For Progressives-- Wins, Losses And The Road Forward

Start calling her Congresswoman Bush

Last night there were two gigantic progressive wins-- both in Missouri. After a decade of dogged and vicious Republican opposition in the state legislature and from the governors, the state's voters passed a Constitutional Amendment to give health care to nearly a quarter million of the state's poorest citizens (people earning less than $18,000 annually) through Obamacare Medicaid expansion, making Missouri the 38th state to adopt it. Thanks to massive popularity in St Louis, the amendment passed 52-48% statewide, with right-wing governor Mike Parson continuing to lie that the state can't afford it-- even after a credible study from the Institute for Public Health at Washington University, found that providing health care for more people would actually save the state money. Since the federal government will match 90% of the costs of the newly eligible-- down from 100% had Missouri decided to be part of the program from the beginning-- that state will save about half a billion dollars a year in federal income taxes because residents pay into the system that funds Medicaid expansion without getting the benefits of that expansion."

The other huge progressive win in Missouri was Cori Bush defeating corrupt Congressman Lacy Clay in their St. Louis congressional race:

Cori, a nurse, a Black Lives Matter activist and Berniecrat was great news on a night when other movement activists didn't around the country didn't fare as well. Clay raised $740,525 compared to Bush's $562,309 but a massive $150,000 I.E. on her behalf from Justice Democrats evened the playing field.

The biggest disappointment was that Blue Dog and "ex"-Republican Tom O'Halleran in Arizona managed to avoid being ousted by another Berniecrat and movement activist, Eva Putzova, who won the districts's biggest and bluest county, Coconino, but was dragged down by the more conservative counties that backed O'Halleran. With 94% of the votes counted, he won 34,095 (58.65%) to 24,037 (41.35%). This was Cori's second try against Clay-- and Eva's first try against O'Halleran. I expect she will try again.

In Michigan, Rashida Tlaib handily beat back a challenge from corporate shill Brenda Jones, with a 2-1 landslide. And in the southwest district, with all precincts now counted, voters have chosen the progressive state legislator, Jon Hoadley over garden variety Democrat Jen Richardson-- 52.3% to 47.7%. Hoadley is in a good position to beat Trump enabler Fred Upton in November.

In Washington state, progressives lost their congressional runs against right-of-center incumbents Rick Larsen and Derek Kilmer and in WA-10, conservative Marilyn Strickland seems to be beating progressive Beth Doglio for first place for the seat opening up after Denny Heck's retirement. It looks like they will square off in November-- with a sharp contrast between a progressive and a conservative.

This morning, Roots Action, led by Berniecrat Norman Solomon, announced that his group has launched a grassroots campaign aimed at "swing voters on the left," to persuade Bernie supporters and other progressives in swing states to "Vote Trump Out-- and Then Challenge Biden."

The Vote Trump Out swing-states initiative will include a highly-targeted social-media program and other digital outreach, utilizing messages from national and state progressive luminaries-- people who are widely respected on the left in ways that establishment Democrats are not. The campaign will urge progressives in the dozen battleground states to vote for Joe Biden rather than sit out the election or cast a third-party protest vote. Directed heavily toward young people, the effort will be entirely independent of-- and often in opposition to-- corporate Democratic leaders.

The RootsAction campaign has assembled a group of national endorsers who are likely to be persuasive to progressives on the fence about voting for Biden. They include: Ady Barkan, Medea Benjamin, Leslie Cagan, Noam Chomsky, Marjorie Cohn, RoseAnn DeMoro, Barbara Ehrenreich, Daniel Ellsberg, Bill Fletcher Jr., Jim Hightower, Rep. Ro Khanna, Jamie Margolin, Annabel Park, Linda Sarsour, Winnie Wong and James Zogby.

The #VoteTrumpOut campaign will assert that-- while President Trump is unfailingly immune to progressive persuasion or protest-- the fight for a full progressive agenda (ranging from major climate initiatives and anti-racism to universal healthcare, free public college and taxing the wealthy) would have the potential to win some victories with Biden in the White House.

The campaign’s mission statement declares: "We are not going to minimize our disagreements with Joe Biden. But we’re also clear-eyed about where things stand: supporting the Democratic nominee in swing states is the only way to defeat Trump... If Biden wins, we’ll be at his door on day one, demanding the kinds of structural reforms that advance racial, economic and environmental justice."

Renowned linguist, author and political activist Noam Chomsky contributed this comment to the initiative: "I live in the swing state of Arizona, and I’d vote for a lamp post to get Trump out." Chomsky is featured in a campaign-launch video [above].

"Our organization fought fiercely in the primaries for Bernie and against Biden," said RootsAction.org cofounders Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon. "But the general election is far less about Biden than it is about Trump-- the most dangerous president in modern U.S. history, who opposes virtually every policy and principle that progressives are fighting for."

   

What Would Trump Do Differently If He Was TRYING To Lose The Election And Tank The GOP?

