyze the world. Isolated at the edge of the earth, more than 1,000 miles off the southern coast of Australia, New Zealand is home to about 4.9 million people, about a fifth as many as the New York metro area. The clean, green, island nation is known for its natural beauty, laid-back politicians and premier health facilities.

In recent weeks, the country has been lauded for its response to the pandemic. It enforced a four-week lockdown early, and today has more recoveries than cases. Only 12 people have died from the disease. The U.S. death toll stands at more than 39,000 41,000, meaning that country’s death rate per capita is about 50 times higher.

The underground global shelter network Vivos already has installed a 300-person bunker in the South Island, just north of Christchurch, said Robert Vicino, the founder of the California-based company. He’s fielded two calls in the past week from prospective clients eager to build additional shelters on the island. In the U.S., two dozen families have moved into a 5,000-person Vivos shelter in South Dakota, he said, where they’re occupying a bunker on a former military base that’s about three-quarters the size of Manhattan. Vivos has also built an 80-person bunker in Indiana, and is developing a 1000-person shelter in Germany.

Rising S Co. has planted about 10 private bunkers in New Zealand over the past several years. The average cost is $3 million for a shelter weighing about 150 tons, but it can easily go as high as $8 million with additional features like luxury bathrooms, game rooms, shooting ranges, gyms, theaters and surgical beds.

Some Silicon Valley denizens have already made the move to New Zealand as the pandemic has escalated. On March 12, Mihai Dinulescu decided to pull the plug on the cryptocurrency startup he was launching to flee to the remote country. “My fear was it was now or never as I thought they might start closing borders,” said Dinulescu, 34. “I had this very gripping feeling that we needed to go.”

Dinulescu packed his bags and left his furniture, television, paintings and other belongings with friends. He bought the earliest plane ticket available and within 12 hours the Harvard University alum and his wife were on a 7 a.m. flight bound for Auckland. In San Francisco, “the entire international section of the airport was empty-- except for one flight to New Zealand,” Dinulescu said. “In a time when pretty much all planes were running on a third occupancy, this thing was booked solid.”

Four days later, New Zealand closed its borders to foreign travelers, which could thwart some refugee travel plans. Dinulescu said he has connected with about 10 people in New Zealand who made the jump before the shutdown, but “a lot of venture capital people I know were not afraid enough in time for the border close,” Dinulescu said. “And now they can’t get in.” After the shutdown was announced, however, local press reported a slight increase in private plane landings in the country.

Dinulescu is now working for Ao Air, a small startup that's designing an air filtration mask to rival the N95. Its co-founder, New Zealander Dan Bowden, said he’s fielded inquiries from about a dozen hopeful employees from the U.S. tech industry since the start of the pandemic, but that generally he’s wary of these requests.

"Some people are scared and reaching out just because they want a visa," Bowden said. One potential U.S.-based investor even asked if he would be eligible for New Zealand residency if he boosted his investment in the startup. Notably, New Zealand does offer an investor visa for about $6 million for three years.

The current travel restrictions complement another order, passed in August 2018, banning foreigners from buying Kiwi homes, partly in response to Americans gobbling up swaths of the country's prime real estate. That’s been a hurdle for New Zealand luxury real estate agent Graham Wall, who said that in recent weeks he’s gotten about half a dozen calls from wealthy Americans hoping to buy up properties on the island.

"They have all said it looks like the safest place to be is New Zealand right now,” he said. “That’s been a theory since before Covid-19.”

Over the years, the moneyed North Americans who have managed to wrangle properties there include hedge-fund pioneer Julian Robertson, Hollywood film director James Cameron and PayPal Holdings Inc. co-founder Peter Thiel, who has two estates in New Zealand, one of which features views of snow-capped mountains and has a safe room.

Though not in a mansion, Dinulescu has no plans to return to the Valley until the pandemic recedes. He is now holed up on Waiheke Island with his wife in a two-floor, three-bedroom house with ocean views for $2,400 a month—more than a third less than what they were paying for their two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco.

The couple chose Waiheke, with a population of about 9,000, for the proximity to its other elite residents. Dubbed “the Hamptons of New Zealand,” the island is home to epic cliff-top mansions and world-class wineries. Sir Graham Henry, former coach of the All Blacks rugby team, owns a home there, as does the packaging tycoon Graeme Hart.

“Frankly, we were billionaire hunting,” Dinulescu said. “We wanted to figure out where all the other Silicon Valley people would be.” So far, he said he hasn’t rubbed shoulders with any tech elite: “Everyone has been in self-isolation.”

Perrin Molloy, a local builder who has lived on the island since he was 11, described Waiheke as a “billionaire’s playground.” Molloy is often called to do repair jobs inside mega-mansions on the island, many of which are empty almost year-round. “These homes are designed to be a sanctuary for wealthy billionaires when they need to get away from what’s happening in the rest of the world,” he said.

On Waiheke, it’s common for builders to not know the identities of the homeowners they’re working for, Molloy said, and doomsday-related renovations are fairly routine. One of Molloy’s colleagues helped build a $12 million house in a private bay that had an “air tunnel” marked in the foundation plans that could easily fit four people walking shoulder-to-shoulder. “It was quite obviously an escape tunnel in the basement,” he said.

