If We Had An Actual Democracy, Trump Would Be Repealed And Replaced In A Week... Just Based On His Healthcare Madness!

If your daddy was a crooked multimillionaire who left you a bundle, healthcare isn't that complicated... at least for yourself. You just go to the doctor-- even a silly one-- and you write a check. If an incompetent and ignorant son of a crooked multimillionaire hoodwinks enough people to get elected president, healthcare gets more complicated. Who knew?

All that nonsensical babble about the best healthcare, more for less and guarantees to not touch Medicare or Medicaid... all pure hot air to sucker low-info, desperate voters. And it worked. Trump acquiesced to GOP predators Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Mike Pence come up with "his" plan? What could go wrong. Well, only 12% of Americans like what they've come up with for starters. The new Senate version, TrumpCare 3.0, is a bust. McConnell couldn't cobble together the 50 votes he needed to pass it. So far, it doesn't look like he was able to cobble together even 40 votes. So Trump seems to have bought into the Rand Paul-Ben Sasse plan-- just repeal the Affordable Care Act, kick 32 million Americans off healthcare and come up with "something" at some point in the future... somehow. That plan won't even get 12%.

Señor Trumpanzee, wrote Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear for the NY Times "gave his blessing in a Twitter post after a Republican dissatisfied with the current repeal bill, Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, floated it as a backup plan. Mr. Sasse sent a letter to the president and made a pitch on Fox News on Friday as an agreement on a new version of the Senate’s repeal bill remained elusive." Rand Paul, the Koch Brothers and other predatory Republicans who are eager to thin out the herd, have been for this all along and they applauded the meeting of the tiny minds, "presenting a new headache to Senate leaders who are trying to focus their conservative and moderate troops on finding a compromise. Republican leaders in Congress had embraced the repeal-now-replace-later mantra in January, envisioning legislation that would end the Affordable Care Act in several years as they work on a replacement. But that plan was blown up quickly when Mr. Trump publicly demanded a replacement be adopted simultaneously. Since then, the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan have meticulously set up a timeline using special Senate rules to fulfill Mr. Trump’s repeal-and-replace wishes."

But Señor Trumpanzee has changed his drug-addled mind again. The radical right Republicans seem to have freaked out this week when more mainstream GOPers "veered away from their original approach and said they were discussing whether to keep a tax imposed by the Affordable Care Act on the investment income of the most affluent Americans. The revenue could be used to increase insurance subsidies for lower-income people." To the far right, that would mean war.

In his letter to the president, Mr. Sasse said that if a deal on a revised health care bill had not been struck by the time the Senate returns from its Fourth of July recess on July 10, Mr. Trump should call on Congress to “immediately repeal as much of Obamacare as is possible” under the rules that must be followed to avoid a filibuster, with a one-year delay on the repeal bill’s implementation.

Then, he said, lawmakers should get to work on replacing the health law, and should scrap their planned August recess.

“On the current path, it looks like Republicans will either fail to pass any meaningful bill at all, or will instead pass a bill that attempts to prop up much of the crumbling Obamacare structures,” Mr. Sasse wrote. “We can and must do better than either of these-- both because the American people deserve better, and because we promised better.”

...Subsidies in the Senate bill were already beginning to look like those in the Affordable Care Act, which are tied to a person’s income and local insurance costs. However, the Senate subsidies are less generous than those under current law.

The repeal bills written by House and Senate Republicans would both provide tens of billions of dollars in assistance to health insurance companies to help stabilize insurance markets and hold down premiums. Many of the same Republicans attacked such payments, when made by the Obama administration, as a bailout for the insurance industry.

But as senators tried to come to an agreement, Mr. Trump effectively tossed in a distraction that may not be possible anyway. This winter, Congress passed a budget resolution for the current fiscal year that included special parliamentary language that allows passage of one health care bill without the possibility of a filibuster in the Senate. If senators use that language to repeal the Affordable Care Act without a replacement, Congress would have to go through the entire process again, with another budget, another set of instructions and now a bill to replace the Affordable Care Act.

But the parliamentary language-- known as reconciliation instructions-- in the next budget was supposed to ease passage of an overhaul of the tax code, not health care.

Besides, a clean repeal of the Affordable Care Act with no replacement could have even more trouble clearing the Senate than the current effort.

Mr. Trump’s foray on Twitter only underscored to some Republicans how inconsistent he has been as a partner. In May, he cheered passage of a House plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, only to later denounce the House bill as “mean.”

Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans have also vacillated over how to sequence the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act.

In December, House Republican leaders outlined an extended timetable to repeal now, replace later, only to watch Mr. Trump reject that in January as unacceptable.

“It’ll be repeal and replace,” Mr. Trump said. “It will be essentially simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably, the same day, could be the same hour.”

Trump is certainly confused about government's role in healthcare. North Carolina congressional candidate Matt Coffay definitely isn't. He's a dedicated single-payer advocate and it's part of the platform he's running on-- against anti-healthcare fanatic Mark Meadows. Last night Matt told us that "Meadows is largely responsible for the provisions in the House health care bill that will allow insurance companies to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions. He pushed for a massive Medicaid cut. He's responsible for the 23 million people who will lose health care coverage, including more than 100,000 people here in our district alone. He falsely believes that this trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy will somehow lead to better health care. Well, he's wrong. My position is simple: we need to ensure that every single person in this country has access to quality health care. We need Medicare for All. When I'm in Congress, one of my first acts will be to co-sponsor HR 676, the House Medicare for All bill. It's long past time we joined every other developed country on the planet and created a universal health care system." You can support Matt's campaign by tapping on the Blue America thermometer on the right.

Two Dozen Democrats Join The House Republican Xenophobia Caucus

Yesterday, Bob Goodlatte's racist, xenophobic, Trumpist Kate's Law (H.R. 3004) passed the House. It should have been called O'Reilly's Law, since it was all his idea. In fact, the House passed two Trumpist garbage bills yesterday-- Kate's Law and Goodlatte's No Sanctuary for Criminals Act (H.R. 3003).

The House passed two bills Thursday to boost President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown.

The bills-- "Kate’s Law" and the "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act"-- would up the penalties on undocumented immigrants who attempt to reenter the country illegally after being deported for crimes and slash funds from cities that protect them.

Kate's Law passed 257-167, largely along party lines, in the GOP-controlled House. Trump, who made immigration a key focus during the campaign and in his administration, celebrated its passage.

Well, not entirely. 24 Democrats-- mostly from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- voted with the GOP. Hoyer granted them dispensation to "vote their consciences." In theory, the Democrats whipped against the bill, but Hoyer made it clear he didn't really care if they crossed the aisle or not. He explained that "the public’s perception of allowing people to come back in, commit crimes and not have a more serious sentence [could harm vulnerable Democrats]. You talk to the families who have been adversely affected by that, it is a wrenching experience. Members believe that that’s pretty serious business, [and] I agree with that."