People are looking at two big national polls this weekend, one by Marist, released by NPR and PBS that shows Trump losing with just 44% of the vote (and a sky-high disapproval of 57%!) and one from Kaiser showing Trump losing with 38% and with a disapproval of 56%. And, occasionally he's starting to face reality. One such occasion was Thursday evening on Fox with Hannity when he mused that Biden is "gonna be your president because some people don't love me, maybe and all I'm doing is doing my job." He then went into his whole litany of lies about what a great steward of the economy he's been, the myth on which he had been building his campaign-- until the reality of what he made into the Republican Plague hit him in the face and knocked him on his ass. Ezra Klein wrote that as Trump "has continued to treat the presidency as a media spectacle, the work of governance as a dull distraction from the glitter of celebrity"-- obsessing over cable news and Twitter conflict and neglecting the job Americans hired him to do-- he's loath to face up to his record: "More than 120,000 dead from Covid-19 [and] an economy in shambles. Coronavirus cases in America exploding, even as they fall across the European Union... Trump has spent the past three years and 158 days playing president on TV and social media. But he has not spent that time doing the job of the president. A strong economy that carried over from Barack Obama’s presidency hid Trump’s dereliction of duties. But then a crisis came, and presidential leadership was needed, and the American people saw there was no plan, and functionally no president."

Trump seems to be doing everything possible to lose in November. Even the far right editorial board of the Wall Street Journal mused yesterday that "Trump may soon need a new nickname for 'Sleepy Joe' Biden. How does President-elect sound? On present trend that’s exactly what Mr. Biden will be on Nov. 4, as Mr. Trump heads for what could be an historic repudiation that would take the Republican Senate down with him."

Friday morning, the Miami Herald announced that "A record week of surging coronavirus numbers was only heightened on Friday, as state health officials confirmed 8,942 cases, nearly doubling the previous record of cases reported in a single day, two days earlier... Over the last seven days, Florida has reported 29,163 new cases. That’s nearly a quarter of all the confirmed cases in the state so far." Brainless, Trumpist governors Ron DeSantis (FL) and Greg Abbott (TX) finally reversed themselves and ordered their states' bars to close, something they-- and all governors-- should have done in March.





Meanwhile, Fauci told the Washington Post that Trump's testing strategy is a failure.

Not enough to get himself kicked out of office? His regime is still trying to make matters worse for sick people by demanding the Republican-dominated Supreme Court abolish Obamacare-- along with the insistence that insurance companies cover customers with preexisting conditions, the part of Obamacare that is universally popular-- even with hard core Republicans. James Hohmann wrote yesterday that "The Trump team’s core argument is that every Republican who voted for the tax cuts three years ago knowingly voted to destroy the 2010 law in its entirely, not just to get rid of the mandate that individuals buy health insurance. And, because the Supreme Court previously upheld the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that the individual mandate is a tax, Trump’s lawyers say that the whole system became invalid once Congress got rid of the penalty for not carrying health insurance... The brief is full of little gifts like this to Joe Biden and Democrats who hope to ride his coattails down the ballot."

All this stuff is bad for Trump and bad-- deservedly so-- for the GOP. But Trump figured out a way to make it worse yet. Emily Larsen, writing for the Washington Examiner reported that "Trump’s extreme opposition to mail-in ballots is more likely hurting him and down-ballot Republicans than it is helping him. Mounting evidence in voter registration data, a survey, and organizer anecdotes shows that instead of preventing the voting method from being a major factor in the November election, his stance is turning Republican voters off from using the method entirely, which could have the effect of depressing Republican votes. The president’s rampant alarmism on mail-in voting-- most recently claiming that foreign governments will rig the election by printing millions of mail-in ballots, an idea rebuked by elections officials-- frustrates those trying to push state election officials and Congress to provide ample absentee voting and in-person voting options and resources in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. They point out that many analyses find that mail-in voter fraud is small and often prosecuted... Trump’s public lashing out against mail-in voting may come too late. All of the six most important swing states have some form of mail-in or absentee voting. Despite Trump, some state Republicans are doing what they can to organize mail-in votes. The Florida Republican Party sent an email in May to its supporters, reminding voters to request a vote-by-mail ballot. Pennsylvania’s GOP website includes instructions on how to vote absentee."

But not all state Republican parties are doing what Florida and Pennsylvania are doing. 85% of the votes cast for the Kentucky primaries were sent in by mail. How much of an increase was that? In 2016, there were 38,112 ballots mailed in. This year... around 800,000-- a 2,000% increase! But that record turnout is alarming Republicans. In Georgia and Iowa-- both controlled by the GOP-- barriers are going up to vote-by-mail, infuriating voters who find out what the Republicans are up to.

What the Republicans are doing-- whether in healthcare, voting, pandemic response... is all leading to what is going to likely be the most gargantuan repudiation of the GOP since 1932, when Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover was defeated 22,821,277 (57.4%) to 15,761,254 (39.7%)-- losing 42 states (carrying just 6). In the process, the Republicans lost 11 Senate seats (including their Majority Leader, James Watson (R-IN)-- the Mitch McConnell of his day) AND 101 House seats-- yes 101!-- losing the White House, the Senate and the House, all by immense margins. The news lineup in the Democratically-controlled House was 318 Democrats, 117 Republicans. The GOP lost all their seats in Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

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."