The virus is likely only to fuel the disaster preparedness industry in New Zealand and beyond. “Obviously the coronavirus is making people realize how vulnerable we all are, but what people are really concerned about is the aftermath,” said Vicino, the Vivos founder, who believes the wealthy fear an economic collapse or global depression could lead to uprisings against the top 1%. “They don't want to have to defend their homes when the gangs of looters or marauders show up.”

Sam Altman, former president of Silicon Valley startup incubator Y Combinator and chief executive officer of OpenAI, has helped boost New Zealand’s reputation as a respite, previously telling the New Yorker that in the event of a pandemic he planned to escape there with Thiel. However, in an interview last week he said, “It’s a very lovely place, but I don’t know anyone who has run away to New Zealand.” Some fellow entrepreneurs have headed up to Napa Valley, but Altman says he hasn’t heard of any peers escaping internationally because of the virus.

Instead, Altman is sheltering in place in his San Francisco apartment, he said. Currently, like so many others, he’s growing his facial hair and watching Tiger King on Netflix.

The actual Tiger King, Joe Exotic, is now on Trump's radar for a celebrity pardon. And the mini-series about his life, Tiger King is good-- although the just-released third season of Fauda is better-- but facial hair? Maybe not. "[B]eard wearers aren't totally in the clear. A hairy face can play host to germs. If you're sick, Adalja warns, a beard could trap debris from coughs and sneezes, potentially infecting other people in close contact. In a study published last year, researchers in Europe found that men's beards harbor more harmful bacteria than the fur on dogs' necks." And a beard makes a facial mask less effective.

Sinking of the U.S.S. Économie

Want To See The Last Of Susan Collins? Help Betsy Sweet Win Maine's Senate Primary June 9

Just as he's done in Colorado, North Carolina, Arizona, New Mexico, etc, Brooklyn's Chuck Schumer has decided to choose who Maine's U.S. Senate nominee for the Susan Collins seat will be. This is bad on enough the face, but Schumer almost always gets it wrong. He picks losers and Republicans win seats-- the way Marco Rubio did in Florida when he wrecked Alan Grayson's campaign. And when he does manage to come up with someone who can win, they always turn out to be the worst members of the Senate, like Kyrsten Sinema and Jackie Rosen. He's decided he wants establishment hack Sara Gideon as the Maine candidate, someone who shies away from anything that ever rocks the boat and opposes Medicare for All and the Green New Deal just at a time of an existential tipping point for the country. The word "bold" is like a curse word for Gideon who has tried to present herself as similar to Susan Collins as she can without being Susan Collins.

The alternative to Collins and Gideon is progressive Democrat Betsy Sweet, who has been endorsed by Blue America.

"News of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States," Betsy told us this week, "has not only dominated the American news cycle but it has also remained a pivotal worry in the minds of millions of Americans. Each day, the fear grows greater that these hardworking Americans will contract the virus, left with no safety net to heal without concern. Most vividly, the coronavirus is showing the holes in our systems of care. It showcases the vulnerability of working families and single moms like me who have high deductibles that far surpass the testing costs for COVID-19 as well as those who have no insurance at all. People without insurance are not going to be able to get the care they desperately need until it is too late. We have to do better."

The coronavirus outbreak in the United States," she continued, "highlights two things most prominently-- the need for paid family leave and paid sick leave. When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are actively advocating for Americans to stay home from their places of work, Americans need reassurance that their livelihoods aren’t threatened. Without paid family leave and paid sick leave, parents risk spreading the virus to their friends, their coworkers, their children. More so, we need a health care system that works for all Americans so that they have access to the care and treatment they need. By implementing Medicare for All, every single American would have access to the tests for COVID-19 without worrying about being unable to afford their rent and groceries."

We need representatives who recognize the urgency and gravity of the situation. What do we get instead? Trump refusing to acknowledge the reality of the rapid spread of coronavirus throughout the country. McConnell recessing Congress when a reasonable bill finally passes, Biden relying on private insurance companies to overcharge hardworking Americans and price gouge in a time of dire straits. Candidates like Sara Gideon, Schumer's candidate in Maine, who refuse to acknowledge that health care is a human right. Mainers deserve better. Americans deserve better.

Don't think for a moment that if Schumer pushes Gideon into the nomination, Collins would use all her shortcoming against her. Conservative outlet the Free Beacon, noted a couple of months ago that "Gideon is campaigning as a 'champion for the environment' but is also relying on oil executives to help finance her Senate run. Gideon, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, invited four millionaires from the oil industry to host her Jan. 10 fundraisers in Houston. These four Democratic megadonors already donated thousands of dollars to Gideon's campaign before the fundraiser. Gideon's state leadership PAC also collected thousands of dollars from fossil fuel companies, including from a firm that the PAC's treasurer lobbied for... Gideon's ties to the energy industry has not stopped her from attacking Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for receiving donations from the 'Texas fossil fuel industry.'"

