"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Friday, December 20, 2019
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:
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."
There Are Two Kinds Of Politicians In America-- Those Who Insist On Including Health Care As A Human Right And Those Who Insist It Isn't
>
I start writing my posts by 5 AM and I keep doing it, on and off, 'til around 5PM, just in time for Chris Hayes' show. But by 9 every morning, the candidate calls start coming in. They can take a big chunk out of my day, especially from new candidates I don't know. But I've come up with a way to cut them short: "If you're elected and the Democrats maintain a majority in the House, as looks likely, H.R. 1384, Pramila Jayapal's Medicare-For-All act will come up for a vote. You'll have to either vote for it, vote against it or abstain. Do you support Medicare-for-All. If they say "no" the interview is basically over. I don't hang up but I do start cutting it short and moving towards saying good-bye and good luck. If they say "yes, but...." it's also a signal that this could be over quickly.
Yesterday, CNN reported that there are 400,000 more children uninsured since Trump took office. Keep these two words in the back of your mind: "Republican enablers." Yesterday, Tami Luhby reported that "The number of uninsured children ballooned by more than 400,000 between 2016 and 2018, an unprecedented decline in health coverage for the youngest Americans... Roughly 4.1 million children were uninsured in 2018, up from a low of 3.6 million in 2016, according to the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families, citing US Census Bureau data. Their uninsured rate jumped to 5.2% last year, up from 4.7% in 2016.
The trend is particularly troubling because it comes during a period of economic growth when more Americans are gaining employment, said Joan Alker, the center's executive director. She fears even more children will lose coverage if the economy falters. "Much of the gains in children's coverage that came about as a result of the Affordable Care Act have now been reversed," Alker said. The national uninsured rate for all Americans also rose last year for the first time in nearly a decade, according to the Census Bureau. It increased to 8.5% in 2018, up half a percentage point a year earlier. Some 27.5 million people were uninsured last year, a jump of 1.9 million. Several factors have contributed to the bump in uninsured rates for children, the center says. They include: efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and cut Medicaid, delays in funding the Children's Health Insurance Plan, the effective elimination of the individual mandate penalty, cuts to Affordable Care Act enrollment outreach and advertising and an increase in state-based eligibility checks for Medicaid. Also, the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration has discouraged parents from enrolling eligible children in public programs, leading to a rise in uninsured Latino children in particular. The Affordable Care Act helped improve children's coverage rates by increasing the likelihood that children would be enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP when their parents obtained insurance, simplifying enrollment, funding outreach efforts and establishing the individual mandate, which required most Americans to be insured or pay a penalty. Congress set the penalty to $0 starting this year. ...Fifteen states, led by Tennessee, Georgia and Texas, saw the number and/or rate of uninsured children increase.
Yesterday, Senate Democrats forced a vote on repealing an anti-healthcare rule implemented by the Trump Regime. With Medicare open enrollment starting tomorrow, the Senate voted to allow inadequate junk plans to be sold instead of actual health insurance. Vox reported that under Trump’s rule, "states could request a 1332 waiver, which would enable them to buy and offer plans that Democrats see as low-quality options, including plans that could discriminate against patients with preexisting conditions-- rolling back one of the key accomplishments of the ACA. To undo the rule, Democrats forced a vote on a resolution of disapproval, a measure that can be used to overturn administration regulations with a simple majority in the House and Senate. Trump, however, has the ability to veto this measure. The resolution wound up falling short of the votes it needed, with a vote of 43-52, a sign that not enough Republican lawmakers were willing to break with their party on this front." All of the Democrats present-- even the reactionaries like Sinema and Manchin-- voted for the resolution but they were joined by just one Republican-- Susan Collins of Maine. All of the other Republicans voted no, including the 2020 electorally vulnerable incumbents-- Thom Tillis (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), David Perdue (GA), Dan Sullivan (AK), Joni Ernst (IA), Martha McSally (AZ) and Steve Daines (MT).