She's Like An Agnostic-- Have You Seen Her All In Gold, Like A Queen In Days Of Old

Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Paul Kane and Rachael Bade wrote that Nancy Pelosi is skeptical of Medicare-For-All and that she questions whether Medicare-for-all can deliver benefits as good as Obamacare. I literally have never met anyone using Obamacare who likes it and I have never met anyone using Medicare who doesn't love it. So I'm confused about what Pelosi is babbling about, when she said on Thursday Medicare-For-All might be too expensive and that she'd rather build on Obamacare. "I’m agnostic," she said slyly. "Show me how you think you can get there. We all share the value of health care for all Americans-- quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What is the path to that? I think it’s the Affordable Care Act, and if that leads to Medicare-for-all, that may be the path." Tragic! Just tragic.

You may have heard me telling this story before, so... if you have I apologize in advance. Before retiring I was a TimeWarner divisional president and things like health insurance for top corporate executives were carefully negotiated by high-priced attorneys as part of contracts. Except in the case of health insurance, attorneys long ago had done all the negotiating. Chairmen and presidents got the best package the "free market" offered. There really wasn't any negotiating to do. It was built into the deal already-- the best is the best and there's nothing better than that. So that's what I had, amazing health insurance, or at least I thought so. I was much younger and healthier and didn't use it much-- almost not at all, and certainly not enough too think much about it other than to know in the back of my mind that I had the best of the best so... no worries.

Then I decided to retire. Then I was worried. I had a preexisting condition. Maybe I was uninsurable. Maybe insurance would cost a small fortune. But then I discovered that part of my best of the best package included a golden parachute provision: the company would continue insuring me until I was eligible for Medicare. Groovy; no more worries. In the time between when I retired and did become eligible for Medicare, I grew older-- imagine that-- and less healthy, more in need of doctors' care. The insurance suddenly came in handy. I started to worry about what would happen when I was pushed onto Medicare. What would I do then? How much worse was it than the best the private market had to offer?

And the day came. It came at around the same time that I was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer. First I discovered something that apparently no one has told Ms. Pelosi. Common ole Medicare-- with the supplemental plan you need for the extra 20% of costs-- that everyone uses, high and low, is actually BETTER, BETTER, BETTER, than the best insurance the private market offers. I know... it sounds astounding and hard to believe. But... let me put it this way. When the hospital bills that I never had to pay reached the $2 million mark, I stopped looking at them. Medicare is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. When friends tell me they've been diagnosed with something, the first thing I ask them is if they're on Medicare yet.

Because I was in the music business, I know an inordinate number of people who use Obamacare to access insurance. I've never met anyone who had anything better to say about it than "it's better than nothing." The best things about Obamacare are rules for society-- like no insurance industry terrorism over preexisting conditions allowed-- but in terms of an individual's care, Obamacare is... yeah, better than nothing. Like if Medicare is an "A+," Obamacare is, more or less a "C" (at best). A "C" isn't that bad, I guess. An A+, when it comes to life or death, is a lot better.

It shocked me that Pelosi doesn't understand what either Medicare or Obamacare is, except in theory. But when I thought about it, I realized I was foolish to be shocked. You understand about Medicare when you experience it, not when you read about it. She has some kind of congressional insurance so what does she know about Medicare? Nothing real. And Obamacare? She knows how great and innovative and crucial it was for society-- but not how badly it sucks for individuals stuck with it.

There are 107 original co-sponsors for HR 1384, Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All legislation. Pelosi isn't one of them. Nor is Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn or Ben Ray Lujan, her 3 top lieutenants. DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos didn't sign on either. Neither did Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries. That's the top leadership of the House Democrats-- and not a single one is a Medicare-For-All co-sponsor.

It's mostly progressives, with a smattering of non-progressives worried about primaries because they represent blue districts-- like Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Bill Keating (New Dem-MA), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Diane DeGette (D-CO), Adam Smith (New Dem-WA), Mike Doyle (D-PA)... And not many freshmen (just 17), who have been discouraged from signing on by Hoyer's operation. These are the only freshman members who have signed on so far:

• AOC (D-NY)
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)
• Mike Levin (D-CA)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• Debra Haaland (D-NM)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
• Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA)
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)
• Vernonica Escobar (New Dem-TX)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)

When Pelosi told The Post that "when most people say they’re for Medicare-for-all, I think they mean health care for all. Let’s see what that means. A lot of people love having their employer-based insurance and the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." People who say they like their employer-based insurance are as ignorant as I was when I thought it was great (and as she is). She's right when she says "the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." That's what the Affordable Care Act did for America, but those social policies are baked into the cake now-- and Pelosi and her colleagues who passed them and defended them should be acknowledged and applauded for the incremental piece of progress they made. Now it's time for a giant step forward: Medicare For All, which, of course, includes ever policy achievement Pelosi is defending regarding Obamacare. But when Pelosi said "Medicare is not as good a health benefit as the Affordable Care Act," she's just plum out of her mind. When it comes to what Medicare does for patients compared to what Obamacare accessed insurance does... no one who says Medicare is better should be in a position to influence anything to do with policy.