Gideon started building ties with the fossil fuel industry during her time in the state house. Her leadership PAC, launched in May 2014, employed Jay Nutting, a lobbyist for Emera Energy, as its treasurer. Emera Energy would donate nearly $2,000 to Gideon's leadership PAC, according to filings with the Maine Ethics Commission. In total, the PAC has received $7,000 from oil and gas companies.

While Gideon touts environmentalist positions on the campaign trail, she has avoided supporting bills that undermine the fossil fuel industry in the state house. She abstained from voting for both the Green New Deal and a 2017 bill that prohibited banks from supporting the Dakota Access Pipeline. She also pushed a bill through the legislature that relaxed rules around oil storage sites, a major win for fossil fuel companies.

"The Maine Democrat has raised $7.6 million for her Senate campaign. The impressive war chest, however, has drawn attention not only from her primary opponents but campaign finance watchdog groups. The state's ethics watchdog unanimously voted to fine Gideon's PAC after it was revealed that she used illegal means to reimburse donations.

Gideon is seen as the favorite to win the Democratic primary, which is slated to take place in June 2020. She faces an uphill climb in the general election. She trailed Collins by 14 points in a poll conducted last June.

That leaves one clear path forwards-- Maine needs a Senator who not only recognizes that direct, immediate action is needed to counter the spread of COVID-19 but who also pushes forward bold ideas like paid family leave, paid sick leave, and Medicare for All that ensure that Americans can safely continue their lives and heal from coronavirus without astronomical medical bills. Betsy Sweet is that candidate. If we want candidates like Betsy to prevail, we need to help. We need to donate so that Betsy can push forward these bold progressive policies on a national stage. That's what the Blue America 2020 Senate thermometer is for. Please click on it and contribute what you can.

Moscow Mitch Completes A Cover-Up That Doesn't Really Cover Up Much At All

Though the House impeachment managers proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Trump was guilty on both counts he was charged, the Senate voted 52-48 to cover up those crimes, let alone the others he wasn't even charged with. Mitt Romney was the only Republican with the guts to vote his conscience and for the best interests of the country. The Washington Post noted that he said his decision to vote to convict Trumpy-the-Clown was "the hardest decision" he has ever faced. Listening to his speech the Senate floor, above, doesn't sound like it was really that hard of a decision. The decision was only hard for faithless politicians worried about Trump's penchant for revenge. I want to add that very real courage was demonstrated yesterday by Doug Jones, who is up for reelection in November... in Alabama. He has told friends that he had no choice but to follow his conscience without taking partisan politics into account. David Perdue (R-GA) did exactly the opposite, as former Columbus mayor Teresa Tomlinson explained right after the vote: "The evidence was clear-- overwhelming, in fact, as Lamar Alexander admitted. When David Perdue voted today to acquit the president he made an impermissible political decision in a constitutional matter."

Every progressive Democrat running for Senate should do a similar meme

So why did Romney vote to convict, while Moscow Mitch lead the rest of the traitorous Republicans to pretend Trump wasn't guilty or that his crimes weren't serious enough? "My faith," said Romney, "is at the heart of whom I am. I am profoundly religious," subtly contrasting himself with the irreligious and satanic Trump. It looks like he had to prevent himself from crying at that point. He reminded his colleagues that "the verdictis ours to render under our Constitution. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we do our duty." Imagine Trump enablers up for reelection in November-- Cory Gardner, Joni Ernst, Susan Collins, Martha McSally, Thom Tillis, David Perdue, John Cornyn, Dan Sullivan for example-- squirming in their seats, figuratively if not literally. I asked Andrew Romanoff, the progressive Democrat taking on Cory Gardner-- and having to fight off the status quo instincts of Schumer at the same time-- and he told me that "6 years ago, Cory Gardner promised to be a 'new kind' of politicians. Today, he proved again: that line was as old-- and as hollow-- as they come. Gardner ignored his constitutional duty, blocked evidence and acquitted a President who boasted about breaking the law. It’s time for both to go." Susan Collins' progressive opponent, Betsy Sweet was just as critical of Collins: "Senator Collins 'disappointed' but voting to acquit. She said on national tv that she thought he had learned some lessons from this. But Trump, when asked, said he didn’t learn anything because he had done nothing wrong. The real question is, have we learned our lesson-- which is that Collins will always vote with McConnell when he wants her to. She will always put party above democracy. Something I will never do as Maine’s next Senator."

Romney made it clear it was anything but a "perfect call"-- for anyone but Trump and Putin-- and immediately after he was done speaking, the White House announced that reporters were no longer invited into the Oval Office for a scheduled 2:15 pm opportunity to hear Trump boasting. Reporters were already lined up on the South Lawn ready to go in when Trump demanded the whole thing be cancelled. Romney said Trump "is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust. What he did was not perfect; no, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine."

Coverup by Nancy Ohanian

How many of the 60,933,504 votes that Romney got were from Republicans who don't give a damn about anything he said yesterday? Romney won 24 states and, with the possible exception of Arizona and Utah, I'd bet that at least 80% of Republicans in them are wishing Romney ill. Why does Trump give a damn? He had planned to say the impeachment was a partisan hoax with no Republican support. Couldn't do that. He also feels betrayed by Romney, who he endorsed when he ran for the Senate, not that Romney sought or needed his endorsement. And now the news was as much about Romney's courageous vote as about Trump's "exoneration."