Among the Democrats voting no were a dozen of the most conservative, Republican-oriented members of the caucus, all of whom have "F" ratings from ProgressivePunch:

• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Charlie Crist (Blue Dog-FL)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Val Demings (New Dem-FL)
• Josh Gottheimer (Blue Dog-NJ)
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI)
• Anne Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Stephanie Murphy (Blue Dog-FL)
• Tom O'Halleran (Blue Dog-AZ)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

Republicans tried passing the bill in 2016 and it was killed in the Senate, something that will probably happen again this year.

Many Democrats panned the legislation, calling it anti-immigrant and saying it would stoke fear.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), called the measure "callous and irrational."

Others said it could target legal immigrants.

Just two of the Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP on this have serious primary challenges this cycle, Kyrsten Sinema and Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski. Marie Newman, the progressive opposing Lipinski, was disappointed, but not really surprised by Lipinski's vote. "This is another clear indication Congressman Lipinski is in lockstep with President Trump on immigration and his xenophobic views," she told us after the vote. "I am beyond disappointed with Mr. Lipinski’s anti-immigrant views. Mr. Lipinski views are wrong and are not consistent with progressive Democratic values. This legislation is very simply a way to demonize immigrants. Mr. Lipinski is deeply wrong and I will fight this type of stereotyping and discrimination tirelessly if I am elected. This is not just unacceptable, it is anti-American." If you agree with her, please consider contributing to her campaign here.

Katie Hill is running for Congress in Southern California against a Republican incumbent who has never-- in his entire legislative career (in the state Assembly, state Senate and now the House-- seen an anti-immigrant bill that he didn't embrace. In a district with a strong and vibrant Hispanic community, Steve Knight has dedicated his career in politics to making their lives as difficult as possible. Katie pointed out that "elected officials chose to vote for this bill not because they believe it is good policy, but because they care more about getting re-elected than the lives that will be impacted. It is further proof of how broken our system is when 'vote your conscience' actually means 'vote to get re-elected.' The discussion we need to have around immigration is hard, and we're dealing with so much fear mongering that it's easy to see how someone from a more moderate or swing district might be scared into voting for this. But we need to bring that discussion back to values, and the bottom line is that most people understand what it means to help their neighbors. It's up to us as progressives to protect and champion our values as a country and a community, no matter what kind of district you live in. Truly embracing those values and enacting them every day is the only way we overcome hatred or fear or divisiveness and start moving forward again."

It won't surprise you to know that the xenophobes and extremists at the so-called "Freedom Caucus" are big proponents of these kinds of policies and that their leader, Mark Meadows, doesn't just vote for this kind of counterproductive legislation, but does all he can to make bills like this as harsh and punitive as possible. His opponent in 2018 is progressive activist/farmer/Berniecrat Matt Coffay. Matt, would have voted NO. He told us this morning that "These bills are a disaster, and do nothing to address actual immigration issues in this country. Here in the U.S., we have millions of undocumented workers-- many of whom pay taxes-- who work hard, and deserve a path to citizenship. In my district here in Western North Carolina, farmers are already feeling the effects of Trump's immigration policies: many undocumented workers are afraid to show up for seasonal harvests for fear of an ICE raid, and family farmers are hurting as a result. The bottom line is that we need comprehensive immigration reform that will provide hardworking immigrants with a path to citizenship."

Ro Khanna (D-CA) told us that "Kate's law furthers the stereotype that anyone undocumented is criminal. The law is a pillar of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. It criminalizes immigrants entering the United States legally if they have a past technical violation, and it goes after even those who come to escape persecution. There is a reason the Hispanic Caucus in Congress strongly opposed this bill."

Although Anne Kuster voted for it in a much bluer district, Carol Shea Porter, in a district Trump won, took a more courageous and principled stand in opposition:

“Today, I voted against H.R.3004, or ‘Kate’s Law,’ which is opposed by dozens of religious groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, the Church World Service, the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Refugee and Immigrant Center Alliance, the New Hampshire Conference United Church of Christ Immigration Working Group, the American Friends Service Committee, T’ruah: the Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, and the Unitarian Universalist Association.

“Let me be clear: the killing of Kate Steinle was a horrible and inexcusable crime, and my heart goes out to her family and loved ones. This should never have happened. We must investigate the breakdown in policy that led to Kate’s tragic death. This bill would, however, have serious negative consequences by increasing the likelihood that innocent asylum seekers, trafficking victims, and other non-criminal immigrants will be imprisoned. These victims would be in trouble if they presented themselves at ports of entry to seek help.

“I also voted against H.R.3003, which the US Conference of Mayors strongly opposed and the Fraternal Order of Police said would unjustly ‘penalize law enforcement and the citizens they serve because Congress disagrees with their enforcement priorities with respect to our immigration laws.’ We must stand up for proper funding for law enforcement. It is unjust to jeopardize our local police agencies, which are already underfunded and understaffed. The policies this bill seeks to end are designed to improve trust in law enforcement and help our police officers do their jobs effectively. We should not take away local communities’ and law enforcement agencies’ ability to decide how to do their jobs.”

Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL) led the opposition and he reminded his colleagues that "ever since Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy by saying Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers and drug dealers, the Republican Party has had Mexican fever. And they have been working feverishly to paint immigrants as criminals. And when something goes bad, they go back to their old favorite. When Trump’s Muslim Ban was blocked in the Courts, out came the Attorney General to say they were doing more roundups and that no immigrant was safe. Is the Russia investigation not going so good for the Dear Leader? Hey, let’s whip out that Mexican thing, as Vice President Pence said. Maybe it will keep our voters happy and distracted. And now that the Republican health care bill is on the ropes and suffering from a 17 percent approval rating, here we are back on bashing immigrants. It is about feeding a steady diet of scapegoating to voters – even the President’s base voters-- who are starting to realize that things are not going so well. Almost 8 out of 10 Latinos are citizens of the United States and 1 out of 10 are legal permanent residents. That leaves about 1 in 10 who are undocumented, but this policy is about going after all of them. These bills are nothing new and they are not really about immigration or fighting crime. They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos, quote/unquote-- 'in our place.' Latinos, African-Americans, people of color, Muslims, and many others know what being in the cross hairs looks like. 99 percent of the votes for this bill today will come from people who do not have to worry about racial profiling for themselves or their children. And they represent Districts where most of their constituents don’t have to worry about racial profiling. But let’s be clear, Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona is the poster-child for the kinds of policies the Republicans want to impose on every city and county in the country and we know the result:"

Arpaio embodies racial profiling and rounding up people because they are brown and-- oh, we’ll sort out their papers later-- whether they are citizens or legal permanent residents or whatever. I have talked to US citizens who were detained by Arpaio because they didn’t carry with them their birth certificate or passport at all times-- in their own country.

And Arpaio has been sued successfully to stop his racial profiling and he has been charged criminally for his racial profiling tactics and still, the Republicans in the House want that to be the law everywhere.

Sometimes Democrats have to stand up for justice and against racial profiling when it is the right thing to do and the chips are down. Well, the chips are down and every Latino family and every immigrant is going to remember who stood up for them when they needed Democrats to fight to keep their families together.