Pelosi took a hand in improving the only bad part of Medicare, Bush's wretched Medicare Part D (the pharmaceuticals part of the plan) and it's a bit better now. So not an "F" anymore-- a "C." A "C" is better than an "F." Thank you Nancy Pelosi for the lovely "C." We want an "A." What the Medicare-For-All proposals do is get rid of Part D and make pharmaceuticals affordable instead. The other improvements include dental care, as well as eye and ear care-- seeing and hearing. How's that for improvements? Long overdue, in part, because Nancy doesn't understand healthcare except from the perspective of the multimillionaire she is.

Democrats And Republicans About To Clash Majorly-- On Health Care For Americans

But we can't afford to expand health care

Trump is celebrating his possible victory-- we'll see what's true and what's not when the whole Mueller Report is released instead of just a GOP press release from Barr's office-- by kicking millions of poor people off healthcare. Again, through Barr, Trump had told a reactionary Texas appeals court (the 5th Circuit), he wants the whole Affordable Care Act shit-canned. CNN reported that that is "a major shift for the Justice Department from when Jeff Sessions was attorney general. At the time, the administration argued that the community rating rule and the guaranteed issue requirement-- protections for people with pre-existing conditions-- could not be defended but the rest of the law could stand."

Note: protection for people with pre-existing conditions is the single most popular part of the ACA and if Trump has it struck down, it will be another nail in his political coffin. Last night, Robert Pear reported for the NY Times that Pelosi is on the verge of unveiling a plan ro expand health coverage-- far from Medicare-for-All, but far better than what Trump is offering America. Pear pointed out that "Democrats won control of the House in large part on the strength of their argument that Congress needs to protect people with pre-existing medical conditions and to lower the cost of health care and that today she's "putting aside, at least for now, the liberal quest for a government-run Medicare for all single-payer system and unveil a more incremental approach toward fulfilling those campaign promises. Building on the Affordable Care Act, they would offer more generous subsidies for the purchase of private health insurance offered through the health law’s insurance exchanges while financing new efforts to increase enrollment."

Did Pelosi stab the CPC in the back over Medicare-For-All? 

She and her lieutenants will offer legislation that also reverses actions by Trump that "allow insurance companies to circumvent protections in the Affordable Care Act for people with pre-existing conditions. Insurers could no longer sell short-term health plans with skimpy benefits or higher premiums for people with chronic illnesses. She says the legislation will 'strengthen protections for pre-existing conditions, reverse the G.O.P.’s health care sabotage and lower Americans’ health costs.'"

The legislative package, put together by Ms. Pelosi and several House committee chairmen, builds on the health law that the speaker was instrumental in passing-- and that was signed by President Barack Obama almost exactly nine years ago. And it seems to answer a question facing Democrats since they took control of the House: How would they balance the expansive demands of their most liberal members with the needs of more pragmatic Democrats elected in seats that were held by Republicans?

Ms. Pelosi, the committee chairmen and many other House Democrats see the new legislative package as a more efficient way of achieving universal coverage, a goal shared by champions of “Medicare for all,” led by Representatives Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan.

Democrats said they would probably try to pass the legislative package piece by piece, with the first votes on the House floor expected in May. Some elements could win support from Republican House members and from the Republican-controlled Senate.

With their new proposal, House Democratic leaders hope to finesse the disagreements within their caucus and to focus public attention instead on the gulf that separates Democrats of all stripes from President Trump on health care.

In his latest budget request, Mr. Trump urged Congress again to repeal the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which has provided coverage to at least 12 million people newly eligible for the program. Mr. Trump attacked Senator John McCain last week, seven months after his death, for casting a decisive vote against repeal of the 2010 health law.

And in the economic report of the president, the White House boasted last week about how Mr. Trump had allowed small businesses and individual consumers to buy insurance plans that skirt many requirements of the Affordable Care Act, offering lower costs but fewer benefits.

Under a rule issued in August, Mr. Trump greatly expanded the market for sales of short-term insurance plans that do not have to cover prescription drugs, maternity care, drug abuse treatment or pre-existing conditions.

The House Democrats’ bill would turn back the president’s action by stipulating that short-term plans are included in the definition of “individual health insurance coverage” under the Affordable Care Act and therefore must comply with coverage requirements of the health law.

“These junk plans discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions,” said Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey and an architect of the new legislation. “They deny access to basic benefits. They set arbitrary dollar limits for health care services, leading to huge surprise bills for consumers.”

“We passed the Affordable Care Act to rein in exactly these types of abuses,” said Mr. Pallone, who is investigating the short-term plan as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Affordable Care Act provides two main types of financial assistance to people of modest means buying private insurance: tax credits to help them pay premiums, and cost-sharing reductions to lower their deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket costs.

The House Democrats’ bill would revise the law to provide more of both types of assistance.