Kentucky state Rep, Charles Booker, one of the Democrats competing to take on Moscow Mitch in November, said that he had been clear from the beginning of this impeachment trial, "that Donald Trump should be convicted and removed. In contrast, Mitch McConnell began this process by touting his partiality. All of the aspects of this trial that brought shame upon our country, including blocking witnesses and evidence, can all be traced back to one person: Mitch McConnell. He sold out Kentuckians on a false hope that it will help him stay in power. Whether you believe Donald Trump should be removed or acquitted, we can all agree that Mitch McConnell did a disservice to all Americans by making a mockery of our democracy for the whole world to watch."

Pelosi's official statement:

Today, the President and Senate Republicans have normalized lawlessness and rejected the system of checks and balances of our Constitution. Our Founders put safeguards in the Constitution to protect against a rogue president. They never imagined that they would at the same time have a rogue leader in the Senate who would cowardly abandon his duty to uphold the Constitution.

President Trump was impeached with the support of a majority of the American people-- a first in our nation’s history. And now he is the first President in history to face a bipartisan vote to convict him in the Senate. A full 75 percent of Americans and many members of the GOP Senate believe the President’s behavior is wrong. But the Senate chose instead to ignore the facts, the will of the American people and their duty to the Constitution.

The President will boast that he has been acquitted. There can be no acquittal without a trial, and there is no trial without witnesses, documents and evidence. By suppressing the evidence and rejecting the most basic elements of a fair judicial process, the Republican Senate made themselves willing accomplices to the President’s cover-up.

Even without additional witnesses and documents in the Senate trial, our House Managers laid out an overwhelming, compelling and incriminating case about President Trump’s scheme to corrupt the 2020 elections and proved his guilt. The President’s legal team could not and did not refute the facts of the case. Instead, they argued that the American people have no right to stop the President from using the power of his office to cheat in our elections. They argued that if the President thinks that his re-election is good for the country, he can use any means necessary to win, with no accountability or consequences.

In December, the House defended democracy by passing two articles of impeachment to hold the President accountable for abusing his office for his own personal, political gain at the expense of our national security and the integrity of our elections. The President has been impeached forever.

Sadly, because of the Republican Senate’s betrayal of the Constitution, the President remains an ongoing threat to American democracy, with his insistence that he is above the law and that he can corrupt the elections if he wants to.  The House will continue to protect and defend the checks and balances in the Constitution that safeguard our Republic, both in the courts of law and in the court of public opinion. Democrats will continue to defend our democracy For The People.

State of the Union-- Nancy Pelosi by Nancy Ohanian

7 Republican Senators In Big Trouble Over Healthcare

A few hours after the House voted to impeach Trump on Wednesday, The Atlantic published a piece by Trump critic George Conway, Donald Trump Made His Own Impeachment Inevitable, asserting that Trump's "narcissism renders him unable to comply with his duties to the nation... In essence, Trump thinks everything should be about him, for him, for his benefit and glorification-- and he can’t comprehend, and doesn’t care about, anything that isn’t... [S]enators-- especially the Republicans-- will face a choice that they should understand goes far beyond politics. They must choose whether to follow the facts, or to follow their fears; to uphold propriety, or to perpetuate partisanship; to champion the truth, or to legitimate lies; to defend the interests of the nation and its Constitution, or the personal interests of one vainglorious man. In short, whether to comply with their solemn oaths, or not. Should they choose to violate their oaths, history will long remember them for having done so-- not simply because of the insurmountable evidence of what Trump has already done, but also because Trump, by his nature, will assuredly do it all again." But Trump's impeachment isn't the only issue Republican senators seeking reelection have to figure out how to deal with.

Intense national polling from the last half of November, shows that healthcare is still the #1 issue for American voters. (Remember how badly that worked out for the GOP in 2018.) Asked how various issues were, health care came out way ahead for most American voters. For each issue, the first number represents what percentage of voters said it was important to them in deciding for whom to vote and the second number represents the voters who said it wasn't:

• Healthcare- 88% to 11%
• Economy and Jobs- 87% to 13%
• National Security- 85% to 13%
• Taxes- 81% to 18%
• Immigration- 80% to 19%
• Criminal Justice- 75% to 22%
• Foreign Policy- 73% to 24%
• Environment- 72% to 27%
• Federal Deficit- 71% to 25%
• K-12 Education- 68% to 30%
• Income Inequality- 68% to 31%
• Race Relations- 66% to 31%
• Supreme Court Appointments- 65% to 31%
• China Trade Policy- 65% to 31%
• Climate Change- 65% to 34%
• Religious Freedom- 60% to 37%
• College Affordability- 60% to 39%

When asked if it would be a "deal breaker" if a candidate held a different view on any of these issues, healthcare was again the most important. These are the most intense wedge issues:

• Health Care- 86%
• Immigration- 82%
• Economic/Tax Policy- 81%
• Abortion- 78%
• Gun Control- 77%
• Foreign Policy- 72%
• Religious Freedom- 70%
• Climate Change- 68%
• Supreme Court appointments- 67%
• Same Sex Marriage- 67%
• Death Penalty- 63%
• Transgender Rights- 62%

And when asked if they support "Medicare for All, which is a system where all Americans, not just older ones, get health insurance through the government’s Medicare system?" 62% said yes and 32% said no.