TrumpCare 3.0 vs Medicare-For-All

Last night Bernie spoke about TrumpCare at the Pittsburgh Convention Center and this morning he’ll be doing the same at Express Live in Columbus, Ohio and again this evening at the West Virginia Civic Center in Charleston. You can get to the essence of his message by watching the short clip he released (above). Do you doubt anything that he says in his response to the Republican “healthcare” bill? All those assertions about what Americans want, for example? On Friday, the Pew Research Center released a new poll, senators might want to look at before they vote on TrumpCare 3.0. Top line: "a majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a 'single payer' approach to health insurance."

Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade.

Among those who see a government responsibility to provide health coverage for all, more now say it should be provided through a single health insurance system run by the government, rather than through a mix of private companies and government programs. Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats-- especially liberal Democrats-- are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.

Even among those who say the federal government is not responsible for ensuring Americans have health care coverage, there is little public appetite for government withdrawing entirely from involvement in health care coverage. Among the public, 33% say that health care coverage is not the government’s responsibility, but that programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be continued; just 5% of Americans say the government should not be involved at all in providing health insurance.

The issue of the government’s responsibility in ensuring health coverage remains deeply divisive politically, according to the new survey, conducted June 8-18 among 2,504 adults. More than eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (85%) say that this responsibility falls to the federal government, while about two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners (68%) say it does not.

Still, most Republicans (57%) say the government “should continue programs like Medicare and Medicaid for seniors and the very poor.” Just 9% of Republicans say the government should not be involved in providing health insurance at all.

Among Democrats, 52% now say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government, while fewer (31%) say it should be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs. The share of Democrats supporting a single national program to provide health insurance has increased 9 percentage points since January and 19 points since 2014.

Nearly two-thirds of liberal Democrats (64%) now support a single-payer health insurance system, up 13 percentage points since January. Conservative and moderate Democrats remain about evenly divided: 38% prefer that health insurance continue to be provided by a mix of private insurance companies and government programs, while 42% favor a single-payer approach.

Overall, support for a single-payer health insurance system is much greater among younger adults than older people. Two-thirds of adults younger than 30 (67%) say the government has a responsibility to provide health coverage for all, with 45% saying coverage should be provided through a single national program.

Among those 65 and older, 54% say the government has a responsibility to provide coverage for all, with 30% favoring a single payer approach.

Both parties are divided by age in views of the government’s role in health care. Fully 66% of Democrats and Democratic leaners ages 18 to 29 say government health coverage should be provided through a single national system, compared with 48% of Democrats and Democratic leaners ages 30 and older.

Among Republicans, a greater share of those younger than 30 (39%) than those 30 and older (28%) say the government is responsible for providing health coverage for all; more young Republicans than older Republicans favor single payer (22% vs. 10%).

And the Senate bill certainly doesn’t do anything that Trump or the Republicans promised it would do-- like making medical coverage much more affordable or protecting people with bankruptcy-inducing “preexisting conditions.” More affordable, easier and cheaper for consumers? Not this bill!

Reed Abelson in yesterday’s NY Times stripped the bride bare:

[M]illions of Americans will pay more for an insurance policy that comes with a much steeper deductible under the new Senate plan, according to some health economists and insurance experts. It could also make it much harder to find a comprehensive plan covering various conditions ranging from heart disease to depression that would not be prohibitively expensive.

“This is going to be a very unstable market” where only the very sickest people resort to buying coverage on the federal exchanges at much higher prices, said Paul B. Ginsburg, a health economist and the director of the Center for Health Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Those likely to suffer the most under the Senate plan are people who would not be eligible for any remaining subsidies, he said, because they could be priced out of the market. Most worrisome to those opposing the Senate bill is that states could give insurers leeway to offer skimpy plans that cover a lot less and exclude people with certain illnesses.

…If the Senate version becomes law, insurers could increase premiums for individual coverage by at least 20 percent more than the double-digit increases already under consideration. By 2020, other changes are likely to result in plans with much higher deductibles. People now getting tax credits that allow them to purchase a policy with a deductible of $3,500 would get subsidies for a plan where the deductible would nearly double, without any funding to pay their out-of-pocket costs.

Many people will face a Hobson’s choice, said Craig Garthwaite, a health economist at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management. They will have to choose between a plan with a premium they cannot afford or a plan with a deductible they cannot afford.

While lower premiums touted by Republicans could attract healthier people to buy coverage on the exchanges, other changes could still drive up prices, said Mr. Garthwaite, who is a registered Republican. “It could turn out to be higher premiums and higher deductibles,” he said.

One stark difference between the Senate bill and the Affordable Care Act is the decision to drop the mandate requiring insurance. That could inadvertently discourage the youngest and healthiest people from buying insurance, leaving a higher percentage of sicker people with expensive treatments on the exchanges, driving up insurers’ costs.

Thursday, conservative New Dem (former Blue Dog) Adam Schiff became the latest (and 113th) House Democrat to sign on as a co-sponsor of John Conyers’ Medicare-For-All bill (H.R. 676). The Blue Dogs and New Dems-- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- have tended to stay away from the bill but as election season approaches and the popularity of the approach, particularly among Democrats and independents-- becomes manifest, even conservative politicians like Schiff are jumping on the train. Schiff is interested in running for the California Senate seat Dianne Feinstein told him she would be giving up next year. No one’s going to win statewide office in California without being committed to single-payer.

Over the past several months, you’ve read how all the Blue America-backed candidates are proponents of single payer health insurance. Some, like Illinois emergency room physician, David Gill, have been working towards it for many years. Our newest endorsee, Randy Bryce, the progressive Democrat running for the swing district Wisconsin seat Paul Ryan has been in, did an interview with the New Republic and explained why he favors single payer health insurance. This morning he built on his statement by telling us that “our very health is literally under attack. I am outraged by what I see going on in our government. When our campaign made our first video, I felt it was important to address the issue of health. It’s an intergenerational issue that affects us from birth until the day we die. Health care is a right. I can’t believe that they’re working behind closed doors to find that best way to strip away our ability to be well just so that their richest donors can become richer. When I begin to work in Washington D.C. one of the first things I look forward to doing is adding my name to the Conyers bill that will make sure every American has access to health care. We need to stop looking for excuses as to why it can’t be done and start figuring out how to do it. I plan on being part of the solution.”

The two North Carolina Berniecrats Blue America has endorsed for 2018, are excellent examples of how grassroots activism-- even in “red” districts-- manifests itself in dangerous times. Matt Coffay is campaigning for the wester-most district in the state, flat up against Tennessee, currently held by TrumpCare godfather and Freedom Caucus chairman, extremist Mark Meadows. You’re not going to ever hear Coffay degenerate into a Republican-lite establishment shill. That’s not who he is and not why he’s running for office in such difficult circumstances. "One of my first acts in Congress,” he told us, “will be to co-sponsor HR 676, the Conyers ‘Medicare for All’ bill. This bill has been on the floor of the House since 2003 with little in the way of support; now, though, there is a real opportunity to pass this bill and create a universal health care system in this country. I intend to use my voice as a Congressman to elevate public awareness of the benefits of universal health care, and work alongside folks like Bernie Sanders to create a health care system that takes care of every single person in this country." Jenny Marshall is running for the central/western North Carolina congressional district anti-healthcare fanatic Virginia Foxx operates out of. Foxx, who started off as a fiery extremist, sold out to the establishment long ago and is now a Ryan rubber stamp. Jenny told us that the bill the Senate Republicans unveiled “puts millions of lives at risk” and threatens households vulnerable to economic hardships. “In the 5th district 1 out of every 7 people will lose their healthcare. It is simply unconscionable. The GOP stands on free market principles claiming everyone has access to healthcare under their plan. I disagree. There is no access when people cannot afford to buy healthcare insurance and cover the out-of-pocket expenses. There is no access when people wait for far too long to seek care because of the rising cost of doctors' visits, prescription costs and medical procedures. People have been priced out of the care they need, but the GOP has turned a blind eye. I on the other hand support moving to a single payer program that covers not only medical, but vision and dental care as well. That is why I would add my name as a co-sponsor of Rep. Conyers' Medicare For All bill (HR 676) when elected to Congress. We must step up and do what is right for the people of this country, standing strong that healthcare is a human right. Millions of lives depend on it.”