In addition, the bill would make subsidies available to some working families who are now ineligible. The law, as interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service, bars subsidies to workers who have access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage for themselves-- even if the cost of coverage for the entire family is unaffordable. The House Democrats’ bill would eliminate this quirk in the law, sometimes called the family glitch.

...The package will also include a bipartisan bill offered by Representative Andy Kim, a freshman Democrat from New Jersey, that would provide federal money to states that want to set up their own insurance marketplaces but have yet to do so.

“With skyrocketing premiums in the federal marketplace, state-based exchanges have proven to be more effective at increasing the rate of coverage and lowering costs,” said Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, Republican of Pennsylvania, who helped write this proposal with Mr. Kim.

Karoli Kun is an editor at Crooks and Liars and a friend and colleague. She is just coming out on the other side of a serious health issue, which she details at C&L. "After six days in the hospital," she wrote last night, "doctors finally narrowed the cause to a carotid artery stenosis, a blockage likely caused by years of smoking and (also undiagnosed) high cholesterol. Last Monday, an excellent vascular surgeon performed surgery to place a stent in my carotid artery, opening it up and getting rid of the debris still left in that artery. The description of the procedure is terrifying, but it went without a hitch and is successful. I'm told I may have come out of the anesthetic growling 'Fck Trump' since he really is to blame for every bad thing. Going forward, I just have a lovely zipper on my neck now, but it’s a small price to pay to have the artery open and working properly.

In the aftermath, I am wearing a continuous heart monitor for the next 2 weeks to rule out atrial fibrillation as a cause. The doctors doubt it, but recommend it out of an abundance of caution.

I will likely be on medication for high blood pressure and blood thinners for the rest of my life. The side effects are a challenge but in the end it’s a small price to pay. Thursday I start physical and speech therapy to fix the remaining speech and fine motor skills issues, which are improving every day but still linger when I’m tired or talking too fast. I’m seeing a neurologist and cardiologist for follow-ups, and an ophthalmologist to evaluate vision changes and fix my glasses prescription.

The way I have been treated is the way everyone’s health care should be handled. From the moment I arrived at the ER through my surgery last week, Kaiser has been in charge of my healthcare needs. Not their bottom line: my needs. If I needed surgery, I got surgery. No fighting, no initial denials. If I needed a test, I got a test. If I needed a specialist, I got a specialist. This is how medicine should work: Doctors healing, health professionals and support staff healing, while the patient does not worry.

In all of my conversations with the health professionals treating me over the past 4 weeks, I realized that one of the reasons for my superior treatment is mainly because Kaiser really knows how to deliver health care, but also because California in particular has higher standards for health care professionals. Nurses, for example, cannot be responsible for more than 4 patients in a hospital. That means they’re available, less stressed, more attuned to their patients’ needs. Several of the nurses caring for me told me they moved here from other states where the standards are far lower in order to feel like they were able to do their best work. That suggests there should be national standards for health care delivery rather than letting some states race to the bottom and cheap it up. (Yes, the states they left were red states. Deep red states.)

Health care needs to be that way for everyone, not just lucky ones with good insurance in blue states. At this point, I don’t care how we get there but we have to get there. Soon.

Well, Trump sure isn't offering it-- and neither are Pelosi and her lieutenants. And Trump is also proposing cutting billions of dollars from Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security). You know who is offering real healthcare to Americans, though, right?

How Señor T Was Forced To Learn That No Means No (Who Remembers No-Drama-Obama?)

I bet Putin's Puppet didn't want to use a state of the union to explain to the American people why there are 7 million more uninsured people in America since he slithered into the White House, the highest since Obamacare started bringing the rate down 4 years ago. Sarah Kliff explained at Vox that "the country’s uninsured rate has steadily ticked upward since 2016, rising from a low of 10.9 percent in late 2016 to 13.7 percent-- a four-year high." Want to explanation for why young people, women and poor people are the least enthusiastic demographic groups when it comes to the GOP? "Certain demographic groups are experiencing a greater loss of coverage than others. Gallup data shows, for example, that Americans who are younger and lower-income have seen a greater decline in insurance coverage than those who are older and wealthier. Women have had insurance rates decline more quickly than men."

Although bright-red states Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah all passed ballot initiatives to expand Medicaid for low-income residents in the 2018 midterms and despite the fact that Maine and Kansas are joining the program this year, other things will bring the numbers down further. More red states are going to roll out work requirements for Medicaid. Kliff wrote that "the individual mandate penalty goes away this year, meaning there is no longer a tax for not carrying health insurance coverage. And the Trump administration isn’t likely to restore Obamacare’s outreach and enrollment budget anytime soon. All those trends are likely to decrease the number of Americans who have health insurance coverage for years to come."

But whatever Trump intended on saying about healthcare next Tuesday-- probably nothing-- in the State of the Union, he won't have to worry about it... at least not 'til he allows the government to open up again. Pelosi sent him a letter and made it clear he's not invited. Here's her letter to Dear Señor Trumpanzee:

When I extended an invitation on January 3rd for you to deliver the State of the Union address, it was on the mutually agreed upon date, January 29th.  At that time, there was no thought that the government would still be shut down. In my further correspondence of January 16th, I said we should work together to find a mutually agreeable date when government has re-opened and I hope that we can still do that.