The reason I'm bringing this up today is because on Wednesday, as Trump was being impeached and Conway was writing about it, a Federal Appeals Court in Texas, responding to a suit by the Trumpist Regime and the state of Texas, decided that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional and has ordered lower courts to examine whether the entire law is unconstitutional, almost certainly setting up another Supreme Court case right in the middle of the 2020 elections. Also possibly setting up the loss of healthcare coverage for millions of Americans. And what about the incredibly, universally popular parts of the law like the one prohibiting predatory insurance companies to deny affordable coverage to people-- virtually everyone over 50-- with a pre-existing condition?

"There's no mystery who is to blame for this grave threat to Americans' health care," said Josh Dorner, a progressive communications expert who has worked on ACA-related litigation for a decade. "Trump and the conservatives who brought this lawsuit in the first place," he asserted and then went on to explain that while all this was going on, Republicans in Congress have consistently voted against measures meant to stop the Trump administration’s participation in the lawsuit and to protect Americans from its disastrous consequences. This decision will send the entire health care system into a meltdown, leading to chaos for the tens of millions of Americans who will directly lose coverage, possibly overnight, as well as everyone else who will lose vital protections for preexisting conditions and other benefits and protections enshrined into law by the ACA. In order to obscure the catastrophic political and human consequences of striking down the law, the 5th Circuit conservatives are playing a game of hot potato with this sham remand. Pushing the fate of this lawsuit past the 2020 election will only increase and prolong the damaging uncertainty about the future of the ACA and Americans' health care. Destroying the entire ACA would have widespread, immediate, and devastating consequences, including: 

o    Marketplace tax credits and coverage for ~10 million people: GONE.
o    Medicaid expansion currently covering ~17 million people: GONE.
o    Protections for 133 million people with pre-existing conditions when they buy coverage on their own: GONE.
o    Allowing kids to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26: GONE.
o    Ban on annual and lifetime limits: GONE.
o    Ban on insurance discrimination against women: GONE.
o    Limit on out-of-pocket costs: GONE.
o    Improvements to Medicare, including reduced costs for prescription drugs: GONE.
o    Essential Health Benefits: GONE.
o    Required improvements to employer-sponsored coverage: GONE.
o    Rules to hold insurance companies accountable: GONE.
o    Small business tax credits: GONE.

So what are vulnerable Republican senators saying about all this? Take the seven Republicans reference above:

• Senator McSally (AZ): “That’s their decision” and “it’s not my role” to oppose the lawsuit.
• Senator Gardner (CO) initially dodged before endorsing the GOP’s argument that the health care law is unconstitutional.
• Senator Perdue (GA) said all along that he “of course” wanted the lawsuit to succeed.
• Senator Ernst (IA): “Um, I am not going to make a determination on that, I am not an attorney.”




• Senator Collins (ME) helped pass the reckless tax giveaway that laid the foundation for her party’s dangerous lawsuit and when asked about her vote, Collins said, “Let me be clear I… would support it again today.”
• Senator Tillis (NC) at first “did not give a firm position” but later embraced the lawsuit and explained: “I support anything that ultimately takes [the ACA] off the table.”
• Senator Cornyn (TX): “I support having the courts make the decision.” 

This morning, the Urban Institute Health Policy Center released a report on the implications of Trump's successful judicial strategy to destroy of Obamacare. It is clear that it's mostly residents of swing states and red states that will suffer the most from the Trumpist jihad against healthcare. Among the states where uninsured rates will shoot up by more than 100% are not just Trumpist bastions like West Virginia, Louisiana and Kentucky, but swing states that are already turning away from Trump, particularly Iowa, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Ohio, Montana and Alaska. Maine would be hit harder than almost any other state, and although the state is not likely to vote for Trump anyway, Susan Collins is already in trouble in her reelection bid. This could also be the death knell for unpopular Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan.

Teresa Tomlinson is a progressive running for a Georgia Senate seat occupied by a rabid Trumpets who would abolish Medicare altogeher if he could. Teresa and he are as opposite as political leaders could be. "Healthcare," said Tomlinson, "is an economic necessity and moral imperative. I support universal healthcare and will work to make it a reality. David Perdue, Donald Trump and the judges they appoint, are determined to destroy the ACA and leave millions uninsured. Their efforts are irresponsible beyond imagination."

The progressive in the Colorado Senate race, Andrew Romanoff, understands exactly how to fix the problem-- and he's campaigning on it. This is what he told us this morning: "Cory Gardner and the GOP have spent nearly a decade attempting to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with nothing at all. Their hollow promises would subject Americans to discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions and strip coverage from millions more. We can do better. Let’s stand up to the insurance industry and the drug companies, take a lesson from the rest of the industrialized world, and enact a system of Medicare of All." Agree? Manifest that agreement here.