At any given moment at this time in the cycle, Blue America is vetting at least a dozen candidates. I’m happy to say that right now every single one of them has expressed an eagerness to co-sponsor Conyers’ Medicare-for-All bill. Marie Newman is a good example. She’s primarying of if the most conservative Democrats in Congress, Chicagoland Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, a committed member of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Lipinski, who tends to vote with the Republicans far more than any moderate Democrats, has adamantly refused-- even as other Blue Dogs and New Dems have signed on-- to co-sponsor Conyers’ bill. Last night Marie told us that “as a candidate so focused on fighting to expand health care for all, I would co-sponsor the Conyers bill in order to establish Medicare For All and put action behind the truth that ‘health care is a right'." You can support her tough primary battle against Lipinski here. We need more Democrats in Congress like Marie-- and far, far fewer like Lipinski.

Kia Hamadanchy worked as a Sherrod Brown staffer in DC before moving back to the Orange County district he was born and raised in. His opponent, Trump rubber stamp Mimi Waters, has repeatedly refused to move into the district and almost never goes there except to meet with wealthy GOP donors and for photo-ops. She was a prominent backer of Ryan’s TrumpCare bill, a bill Kia opposes. “At the end of the day,” he told us, “health care is a human right. No one should ever go bankrupt because a lack of health insurance, and every single person in this country deserves to have access to affordable health care coverage that's there when they need it. And while I don't want to see the Affordable Care Act go away and strongly oppose efforts to repeal the law, I also believe that enacting  single payer health insurance is the best way to ensure that we meet the healthcare needs of every single American. That's why when elected I will absolutely cosponsor John Conyers’ Medicare-For-All bill."

Sam Jammal is considering running in another Orange County district, Ed Royce’s CA-39, the Republican-held district in the area that went most heavily against Trump last year. The DCCC has its own crackpot idea about selling the nomination to a rich lottery winner, but Sam is the progressive alternative to Royce and offers a coherent alternative to Royce’s reactionary and bigoted agenda."Ask any senior," he told us last night, "Medicare is great program. It makes sense to expand this for everyone. Imagine if a small business no longer had to budget in health care costs for their employees and could use those savings to hire more workers or a family knew that they wouldn't be at risk of losing their home just for getting sick. Our economy is changing and we need to take health care off the table as a political issue and focus on the economic benefits of getting everyone covered. If I were in Congress, I would be a co-sponsor of the Conyers bill."

 Although the DCCC is on the road to lose CA-10 again and give Jeff Denham an incredible run for a Republican in a blue district, grassroots Berniecrat Dotty Nygard, has different ideas. She’s not waiting around for another DCCC loser to run; she’s taking on Denham herself. She told us that when she makes it to Washington as an elected representative, she’ll "wholeheartedly co-sponsor H.R. 676, the Medicare for all Bill. As an elected I will have a duty and moral obligation to represent in the best interests of the people I serve, not in the interests of corporations or  Big Pharma. The American people deserve quality healthcare; they don't need insurance."

Elizabeth Warren took to the floor of the Senate to eviscerate the Senate bill. Brutal-- absolutely brutal:

TrumpCare 3.0-- The Senate Version Is Even Worse!

Everyone thought the Senate would get their hands on the really radical, really destructive-- and really hated-- House Republican “healthcare” bill, TrumpCare, crafted by Paul Ryan and Tom Price and bastardized by Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows and rogue Tuesday Group opportunist Tom MacArthur, and turn it into something more palatable and more mainstream. Why did anyone think that-- with people like Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz driving the show? Instead, if the Washington Post’s leaked report of what the Senate Republicans have come up with is to be believed, the Senate version is even worse than the House version. Not better, worse!

If this Frankenstein’s monster of a bill passes, say goodbye to Planned Parenthood and say goodbye to Medicaid-- and say goodbye to healthcare for millions and millions of American families who have coverage now.

The bill largely mirrors the House measure that narrowly passed last month but with some significant changes aimed at pleasing moderates. While the House legislation tied federal insurance subsidies to age, the Senate bill would link them to income, as the ACA does. The Senate proposal cuts off Medicaid expansion more gradually than the House bill, but would enact deeper long-term cuts to the health-care program for low-income Americans. It also removes language restricting federally subsidized health plans from covering abortions, which may have run afoul of complex budget rules.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) intends to present the draft to wary GOP senators at a meeting Thursday morning. McConnell has vowed to hold a vote before senators go home for the July 4 recess, but he is still seeking the 50 votes necessary to pass the major legislation under arcane budget rules. A handful of senators, from conservatives to moderates, are by no means persuaded that they can vote for the emerging measure.

Aides stress that the GOP plan is likely to undergo more changes to garner the 50 votes Republicans need to pass it. Moderate senators are concerned about cutting off coverage too quickly for those who gained it under the ACA, also known as Obamacare, while conservatives don’t want to leave big parts of the ACA in place.

As a nod to conservatives, the Senate bill would give states more leeway in opting out of the ACA’s insurance regulations through expanding the use of so-called “1332” waivers already embedded within the law, according to the draft proposal. States could use the waivers to make federal subsidies available even off the marketplaces-- but they couldn’t go so far as to lift ACA protections for patients with preexisting conditions.

…[M]oderates are likely to be turned off by how the bill cuts Medicaid more deeply than the House version. But the biggest cuts wouldn’t take effect for seven years, a time frame that could be more politically palatable for members like Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).

Under the Senate draft, federal Medicaid spending would remain as is for three years. Then in 2021 it would be transformed from an open-ended entitlement to a system based on per capita enrollment. Starting in 2025, the measure would tie federal spending on the program to an even slower growth index, which in turn could prompt states to reduce the size of their Medicaid programs.

In a move that is likely to please conservatives, the draft also proposes repealing all of the ACA taxes except for its so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans in language similar to the House version. Senators had previously toyed with the idea of keeping some of the ACA’s taxes.