I am writing to inform you that the House of Representatives will not consider a concurrent resolution authorizing the President’s State of the Union address in the House Chamber until government has opened. Again, I look forward to welcoming you to the House on a mutually agreeable date for this address when government has been opened.

Sincerely,

NANCY PELOSI
Speaker of the House

Not to be outdone, the carnival barker got someone to write a letter that he sent her back.

Dear Madam Speaker:

Thank you for your letter of January 3, 2019, sent to me long after the Shutdown began, inviting me to address the Nation on January 29th as to the State of the Union. As you know, I had already accepted your kind invitation, however, I then received another letter from you dated January 16, 2019, wherein you expressed concerns regarding security during the State of the Union Address due to the Shutdown. Even prior to asking, I was contacted by the Department of Homeland Security and the United States Secret Service to explain that there would be absolutely no problem regarding security with respect to the event. They have since confirmed this publicly.

Accordingly, there are no security concerns regarding the State of the Union Address. Therefore, I will be honoring your invitation, and fulfilling my Constitutional duty, to deliver important information to the people and Congress of the United States of America regarding the State of our Union.

I look forward to seeing you on the evening on January 29th in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. It would be so very sad for our Country if the State of the Union were not delivered on time, on schedule, and very importantly, on location!

Sincerely,

Donald J. Trump

Spineless: The GOP by Nancy Ohanian

Earlier this evening, Ken had some ideas about what might have ensued if he had tried to barge in. Maggie Haberman and her team at The Times wrote yesterday that Trump is shopping around for another space in which to deliver the State of the Union. People speculated that perhaps he should go deliver it in Mississippi or Wyoming. And then, inevitably-- the tweets of defeats: "As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative-- I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an.... alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a 'great' State of the Union Address in the near future!" The Putz lost and a lame strategy, based on being able to bully Pelosi, fell apart when he realized she wasn't bluffing-- and that she held 4 aces while he had a couple of random cards.

Politico's Playbook this morning: "Replublicans were betting Trump had Pelosi cornered, and there was no way she would rescind the invitation. They thought this was a win-win for Trump-- either the president would deliver the State of the Union, or Pelosi would block him... But then Trump blinked and bowed to Pelosi, saying he'd give his State of the Union after the shutdown. This is a big win for Pelosi. It re-establishes that Pelosi is, indeed, in charge of the legislative branch, and there is little Trump can do about that. Republicans were winning the daily political churn Wednesday because they were talking about SOTU, not the shutdown, for which they are being blamed. And then Trump caved to Pelosi." The master negotiator, lost again. Maybe he should consider reading Tony Schwartz's book, The Art of the Deal. Oops... I forgot, he doesn't read.

A Right-Wing Judge In Texas Just Moved Up The Timetable For Medicare-For-All

When John Conyers introduced the 2017 version of the Medicare for All bill in the House, H.R. 676, there were 51 original cosponsors. Last week, the bill got it's 124th co-sponsor, Brenda Jones from Detroit, Conyers' old seat, which she will hold until the expiration of his seat at the end of the month. Although the co-sponsors were all progressives in the beginning, by last spring, died-in-the wool conservatives-- 17 New Dems and even Blue Dogs from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- were signing on (still no Beto, though):

• Anthony Brown (New Dem-MD)
• Andre Carson (New Dem-IN)
• Luis Correa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Ed Perlmutter (New Dem-CO)
• Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX)
• Adam Smith (New Dem-WA)
• Brendan Boyle (New Dem-PA)
• Al Lawson (New Dem-FL)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Mike Thompson (Blue Dog-CA)
• Darren Soto (New Dem-FL)
• Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX)
• Adam Schiff (New Dem-CA)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Filemon Vela (Blue Dog-TX)
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)
• Don Norcross (New Dem-NJ)

Friday evening, a right-wing nut, Federal District Judge Reed O'Connor, put on the bench by George W. Bush, ruled in favor of a coalition of 20 Republican Attorneys General led by Ken Paxton (R-TX) that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. The AGs claimed that "when Congress last year repealed the tax penalty for the so-called individual mandate, it eliminated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale for finding the ACA constitutional in 2012."