You can use that same link to contribute to Betsy Sweet's campaign. She's the progressive in the Maine Senate race seeking to replace PAC-backed Susan Collins. And, like Andrew, Betsy is a strong Medicare-for-All backer. "The healthcare system in this country," she explained today, "is working as it was designed. It’s not broken. It’s 'fixed' in such a way that our health is the least of industry’s concerns. It is designed to generate profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Medicare-for-All is not a pie-in-the-sky idea. It is simply transforming our current healthcare system-- one that we are all currently paying for in multiple ways-- into one where no one has to decide between paying rent and seeing a doctor."

Most Americans Want Drug Prices Lowered-- But The Republicans Just Will Not Permit It

Bernie has been advocating cutting prescription drug prices in half for decades. His Medicare-for-All proposal would do that. Ge wrote in his plan that "to lower the prices of prescription drugs now, we need to:

• Allow Medicare to negotiate with the big drug companies to lower prescription drug prices with the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act.
• Allow patients, pharmacists, and wholesalers to buy low-cost prescription drugs from Canada and other industrialized countries with the Affordable and Safe Prescription Drug Importation Act.
• Cut prescription drug prices in half, with the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act, by pegging prices to the median drug price in five major countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan.

Earlier this year, Bernie (+ Ro Khanna in the House) introduced the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act> Bernie: "The United States pays, by far, the highest drug prices in the world for one reason: we let drug companies get away with murder. In 2017, the pharmaceutical industry made more than twice as much money in the U.S.-- $453 billion-- than in all European countries combined. The top five drug companies alone made over $50 billion, while the top five American pharmaceutical CEOs made more than $113 million in compensation. This legislation would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure that Americans don’t pay more for prescription drugs than the median price of the following five countries: Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. If pharmaceutical manufacturers refuse to lower drug prices down to the median price of these five countries, the federal government would be required to approve cheaper generic versions of those drugs, regardless of any patents or market exclusivities that are in place. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, if this legislation were to become law, the prices of most brand name drugs would be cut in half. For example, under this bill:

• Premarin, for menopause, which currently costs about $165 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $83.

• Januvia, for diabetes, which currently costs about $436 for 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $218.

• Advair Diskus, for asthma and COPD, which currently costs about $390 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $195.

• Xarelto, for blood clots, which currently costs about $432 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $216.

• Lantus, which is insulin for diabetes and currently costs about $387 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $194.

• Humira, for arthritis, which currently costs about $2,770 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $1,385.

• Enbrel, for arthritis, which currently costs about $4,941 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $2,471.

• Ventolin, for asthma, which currently costs about $60 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $30.

• Xtandi, for cancer, which currently costs about $101 for a 30-day supply in the U.S., could cost $51. 


Bernie added that "Although President Trump recently proposed gradually lowering the prices of certain drugs covered by Medicare Part B to international price levels, his proposal does not help the over 150 million Americans who get private health insurance from their employer, many of whom struggle with high deductibles and copayments, or the more than 30 million Americans who are uninsured and must pay the full cash price of their prescription drugs at the pharmacy. Today, a full 80 percent of Americans say that drug prices are unreasonable and just nine percent think that drug companies put patients over profits. The pharmaceutical industry will continue to rip off American patients as long as it can. The Prescription Drug Price Relief Act puts an end to this highway robbery, and will help save lives and reduce premiums by lowering drug prices."

On Wednesday, the Trump Regime proposed a rule-- the "Safe Import Action Plan"-- that will allow states to import medicine from Canada. Trump and his Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, say this will lower the cost of drugs. But will it actually lower the cost of drugs?

Jim Greenwood, current head of biotech industry group BIO and a former Republican congressman, said that importation would not result in lower prices for consumers, citing nonpartisan budget experts and past FDA commissioners.

“Today’s announcement is the latest empty gesture from our elected lawmakers who want us to believe they’re serious about lowering patients’ prescription drug costs,” Greenwood said.

The Canadian government has also criticized the plan. The country’s ambassador said last month that importing medicines from Canada would not significantly lower U.S. prices. Reuters previously reported that Canada had warned U.S. officials it would oppose any import plan that might threaten the Canadian drug supply or raise costs for Canadians.

Drugs approved to be imported from Canada would exclude many prescribed drugs, such as biologic drugs, including insulin, controlled substances and intravenous drugs.

Trump, a Republican, has struggled to deliver on a pledge to lower drug prices before the November 2020 election. Healthcare costs are expected to be a major focus of the campaign by Trump and Democratic rivals vying to run against him.

The Trump administration in July scrapped an ambitious policy that would have required health insurers to pass billions of dollars in rebates they receive from drugmakers to Medicare patients.

Also in July, a federal judge struck down a Trump administration rule that would have forced pharmaceutical companies to include the wholesale prices of their drugs in television advertising.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are putting forth drug pricing bills that contain some of the proposals Trump has advocated, such as indexing public drug reimbursements to foreign drug costs.

But Trump has said he will veto the Democrat-led House bill if it comes to his desk on the grounds that it would slow down innovation.