Andy Kim, a national security expert who worked in the Obama White House and is now running for the south Jersey congressional seat held by Tom MacArthur, one of the TrumpCare architects, told me this morning that "Senate Republicans are taking the baton from Tom MacArthur and the House by secretly working in back room deals that prevent the American people from knowing the impact on their health care and their lives. The people deserve better." David Gill, an emergency care physician in Illinois, is running for the seat held by Ryan rubber stamp Rodney Davis. He’s on the same page as Kim. "My opponent in the upcoming 2018 election, Rodney Davis, played a pivotal role in the development of TrumpCare, serving as an assistant to the whip in the U.S. House to help garner support for its passage, and also frequently appearing as an apologist for the bill on TV news programs. Accordingly, Mr. Davis bears full responsibility for the overwhelming pain and suffering that will be wrought upon tens of millions of Americans by the passage of TrumpCare. As an advocate of single-payer as a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for the past 25 years, I am essentially the antithesis of Mr. Davis: I recognize the many benefits in guaranteeing all necessary coverage to all Americans, and I look forward to leading the charge towards single payer once I get to Washington. It is said that it is darkest before the dawn, and I have little doubt that passage of this atrocious Republican healthcare bill will serve to ultimately open the door wide to single-payer; Americans will be looking for a solution to their healthcare woes, and the time will finally be ripe for the type of single-payer program that should have been instituted decades ago."

And Randy Bryce, the newest Blue America endorsee, is clear how he feels about the Senate “healthcare” bill that leaked as well. “What is it going to take,” he asked, “to get people who are supposed to ‘represent’ us to actually listen to us? How can anyone claim to make decisions on our behalf when they pull garbage like this? America has always been about taking care of each other-- not taking away from each other! I’ve had enough of us working harder but having less to show for it. Not even the people who are supposed to vote on this bill know what is in it. That’s no way to ‘represent.’ Please— call your electeds-- ALL of them-- and demand that they do the right thing. Make it crystal clear that you vote. Then keep your promise and vote. Don’t forget to take your neighbors-- this is for them too. We still have some power-- use it before it’s gone.”


UPDATE

Matt Coffay is up against the godfather-- or co-godfather (with Ryan and Price)-- of TrumpCare, Freedom Caucus chairman Mark Meadows, one of the most dangerous extremists in Congress. Matt, a former Bernie organizer in western North Carolina offers voters in NC-11 a really clear choice for themselves and their families. "My opponent, Mark Meadows, negotiated the worst components of the House version of this bill. He's responsible for the loopholes that will allow insurance companies to price people out of care because of pre-existing conditions. It's largely because of his insistence that 23 million people will lose health coverage. As if that weren't enough, he's reportedly been in talks with the Senate to ‘negotiate’ their version of the bill, and is now calling for a cancellation of August recess so that he and the Freedom Caucus can ram the AHCA back through the House (or through committee) rather than returning to his district to hold a town hall. When I'm in the House, one of my first acts as a member of Congress will be to co-sponsor HR 676, the Medicare for All bill introduced by Rep. Conyers. Every person in this country deserves health care, and I won't stand idly by while the people of Western North Carolina-- and people all across this country-- are forced to suffer so that a handful of billionaires can get a tax break."

Ted Lieu (D-CA), who has been taking a leading role in the House on issues where a backbone is required, eviscerated McConnell’s miserable excuse for healthcare legislation. "Born from the most cynical kind of politics and raised in total secrecy, the Senate Republican version of Obamacare repeal offers very little in terms of health or care for hardworking American families. The Senate version tinkers with the margins of the heartless House GOP version of repeal but make no mistake, this new legislation still would deny health security to millions of Americans, while unconscionably making even deeper long-term cuts to Medicaid-- all in the name of giving those most fortunate Americans a gargantuan tax cut that they don't need and many don't want. The Senate Republican plan is not bold leadership with 'heart,' it's a cowardly and complete abrogation of the solemn responsibility to guarantee health security for each and every American."

Walter Jones Understands The Tragedy In Afghanistan A Lot Better Than Señor Trumpanzee Or Paul Ryan

NC-03-- the Outer Banks and most of the state's coastal plain from the Virginia border south of Norfolk down past New Bern and Jacksonville. It's a very red district, R+11, and Walter Jones has been congressman there since 1994 (a year after he switched from Democrat to Republican). Romney beat Obama there, 59% to 41% and Trump did even better-- 60.5% to 36.9%-- last year. Jones did even better-- beating Democrat Ernest Reeves 67.2% to 32.8%.

Jones is a principled, libertarian-leaning social conservative. He votes for progressive legislation quite a lot. In fact his 41.18 ProgressivePunch crucial vote score for 2017 is the highest of any Republican-- by far-- and better than 17 House Democrats-- DINOs like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-11.11), Henry Cuellar (TX-16.67), Collin Peterson (MN-16.67), Dan Lipinksi (IL-22.22), Tom O'Halleran (AZ-27.78), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-27.78), Ron Kind (WI-27.78), Ami Bera (CA-27.78), Stephanie Murphy (FL-29.41), Kurt Schrader (OR-29.41), Scott Peters (CA-33.33), Jim Costa (37.50), Raul Ruiz (CA-38.89), Lou Correa (CA-38.89), Jacky Rosen (NV-38.89), Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-38.89).

Ryan-- and Boehner before him-- have consistently struck out against Jones, penalizing him in committee assignments and encouraging right-wing nut jobs to run against him in primaries. Last year a deranged Trumpist, Phil Law, ran against Jones in the GOP primary and managed to win just over 20% of the Republican vote. A sleazy right-wing lobbyist, Taylor Griffin, also ran and he nearly got 15% of the primary vote. Reeves, the Democrat, raised no money for the general election but in the primary Griffin spent $345,966 and Law spent $145,404. (Jones spent a total of $693,517 for the primary and general.)

The Republican Establishment hatred for Jones seems to endear him to his own constituents, who like his independence. He's the most anti-war of all the Republicans in Congress and is famous for once telling a conference of Ron Paul supporters that "Lyndon Johnson’s probably rotting in hell right now because of the Vietnam War, and he probably needs to move over for Dick Cheney." A few days ago he told PJMedia that Congress should stop funding the war in Afghanistan. He opposes Trump sending more troops and opposes the idea of "trying to build empires around the world." He also pointed out that Congress hasn't had a debate about the war in Afghanistan since 2001. Jones:

I’m absolutely opposed to it, because if you increase the number of American troops that means the number of Americans to be killed and wounded goes up. And again, I come back to the point, what have we accomplished? We spent over $800 billion dollars. We are very close to $1 trillion in the past 16 years.

We've had over 2,200 Americans killed and 20,000 wounded. What have we accomplished? In fact, [Hamid] Karzai, the former leader of Afghanistan, is now trying to get the Russians to negotiate with the Taliban so he can go back into power. It’s now like the Wild West that is wilder than it has ever been… by increasing the number of troops, all you’re doing is increasing the odds of American troops being killed or wounded.

History has proven it doesn't work going back to the Roman Empire. I mean, anybody that knows history-- that's what [former Marine Corps Commandant] Gen. Charles Krulak has said to me many times-- if you know history, you will know that no one is going to change Afghanistan. It is a tribal nation.

More important than the money is young men and women are being killed and wounded and Congress has a constitutional responsibility to debate and vote about sending our young men and women to war, but we don't do debates like those anymore. Yes, there have been efforts by Democrats and Republicans to put amendments on appropriations bills with money going to Afghanistan, but really no policy debate at all.