So the insurance industry-- which has been paying immense bribes to corrupt conservatives to get rid of protections for people with preexisting conditions-- is one step closer to being able to rip off the whole country. By the way, these are the dozen current members (not including the ones who won't be returning in January) of the House who took the biggest bribes from the insurance industry 2017-18:

• Kevin Brady (R-TX), chair, House Ways and Means Committee- $374,800
• Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), member, Financial Services subcommittee on Insurance + chair of subcommittee on Consumer Credit- $373,400
• Richard Neal (D-MA), ranking member, House Ways and Means- $364,900
• Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), House Majority Leader- $351,450
• Paul Ryan (R-WI, Speaker- $321,318
• Steve Stivers (R-OH), member, Financial Services subcommittee on Insurance- $313,374
• Sean Duffy (R-WI), chair, Financial Services subcommittee on Insurance- $301,950
• Ron Kind (New Dem-WI), member, House Ways and Means- $267,025
• John Larson (New Dem-CT), member, House Ways and Means- $263,274
• Ann Wagner (R-MO), chair, Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversite and Investigations- $256,200
• Andy Barr (R-KY), member, Financial Services Subcommittee on Consumer Credit- $247,681
• Bill Huizenga (R-MI), chair, Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities and Investment- $242,883

So Richard Neal now takes over as the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the committee Alexandria would like to get onto so she can stop the practices he's taking a leading role in. This should be interesting.

Back to the Judge O'Connor. His finding will be put on hold until the case works its way through the judicial system, presumably, eventually, to the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump's reflexive reaction to the prospect of millions of Americans losing their health coverage is worth thinking about, especially for Trump voters in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania... and in the states were voters just used the initiative process to expand Medicaid:

As for O'Connor being a highly respected judge, he isn't, not even close. "Highly respected" in Trump-Speak means simple someone that agrees with him on whatever he's talking about at the moment. O'Connor is a doctrinaire wing nut who Harry Reid allowed to be conformed with a voice vote so that there isn't even a record for accountability of senators who were complicit in this ruling.

One good thing that may come out of it, of course, is that when the Democratic House begins to fix the healthcare system, it will be a much more robust fix than Obamacare, with negotiated pharmaceutical prices and single payer. Medicare-for-All, hear we come. When you add the freshmen who recently campaigned on single payer to the 124 co-sponsors of H.R. 676-- even minus the ones who are not returning in January-- you're either there or almost there for passage already. And, presumably, some of the non-signers, aren't opposed. The American people will need to do three things to pass Medicare-for-All bill now:

• defeat Trump and replace him with a Democrat willing-- or preferrably eager-- to sign Medicare-For-All
• flip the Senate blue in 2020 (hard-- means defeating McConnell in Kentucky) or 2022 (easy)
• defeat reactionary anti-healthcare Blue Dogs in the 2020 primaries, particularly ones in blue districts, like Dan Lipinksi (IL), Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Stephanie Murphy (FL), Kurt Schrader (OR) and David Scott (GA).

Will Ruining The American Health Care System Weaken The GOP In November?

Congressional Republicans plan to reduce the biggest budget deficit in history-- that they created by giving multimillionaires and billionaires massive tax cuts-- by further eviscerating the social safety net, particularly Medicare and Medicaid. But not 'tl after the midterms. Even the GOP-mandated spikes in Obamacare are a political problem for them-- although, they too are timed top come after the midterms, even if voters will know about the huge price increases right before the election. Politico: "Unlike recent campaign cycles, when Republicans capitalized on Obamacare sticker shock, they’re now likely to be the ones feeling the wrath of voters."

Paul Demko surmised that because Republicans are now in total control of the federal government they will therefore be on the hook for the health care system’s chronic shortcomings. "Polling data has consistently suggested that more voters will blame Republicans for future problems with Obamacare. In addition, the GOP’s repeated failures to repeal Obamacare after eight years of campaign promises will make it difficult to galvanize the base on health care." Dems have been hammering Señor Trumpanzee and his congressional enablers "for 'sabotaging' the health care markets and driving up premiums. Protect Our Care has been running digital ads in 13 states featuring news coverage of big rate hikes and concluding with a sound bite from Trump: 'Let Obamacare implode.' They hope that message will stick with voters come November."

One of the most conservative Democrats in the House, Raul Ruiz from Palm Springs, a doctor who sits on a key committee that oversees health care, explained that "The political implications go only as far as people understand that they are a direct consequence of the administration’s actions. If they realize that, then they will be very, very upset with them."

In particular, Democrats blame Republicans for eliminating the mandate penalty for failing to obtain health insurance, which was designed to be a cudgel to compel people who might otherwise go uninsured to buy coverage. They also point to the Trump administration’s efforts to make it easier to buy skinnier, cheaper plans that don’t meet the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements and patient protections as an exacerbating factor.

“Once they fractured the mandate, that changed the insurance pool,” said Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA.), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee. “Insurance is based upon shared risk, meaning fewer people contributing, the premiums escalate.”

...Insurance experts generally agree that the rate hikes will be more severe because of actions taken by the Republican-led Congress and the Trump administration.

“If it hadn’t been for the individual mandate being repealed, and the threat of short-term and other loosely regulated plans proliferating, I think we would have seen single digit premiums increases,” said Cynthia Cox, an insurance expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Insurers are performing much better on the exchange markets than they had in the early years.”

...[D]ouble-digit premium increases are still likely in many states, as evidenced by the rate filings that have been trickling out in recent weeks. Premiums for the most popular Obamacare plans are going up by 15 percent on average-- about $100 per month-- according to an analysis of rate filings in 10 states by Avalere Health. While rates won’t be finalized until the fall, it’s already clear that there will be wide discrepancies across the country that could affect the political salience of the issue.