And, so far, McConnell has refused to allow any bills to actually lower the cost of drugs to even come to the floor of the Senate for a debate. McConnell has even refused to allow a modest bill written by Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley and approved by the Senate Finance Committee, on which Grassley is the chair.

I asked some of the progressive Democrats for their own perspectives on how best to lower the cost of medicine. Cristina Ramirez, the most-- and only viable-- progressive in the Democratic primary to win the nomination in Texas to face anti-healthcare fanatic John Cornyn, was the first to reply. "I know," she said, "that the high cost of prescription drugs are hurting American families-- particularly ones with chronic illnesses, like my own mother, who has diabetes and has had to split her pills because they are so expensive. John Cornyn has repeatedly said that he wants to address the cost of prescription drugs, yet when he has introduced legislation, he has always been willing to change it if the drug industry, which has given him over $900,000 in campaign contributions, asks him to. I will listen to the people, not drug companies, when it comes to lowering prescription drug costs. I will advocate for a Medicare-for-All system that lets people who are sick go to the doctor and get the medicine they need without having to worry about the cost, and I will make sure the government holds Pharma companies accountable to lower drug prices overall in the long term."

Betsy Sweet is the progressive taking on Maine's Susan Collins. "First," she said, "I stand with Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna and will fight for Medicare For All and the Prescription Drug Price Relief Act because these are our best hope at delivering quality health care to all Americans. Second, we have to look more closely at intellectual property law, right now, the government has provided over 1 trillion dollars to the research and development of life-saving medicines, yet allow private industries to control the intellectual property and reap record profits. We need to reevaluate this system to ensure that everyone benefits from the research we fund collectively. Third, we need to get big money out of politics to stop big pharma from legally bribing politicians to rig the rules in their favor."

Trump Promised Lower Drug Prices... But He Has Moscow Mitch Blocking Both Democratic And Republican Bills That Would Do That. Why Is He Such A Dick?

I was on the phone a few minutes ago, talking with a super-progressive running for a congressional seat in central Texas and she brought up Lloyd Doggett, chair of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, and more progressive than anyone else in the Texas congressional delegation. Some people consider his bill, the Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act of 2019 (H.R.1046) too radical; it would help too many working families and infuriate too many Big PhRMA executives, lobbyists and donors. Doggett's bill "requires the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies regarding prices for drugs covered under the Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Current law prohibits the CMS from doing so.) The CMS must take certain factors into account during negotiations, including the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the drug, the financial burden on patients, and unmet patient needs. If the CMS is unable to negotiate the price of a drug, such drug is subject to competitive licensing in order to further its sale under Medicare, notwithstanding existing government-granted exclusivities. Additionally, for one year after a drug is provided under a competitive license, such drug is also subject to specified price limitations; if the drug is not offered at such prices, the drug is subject to additional licensing that furthers its sale under any federal program (e.g., Medicaid)." Doggett has 127 co-sponsors, all Democrats.

The bill was too much for Pelosi and Hoyer and it remains bottled up in Frank Pallone's Energy and Commerce Committee, where Pallone will make sure it never sees the light of day. Instead, Pelosi passed a meh bill-- better than nothing but not nearly as good as Doggett's bill.

But even that bill, that passed the House with bipartisan support-- and a nod from Trump-- is being prevented from getting a debate, let alone a vote, by Moscow Mitch in the most dysfunctional Senate in American history. Marianne Levine and Sarah Karlin-Smith reported on the morass the struggle to lower the cost of drugs is experiencing in the GOP-controlled Senate for Politico over the weekend.

An even less helpful bill was approved by the Senate Finance Committee (19-9) but the Finance Committee chair who's sponsoring it, Chuck Grassley (R-IA), says McConnell won't even let that one come to the floor. He said Trump-- who is probably just pretending to want to lower drug prices-- would have to lean on Moscow Mitch and tell him to put it up for a floor vote. There's no question that it would pass, but Trump doesn't really want it to pass, as long as he doesn't get the blame for it not passing.

The standstill-- even on an issue that has bipartisan backing and the support of a fickle president-- reflects the unceasing gridlock of today’s Senate and how difficult it is to move any major legislation through the upper chamber.

With Democrats in control of the House, the GOP-controlled Senate has shifted virtually its entire focus to confirming Trump’s judicial nominees where bipartisan votes aren’t needed. And heading into an election year, McConnell is loath to bring up issues that divide his caucus or risk alienating powerful industry groups. Legislative activity will only decline further if and when the Senate holds an impeachment trial that will further polarize the Capitol.

“I’ve said to people here, if you’ve been here four years or less you’ve never seen the Senate,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) “And you would have loved it. It was an interesting place. We had bills, and amendments ... we did big things.”

Senate Republicans have unsurprisingly ignored a raft of liberal measures passed by the Democratic House, including bills to curb gun violence or overhaul election laws. But even ostensibly less controversial legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act or strengthen retirement security have also run aground amid partisan bickering.

The only measures regularly moving are must-pass bills to avoid a shutdown, and lawmakers are still struggling to reach a long-term deal to fund the government.

McConnell has made no secret that stacking the judiciary with conservatives is a top priority. But he also argues that the Senate could do more if the House wasn’t stalling on matters like the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement or the annual defense policy bill.