We've written [Paul Ryan] letters, we talked to him personally and he has not [asked the committees of jurisdiction to mark up a new Authorization for Use of Military Force]. This is going to be an effort of trying to get more and more members of Congress of both parties to come together for no other reason but to say after 16 years is it now a time to debate the issues of our country and our military in Afghanistan, and what’s the definition of victory? After 16 years we have no definition of victory. We’re saying you, not the president, but you have the authority as leader of the House to permit your members of the House to meet their constitutional responsibility of debating war. It's not up to the president, it's up to the Speaker of the House and he hasn’t done it."

Matt Coffay and Jenny Marshall, progressive Democrats, running for Congress on the opposite side of North Carolina, both supports with what Jones is trying to accomplish. "I firmly agree with Rep. Jones' opposition to a troop and spending increase in Afghanistan," Matt told us, "and second his suggestion that Congress hold an open debate about our military involvement there. After maintaining a decade and a half-long military presence, it's long past time that we reassess-- in Jones' words-- how exactly we define "victory" in Afghanistan. America ought to have the smartest, sleekest, most efficient, and most effective military in the world. A troop increase in Afghanistan won't get us any closer to that goal. And neither will defense spending increases, unless the spending is done intelligently. The new defense budget proposed by Trump includes the construction of 84 new fighter jets, to the tune of billions of dollars for taxpayers--but do those jets really keep us safer? Threats to the United States continue to evolve, and beyond Jones' call to reexamine Afghanistan, I believe we also need to reexamine how and where we're allocating our defense spending across the board. Are we spending money to keep Americans safer, and to make our military the best in the world? Or are we spending money for the benefit of the military-industrial complex?"

Jenny added that "The U.S. has spent 1.7 Trillion dollars in direct war appropriations over the last 15 years, but counting the cost of war in dollars neglects the human loss of life and the lingering effects once the bullets have stopped flying. Nita Crawford from Brown University states 'A full accounting of any war’s burdens cannot be places in columns on a ledger, from the civilians harmed or displaced by violence, to the soldiers killed and wounded, to the children who play years later on roads and fields sown with improvised explosive devices and cluster bombs, no set of numbers can convey the human toll of the wars.' Yet, we can know the numbers of the ever-rising death toll. 3,407 US and Allied troops, 3,540 US Contractors, 406 humanitarian workers and journalists, 31,419 civilians in Afghanistan alone. The numbers for the wounded are staggering. So, when the war hawks beat their drums remember that war must be the last option because the cost is just too high."

Back in 2001 there was only one member of Congress with the guts to say NO to Bush and Cheney and their bloodlust when it came to attacking Afghanistan: Oakland Democrat Barbara Lee. She is the model of courageousness in Congress and an inspiration to anyone thinking about taking a difficult vote of conscience. Last night she told us she admires Walter Jones' own efforts in ending the Afghanistan debacle. "Congressman Jones has been a steadfast leader in the effort to rein in our endless wars and he’s completely right. After a decade and a half in Afghanistan, it’s past time to learn there is no military solution to this conflict. We will continue to urge Speaker Ryan to allow Congress to hold a debate and vote on the repeal of the 2001 AUMF, which is nothing more than a blank check for endless war. Additionally, we will keep demanding that President Trump listen to the war-weary American public and bring our troops home."

If iron worker and union activist Randy Bryce-- who was unanimously reelected by the Wisconsin Democratic Party to head their veterans division this past weekend-- beats Paul Ryan in the 2018 midterms, he will be another Democrat with the kind of guts it takes to cast votes of conscience, the way Barbara Lee did. He told us that "Under a Democratic President, Osama bin Laden was taken out. Under Republican leadership, the key to the Oval Office has been handed over to the Russians. What do we have left to gain in Afghanistan after 16 years? Trump made a promise to rid the world of ISIL within 30 days of taking office. Time is up." He continued:

It might be a subject for debate if those returning from wars were taken care of, but, we’re not. Further draconian cuts to help our heroes once returned are in the proposed budget.

I know Paul Ryan isn’t a fan of working together in a bipartisan manner (i.e. Health care) but, this should be a no brainer for anyone who looks at the subject for more than a few minutes.

When it comes to veterans, I don’t see any partisan lines. Veterans are the only reason why we continue to have the freedom to choose how to think politically.

Veterans don’t ask what party another vet identifies with before offering the shirt off a back-- we help however we can because it is the correct thing to do.

Paul Ryan-- even though you are afraid to face us in the 1st CD, please do something to show us that you still have some semblance of compassion by letting our troops come home. Do what we did to protect our country-- work together to achieve a goal. We all took an oath.

Show us you are capable, and, maybe you won’t need to be so afraid to face us. It’s been over 600 days since you’ve had a town hall.

Our Friends In North Carolina Need Our Prayers-- And Our Help

Jenny Marshall is the progressive activist and public school teacher in North Carolina running for the seat occupied by GOP crackpot Virginia Foxx. In a discussion of state politics regarding gerrymandering and voter suppression, she told us that "'But they hit me first' is a phrase every parent has heard at some point in time. The go to phrase meant to absolve the aggressor from any repercussions echoes throughout the North Carolina General Assembly. They would be somewhat justified because the Democrats had played political games when they held the power too. What often gets lost in this struggle are the abuses levied against the voters of this state. In an attempt to pay political payback the Republicans have stripped voting rights, limited access to voting locations and gerrymandered the districts to an extreme. It is undemocratic and goes against everything America stands for. I believe it is time for partisan politics be put aside and fair maps drawn. It is time for the states to open their primaries, make registration processes easier and expand access to the ballot box. People are yearning for a candidate that will bring a message that they and their family’s safety and prosperity matter. That is why I believe Bernie Sanders did so well in the 5th district. In the 10 rural counties that make up the majority of the 5th, Bernie won 55% of the vote. The progressive people-centered message resonated not only with them, but also with the people in the urban city center of Forsyth County where we had focused targeted outreach efforts. It was the message of income inequality, single payer healthcare, tuition free colleges and universities, etc. that resonated with people. It continues to resonate as I travel across the district meeting people. They want better paying jobs, affordable healthcare, social security and Medicare strengthened. Most of all they want someone like me who is willing to fight to make their lives better."

This week, Blue America wants to make a different kind of case for our two progressive congressional candidates in North Carolina, Jenny Marshall and Matt Coffay-- who's up against Freedom Caucus headman Mark Meadows. Normally we'd tell you about how extreme Foxx and Meadows are (and they sure are-- two of the very worst in the whole Congress) and how awesome Jenny and Matt are (also a very accurate assessment). But today we want to make a special plea for the great state of North Carolina in a more general way, in the hope that it will still inspire you to want to help Jenny's and Matt's campaigns (which you can do by tapping the thermometer on the right).

Our sisters and brothers in North Carolina are in deep trouble. As Michael Wines explained in the NY Times last week, the GOP has thrown away the rule book and is undermining democracy more overtly than any state in America ever has. The Supreme Court has ruled twice last month that the state's election laws are overtly racist and unconstitutional. The state's Republican leaders don't care what the Supreme Court says and "since November, when Attorney General Roy Cooper, a Democrat, reclaimed the governor’s office from the incumbent Republican, Pat McCrory, Republicans have redoubled their efforts to keep the levers of state government and state courts in their control."