Insurers in Maryland want to raise rates on the most popular plans by an eye-popping 53 percent, while New York insurers are seeking average premium increases of 24 percent. By contrast, insurers in Pennsylvania only want to raise premiums by 5 percent on average. All four insurers selling Obamacare plans in Minnesota want to decrease premiums.

One big factor affecting the severity of the rate hikes is how insurers account for the removal of the individual mandate. The Congressional Budget Office has projected it will increase premiums by 10 percent, mainly because fewer healthy people will opt to enroll, but Republicans have scoffed at that as an unrealistic assessment of the mandate’s significance.

...Democrats note that Republicans are hoping to at least partially insulate themselves from health care attacks by passing a barrage of bills designed to address the opioid crisis. But Ruiz points out that many individuals who enter rehab to treat opioid addiction are enrolled in Medicaid, which Republicans sought to dramatically scale back as part of their Obamacare repeal efforts.

“You realize that this is a small step forward, but ten steps back if they get their way,” Ruiz said.

If you are wondering whether or not Democrats are taking the offensive against Trump and his Republican enablers on this, please read what these 3 progressive candidates have to say about it. You probably remember Orlando Congressman Alan Grayson for this fiery and compelling speech on the floor of the House almost a decade ago:



Today, Grayson, who is running for his old congressional seat again-- against some do-nothing backbencher-- told me that today the Republican health care plan, in the age of Trump, "isn’t very complicated: the GOP tried again and again to take health coverage away from 20 million people, and they have repeatedly threatened the anti-discrimination provisions and the subsidies that make it affordable for tens of millions of others. However, Republicans are so experienced at playing the blame game that many voters will continue to blame the Democrats for whatever the GOP does to them. As the Republican Party demonstrates every day, 'you can fool some of the people some of the time...'"

Kara Eastman, who won her primary against a DCCC Blue Dog, is now facing off against an anti-healthcare Republican, Don Bacon, who has the highest Trump affinity score in Congress-- 98.8%. But the DCCC adamantly refuses to help her, even though they have called her Omaha district one of the most flippable in the country! That isn't stopping Kara from running of the most powerful grassroots campaigns anywhere. Yesterday, Kara told us that "Nebraska is one of 17 states that left millions of dollars on the table by not expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Thus about 90,000 Nebraskans are left without health care. This has tremendous economic consequences for our state, not to mention, it is immoral. We know that by expanding access to health care, we will see a direct increase in state-level gross domestic product. This would also mean Nebraska could stop cutting funding for things like education (another topic for another day). Health care in the United States should be a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy or for those fortunate enough to have good benefits through their employer. In the 65,000 doors we have knocked during my campaign, health care is the number one issue voters talk about. While some disagree on how we get everyone insured, we all agree that health care is a priority and we need to fix our broken system now."

James Thompson's Republican opponent never deviates from the GOP party line-- including when it comes to taking healthcare away from Kansans. Today, James told us that "The GOP and the current administration will not rest until they destroy the social safety nets that are the only things standing between us and third world status. Their plans to gut social security, Medicare, the Veteran’s Administration, Medicaid and the ACA are attacks on the most vulnerable among us. Healthcare is a human right inherent in all of us. Here in Kansas the failure to expand Medicaid has resulted in the closing of at least one hospital in Independence, Kansas. At any given time, one third of all rural hospitals are in danger of closing because of the failure to implement substantive health care reform and expand Medicaid. The current path of the GOP in attacking healthcare will result in the loss of healthcare for 13 million Americans which will in turn cause the deaths of thousands of American citizens who will be unable to get the healthcare they need. In addition, the profits-- first agenda of the GOP-- driven by legalized bribery through campaign donations has resulted in the skyrocketing pharmaceutical costs that will also cost many their lives. Kansans in my district, including Republicans, are tired of being forgotten by elected officials and seeing their loved ones die because they could not afford healthcare. The tide is shifting towards Medicare for All because they realize the profit driven health insurance industry is unsustainable. In November, I will win the election for 4th District Congressman because the people of my district know that I will listen to them and will do my very best to make sure they get the access to healthcare that every human being deserves."

Ellen Lipton is running for an open Democratic seat in the suburbs north of Detroit. In the state legislature she's proven herself to be a solid progressive leader. Yesterday she told us that "Trump continues to gut the Affordable Care Act. He bragged about doing so just yesterday in Nevada. When I knock doors and go to community events, everyone I meet is concerned about health care as their top priority. I have MS. The fact that I have health insurance is why I am able to afford the medications that allow me to live a healthy and productive life. When Trump threatens to allow health insurers to stop selling to people based on pre-existing conditions, it's personal. In Congress, I will fight for universal health care for everyone in our country."

And for those who follow the vicissitudes of weekly or monthly polling, the first one since Trump started locking up children of immigrants in for-profit-prisons was released by Gallup today, notice the significant spike in disapprovals and the equally significant spike downwards in approvals, We're back to 55% of Americans telling pollsters they think he's doing a bad job.