“If [Democrats] are going to keep plowing ahead with their impeachment obsession, they cannot abdicate their basic governing responsibilities at the same time,” McConnell said recently.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing her own legislation to curb the cost of prescription drugs, but McConnell has said it has no chance in the Senate.

Most Republicans have long opposed federal intervention when it comes to the cost of prescription drugs, but public support for action as well as Trump’s embrace of the issue may be shifting the party’s stance.

The GOP leader said in September that the Senate’s next steps on prescription drugs were “under discussion” and that the chamber is “looking at doing something on drug pricing.” Still, McConnell has demonstrated little interest in taking up Grassley’s bill, which would cap seniors’ out of pocket costs on drugs in Medicare and penalize companies that levy large price increases, among dozens of other measures aimed at lowering spending on medication.

That’s despite Trump saying he likes Grassley’s bill “very much” and top White House aides throwing their support behind the legislation.

Health industry sources closely tracking the Senate proposal, say McConnell’s office is not making an effort to help the White House get his members on board.

Asked whether McConnell would bring the bill to the floor, one Republican senator said, “I can’t imagine... It’s like Grassley, and a couple of Republicans and all the Democrats on the committee.”

Grassley has acknowledged that any action on his bill is likely slip into 2020 and that the measure currently doesn’t have enough support to pass in the Senate.

Grassley and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), the bill’s coauthor and the Finance Committee’s ranking member, are trying to make changes to the bill to garner more Republican backing.

“This bill may not have 60 votes today, but when Republicans wake up to the fact that 22 of them are up for reelection and in every state it’s an issue ... they are going to soon realize that this is the road to do something responsible,” Grassley said at an event late last month . “But we’re not there yet.”

Since the legislation advanced out of the Senate Finance Committee in July, administration officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Joe Grogan, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, have been on the Hill pushing the bipartisan bill with little to show for it.

The measure was approved by the panel on a 19-9 vote, with six Republicans joining all Democrats and nine Republicans opposed. A chairman advancing a bill through committee over the opposition of most in his party is an unusual event, but the fact underscores Grassley’s commitment to moving ahead.

GOP senators who voted against the bill largely cited a proposed change to Medicare’s prescription drug benefit that they say is akin to implementing government price controls; it would impose financial penalties on companies that raise prices faster than inflation.

Grassley has said provision is necessary to keep Democrats on board with the bill. But even some of the Republicans who voted for it in committee have indicated they might not support final passage on the floor if that language remains.

Another large health policy package with bipartisan support has also faced headwinds.

The Senate HELP Committee approved a bill this summer that would aim to prevent surprise medical bills, raise the legal age to buy tobacco to 21-- a priority of McConnell’s-- and increase competition in the drug industry. While the White House hasn’t backed the package explicitly, Grogan penned an op-ed this past Wednesday calling on lawmakers to “come back to Washington in December ready to vote to protect patients from surprise medical bills.”

Momentum on the legislation stalled after pushback from doctors and dark money groups over how to resolve “surprise” bill disputes between insurance companies and health care providers. Senate GOP leadership hasn’t given any assurances it would bring the measure to the floor, though one Senate Republican aide said it could become part of an end-of-year spending package.

“I hope we can come up with a consensus document the leaders could attach to any piece of legislation they want to attach it to,” HELP Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-TN) told reporters recently. “I think sooner or later people are going to say, ‘We’d like to do more than confirm judges and talk about impeachment.’”

Indeed, the Senate has not been doing much legislating these days. Republicans have instead prioritized the confirmation of judicial and executive branch nominees, even changing Senate rules to speed up the process. So far this Congress, the Senate has held 268 votes on nominations, compared to 98 votes on legislation.

The House has sent more than 300 bills over to the Senate, and Democrats are quick to point out that many of them have Republican support.

I spoke about this drug pricing issue with the two most progressive Senate candidates running for Republican-held seats this cycle, Betsy Sweet in Maine and Andrew Romanoff in Colorado. Andrew, the former speak of the Colorado House, is in a tough election race with two conservatives, John Hickenlooper, the establishment Democrat in the primary, and Trumpist Cory Gardner in the general. Health care-- he's a Medicare-for-All proponent-- is one of the top issues motivating his campaign. He told me that "The high cost of health care is driving more than half a million Americans into bankruptcy each year-- and 35,000 to an early grave. We need senators who will stand up to the drugmakers and the insurance companies, not do their bidding. But that won’t happen until we put an end to the corrupting influence of corporate cash and elect lawmakers who no longer owe their seats to the industries they’re supposed to be regulating."

Betsy Sweet has a similar situation. Chuck Schumer picked an easy to manipulate, middle of the road candidate in Maine, just the way he did in Colorado. "Apparently," Betsy told, "the political money from big PhRMA is more important to Mitch McConnell and his Senators than the bankruptcies  and lack of medical care millions are experiencing from unaffordable prescription drugs. Medicare for All and universal coverage the ultimate answer. The bills being held up are steps in the right direction. Inaction is unacceptable. Senator Susan Collins ought to be demanding publicly that McConnell take action on this."