The state Republican Party is not concerned with the rule of law-- other than their own perverted and unconstitutional laws. “What we’re seeing in North Carolina is an effort at political entrenchment that is unparalleled,” said Allison Riggs, a senior staff lawyer at the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a Durham advocacy group that sued Republican leaders over the election law. “It requires a complete disregard for the will of the voters and political participation, and a disregard for the independence of the judiciary.”

A special session in December stripped the governor of most power to appoint state employees and university trustees, choose a cabinet without legislative approval and install majorities on state and local election boards. The latter move was stayed, pending a trial.

Now the legislators are taking aim at the state judicial system. In December, after voters elected a Democratic majority to the nominally nonpartisan State Supreme Court, the legislature expanded the jurisdiction of the Republican-led Court of Appeals and made the legal path toward other Supreme Court hearings more tortuous. Last month, Republicans voted to shrink the Court of Appeals by barring replacement of the next three retiring judges, denying Mr. Cooper a chance to nominate successors.

Foxx's and Meadows' districts are very gerrymandered and pretty red, respectively with PVIs of R+11 and R+13. Trump took 57.4% in Foxx's district and 63.2% in Meadows' district. But that had more to do with Hillary than with Republicanism. Bernie beat Hillary in Meadows' district and in every part of Foxx's district except Winston-Salem. These areas are looking for an authentic solution to the problems of working families.

Matt Coffay told us that "Last December, the Electoral Integrity Project-- which has monitored and scored elections in 153 countries-- ranked North Carolina's election integrity score at 58 out of 100. This places us alongside Cuba, Indonesia, and Sierra Leone. But when it comes to our voting districts, we received a 7/100 score. As the Charlotte News & Observer reported, 'North Carolina is not only the worst state in the USA for unfair districting but the worst entity in the world ever analyzed by the Electoral Integrity Project.' The worst in the world. That's where North Carolina stands."

I have hope that the cases currently before the Supreme court-- from both Wisconsin and North Carolina-- alleging unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering will be decided in such a way as to force a fair redrawing of our state's districts. But we have to keep talking about this issue, and keep fighting. When I'm elected to Congress, I intend to be a vocal critic of gerrymandering. Just like our broken campaign finance system, it dramatically endangers our democracy."

A Republican Who Used To Be In The House: "You Republicans In The House Have Been Lying Non-Stop About What You're Not Going To Cut"

I don't watch Morning Joe but Bernie tweeted some of this rant Friday and it really is awesome. Before he became a Morning Zoo host on MSNBC Joe Scarborough was a Republican congressman from Florida's Panhandle (basically Alabama)-- 1995 'til 2001 when he was forced to resign after being implicated in the death of a 28 year old staffer, Lori Klausutis, a case that was dropped after the resignation.

Yesterday Scarborough lit into his old party repeatedly calling them liars and saying they are "going straight to hell politically." He seemed overwrought, complaining that the "lie through their teeth every day... My party is going straight to hell politically. They really are. They're going straight to hell. They have embraced the coarsening of culture where the truth means absolutely nothing, conservative values mean absolutely nothing... Did [Mick Mulvaney] say we don't cut Medicaid? That is just a lie. That is a certifiable lie... If you want to do it, embrace it. Don't lie about it. Stop lying about it. We know you're lying about it. We're not stupid, and you Republicans in the House have been lying non-stop about what you're not going to cut."

It sounds better than it reads. Watch that clip up top. And backing up Scarborough's assertion that the House Republicans are all mimicking compulsive, congenital liars Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Tom Price, Mick Mulvaney and, worst of all, Paul Ryan is the CBO score that came out this week showing just how devastating TrumpCare would be for millions of Americans-- and all so the people least in need of tax breaks, get massive ones. Thursday the Center for America Progress posted what those numbers are like in every congressional district, based on the CBO’s projections. By 2026, on average, about 53,000 fewer people will have coverage in each congressional district but people in some districts are hurt far more than others. The South Florida districts, for example are hit especially hard. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the last hold-outs among Democrats refusing to co-sponsor John Conyers' Medicare-For-All Act, is in a Broward/Miami-Dade district where 88,700 people will lose coverage.

Worse yet is how badly folks in western North Carolina fare under this plan-- not just twice as badly as the average congressional district-- but under the very provisions forced on Congress by the congressman from western North Carolina: Freedom Caucus headman Mark Meadows. We spoke to the progressive Democrat running for his seat this cycle, Matt Coffay. "My opponent, Mark Meadows, crafted and pushed the AHCA 2.0 bill through the House," he told us. "He specifically inserted the state waiver loopholes that, according to CBO, are going to result in 23 million Americans losing their health coverage.

"Now, the Center for American Progress has released a report detailing coverage losses state-by-state. They've also run the numbers on how many people will lose health coverage in each Congressional district nationwide. This isn't just how many people will lose their private insurance--this is how many people will flat out lose healthcare, including Medicaid and employer-provided insurance plans.

"The national average across all 435 Congressional districts is 53,000. But here in Western North Carolina, in NC-11, that number is 102,600. That's right: Mark Meadows crafted AHCA 2.0, and it's going to result in more than one hundred thousand people in his district losing health coverage. That's twice the national average.

"Nearly half of those people are on private insurance; another 47,500 are on Medicaid, and will lose their benefits. This law impacts everyone: whether you're low income and receiving Medicaid, or running a small business and buying your own insurance, or receiving benefits through your employer, you stand to lose your coverage.

"When I'm in the House, one of the first bills I intend to sign onto as a co-sponsor is H.R. 676: Medicare for All. It's time we passed a bill that ensures healthcare for every American, and not a bill that takes coverage away from working people."

The other western North Carolina district that gets devastated-- 102,000 citizens of NC-05 will be without health insurance-- by this is radical right Republican's Virginia Foxx. And like Meadows, Foxx has a dedicated progressive activist holding her accountable this cycle, Jenny Marshall. Earlier today Jenny told us that "1 out of every 7 citizens in the 5th district will lose their healthcare within the next 9 years. For years Virginia Foxx has voted against the best interests of fellow North Carolinian's. She refuses to invest in their future with good paying jobs, their education, and their health. 57% of the households earn less than $49,000 and 75% earn less than $75,000 annually. They cannot afford to choose between putting food on their table and the rising cost of healthcare. Since North Carolina refused to expand Medicaid, people bought their new healthcare plans using subsidies from the government. Under Trump's budget those subsidies are eliminated then couple that with the CBO report on the AHCA, we are going to have a catastrophic loss of access to healthcare in the 5th district. In contrast to Foxx's opinion, I view healthcare as a basic right and therefor advocate for a single payer plan that provides people with the security of knowing their healthcare needs are covered."

 

Is The CBO Score A Death Sentence For The Republican Congressional Majorities?

The CBO sums up their report on the new version of TrumpCare with one sentence: "CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the American Health Care Act would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the coming decade and increase the number of people who are uninsured by 23 million in 2026 relative to current law." The original version would have kicked 24 million off their health insurance but it would have reduced the deficit by $150 billion. The NY Times reported that the Senate Majority Turtle (R-KY) looked at it and sniffed "I don’t know how we get to 50 at the moment... but that’s the goal."

Congressional Republicans spent the day running around quacking out their focus group-tested talking points: "The status quo under Obamacare is completely unacceptable and totally unsustainable... Prices are skyrocketing, choice is plummeting, the marketplace is collapsing and countless more Americans will get hurt if we don’t act." Snd doing all in their power to undercut, sabotage and destabilize the Affordable Care Act, regardless of how much it hurts people in need of healthcare.

Democrats say much of that instability stems from Republican efforts to repeal and undermine the Affordable Care Act. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, harshly criticized House Republicans for voting on their revised repeal measure without an updated analysis from the budget office.

“Republicans were haunted by the ghost of C.B.O. scores past, so they went ahead without one,” Mr. Schumer said. That action, he said, was reckless-- “like test-driving a brand-new car three weeks after you’ve already signed on the dotted line and paid the dealer in full.”

The House repeal bill was approved on May 4 by a vote of 217 to 213, without support from any Democrats. It would eliminate tax penalties for people who go without health insurance and would roll back state-by-state expansions of Medicaid, which have provided coverage to millions of low-income people. And in place of government-subsidized insurance policies offered exclusively on the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces, the bill would offer tax credits of $2,000 to $4,000 a year, depending on age.

A family could receive up to $14,000 a year in credits. The credits would be reduced for individuals making more than $75,000 a year and families making more than $150,000.

Senior Republican senators say they want to reconfigure the tax credits to provide more financial assistance to lower-income people and to older Americans, who could face much higher premiums under the House bill.

The House bill would roll back a number of insurance requirements in the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans say have driven up the cost of coverage.

In the weeks leading up to passage of the House bill, Republican leaders revised it to win support from some of the most conservative members of their party.

Under the House bill, states could opt out of certain provisions of the health care law, including one that requires insurers to provide a minimum set of health benefits and another that prohibits them from charging higher premiums based on a person’s health status.

Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) emphasized in a statement to his constituents that the new version is even worse than the old version. "Twenty days ago, House Republicans turned their backs on millions of Americans by passing the American Health Care Act. The Congressional Budget Office’s score released today confirms what we had known all along; dismantling our healthcare system will leave millions uninsured, roll back basic coverage, and increase premiums for the most vulnerable populations. It will send costs skyrocketing for seniors and those with pre-existing conditions in order to provide financial windfall to millionaires and billionaires... Instead of dismantling the progress that has been made to improve health care in this country, we should work together on behalf of our constituents to make common sense improvements to the ACA. We should pass a public insurance option to ensure plan prices are competitive, allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices to reduce the costs of prescriptions, reduce deductibles and make premium tax credits more generous. Unfortunately, the majority is interested in nothing more than political gamesmanship, but a game that risks American lives is one that must never be played."

Progressives in Congress agreed with Grijalva and his no Progressive Caucus co-chair, Mark Pocan (D-WI), said in his own statement that "this latest CBO score confirms that Trumpcare is a terrible proposal and people will pay more for less coverage, if they can even afford it. What’s really alarming is that less healthy people, like those with a preexisting condition, could face extremely prohibitive costs for coverage and essentially be priced out of buying insurance. This means people with diabetes or a heart condition could wind up uninsured, which would be devastating for many families. On top of that out-of-pocket expenses for essential health benefits such as maternity care and prescription drugs would skyrocket. This is just a bad bill that was never intended to help people, only to give $600 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest in this country, insurance companies, and Big Pharma."

Ruben Kihuen (D-NV), who seems likely to run for the Nevada Senate seat held by Republican Dean Heller next year, pointed out that the CBO score reaffirms that Trumps and Ryan’s "vision for healthcare reform is completely off the mark... hell-bent on repealing the Affordable Care Act no matter the cost, even if it means 23 million more people would be uninsured by 2026. The CBO estimates that health insurance premiums for those nearing retirement could increase 800%, and that a 64-year-old making $26,500 would go from paying 6.4% of their income towards their insurance premiums to a whopping 60.8%. That’s indefensible and immoral! This new CBO score is further evidence of what we already knew to be true-- the American Health Care Act is a bad deal for all Americans, but especially Nevadans who have benefitted immensely from the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, Republicans in the House decided to pass this bill without seeing its true cost. I hope they read this report and think long and hard about who they really serve: their leadership in Congress or their constituents back home." In fact, one last stat: In the old version of TrumpCare (pre-Meadows/MacArthur), a 64 year old worker making $26,5000 a year would have had an unbelievable premium of $14,600 per year to be covered. After Mark Meadows and Tom MacArthur worked their magic, that same worker's premium would go up to $16,100 annually. Was that what they were trying to do? Was that what Paul Ryan was trying to cover up when he rushed the House vote through without a CBO score? These people are disgusting-- and an existential threat to our families and our nation.

Matt Coffay is the candidate running in western North Carolina against the Republican who managed to make TrumpCare even worse-- by eviserating the provisions protecting people with preexisting conditions (that candidate Trump solemnly pledged to keep)-- Mark Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chair. There are few races anywhere in the country that would send an "enough is enough" signal to the GOP than seeing Coffay defeat Meadows in 2018-- and you can help him do that by tapping on the thermometer on the right. This is what Matt told NC-11 residents after the CBO score was published:

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its report on the AHCA: the disastrous bill that Mark Meadows crafted in secret with other Republican leaders, and pushed through the House several weeks ago.

CBO’s report confirms all of our worst fears. Meadows’ health care bill will kick 23 million Americans off of their health insurance. Over $800 billion will be cut from Medicaid, involving caps on Medicaid payments and termination of federal matching funds-- which we desperately need in North Carolina, a state that failed to expand Medicaid. Further, CBO determined that nationally, one in six people live in an area where private policies will be “destabilized” as states-- like North Carolina-- opt out of Essential Health Benefits, and allow insurance companies to charge more to people with pre-existing conditions. People in these areas will suffer under this law.

Western North Carolina is one of these areas.

CBO concluded that “less healthy people” will face “extremely high premiums.” And because of the rush to get this report out-- because Meadows chose to ram this bill through the House-- CBO hasn’t even had time to assess the wider reaching macroeconomic effects on the U.S. economy.

This report is clear: Mark Meadows has crafted and passed a bill that will hurt the people of this district. This bill will take away health insurance for thousands of folks in Western North Carolina. It’ll make health care unaffordable for people with pre-existing conditions.

And it cuts over $800 billion from Medicaid, funding that is critical here in Western North Carolina. We’ve already seen Angel Medical Center in Franklin shut down its labor/delivery services, and Harris Regional Hospital in Sylva do away with its hospice and palliative services, because of Medicaid cuts.

How many more people have to lose access to health care before Meadows is satisfied?

Let’s put an end to this insurance company, profit-driven madness. When I’m in Congress, I will support H.R. 676: Medicare for All. It’s time for universal health care. Let’s send Meadows home, and put a progressive in his place.