The Establishment Is Conservative. Conservatives Oppose Fundamental Change-- Let's Take Pelosi And Pallone For Example
>
Pelosi and Pallone-- allies of the Sickness Industry... betrayers of Democratic voters
Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was alarmed by the oral arguments in the latest attempt by Trump and the Republicans to kill Obamacare in a Texas court. Two of the judges seemed determined to throw the entire ACA out. Cantwell wrote to her supports that "The GOP is making yet another insidious attack on the health care of millions of Americans. Brought by Republican attorneys general, this case isn't about helping Americans-- it's a clearly partisan and political attempt to strip health care from millions of Americans... Republicans tried to overturn the Affordable Care Act by legislation [but] voters in 2018 elected a pro-health care Democratic majority in the U.S. House... The message that Americans are sending on health care is unmistakably clear: No more partisan attacks on affordable health care. But Republicans just keep trying-- and this time, they could really succeed." There are more than a few conservative Democrats-- many Blue Dogs and New Dems-- who opposed the ACA and will be quietly happy to see it go down. Take that in the context of a new study published in the American Journal of Medicine, showing that 42% of new cancer patients (under 50 years of age-- so not Medicare insured patients) lose their entire life savings in two years because of treatment and that 62% of cancer patients are in debt because of their treatment. In the U.S., the total medical costs for cancer are $80 billion. Yesterday Politico-Pro published a piece by Heather Caygle, about how Frank Pallone and Nancy Pelosi are working to sideline the left, working especially hard to kill Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. Pallone is chair of the most powerful committee in Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee and he is one of Congress' most corrupt members, although that isn't something Caygle and Politico concern themselves with.
"Frank actually understands we're the majority makers and appreciates what we bring to the table," said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), a member of the moderate [not moderate-- right-wing] Blue Dog Coalition who sits on the Energy and Commerce panel. "That's very different from 10 years ago when a lot of Blue Dogs were viewed as pariahs." Pelosi has spoken openly about protecting the vulnerable [right-of-center] Democrats who helped deliver the House last year. And Pallone is essentially the speaker's enforcer at the committee, which is the first real stop for any potential action on progressive priorities like "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal, H. Res. 109 (116). The partnership is a remarkable turnaround for two onetime opponents. In 2014, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a longtime liberal ally of the then-House minority leader, was running against the more centrist Pallone for a top committee post. Despite a public whipping effort from Pelosi, Eshoo [even more of a shill of Big PhMA than Pallone at the time] fell short. It was a rare defeat in a bitter race that showed the limits of Pelosi's influence. The new Pallone-Pelosi alliance will be all the more crucial as the speaker works to corral her fractious House majority, which is increasingly split between a pack of outspoken progressive millennials and a group of more than two dozen freshman moderates. Pelosi praised Pallone's "invaluable" leadership in a statement, adding, "From health care and prescription drug costs to climate and net neutrality, Chairman Pallone has forged consensus in committee and across our caucus to pass bold legislation through the House." Pallone described himself as a "pragmatic progressive" during an interview in his Capitol Hill office and said he and Pelosi are now in lockstep. "For the most part, we agree," Pallone said of Pelosi. "And I'm not sure that we disagree with a lot of what those on the left would like to see, but I think that we just realized that we don't have the votes." The 30-year lawmaker, who himself boasts a largely liberal voting record, dismissed the idea that he might feel pressure from the left. [Currently 3 Democrats, Russ Cirincone, John Hsu, Javahn Walker have announced primary challengers to Pallone.] Indeed, Pallone has repeatedly fended off progressive demands-- dismissing a special climate panel as "not necessary," taking on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a closed-door meeting, and rejecting a liberal push to forgo contributions from fossil fuel companies. Democratic leaders have purposefully slow-walked the progressive plans pushed by Ocasio-Cortez and others. The subject of Medicare for All has received hearings in three committees-- but not the Energy and Commerce panel, which also oversees health policy.
And the Green New Deal, which Pelosi dismissively called the "green dream" earlier this year, is just one of several proposals being considered by a special climate change committee that has no legislative power. Pallone's panel is taking up a major infrastructure package that addresses climate change, but it's more modest than the Green New Deal. The House also passed legislation in May demanding President Donald Trump keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact, H.R. 9 (116), after the measure cleared Pallone's committee. "Frank is a fair person, a good leader, he gets consensus," said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell, who has served in the New Jersey delegation with Pallone for more than two decades. "But he's not going to be forced by public opinion to move in that direction or to move in this direction." Progressives have mostly chosen to focus on the positive, for example celebrating the fact that Medicare for All received a hearing in any committee even if it was clearly meant as a way for Democratic leaders to placate liberals without forcing moderates to take a tough vote they fear could cost them their seats. But a recent battle over an emergency spending package to address the border crisis, H.R. 3401 (116), has left liberals fuming after their priorities were ignored in the final deal. Rep. Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even warned that his group might retaliate by taking a harder line on top Democratic priorities that come to the floor. "I just think it's hard to ask our caucus to help deliver votes to pass things," Pocan (D-WI) said. "It's just going to be a lot harder for us to care to help deliver votes." And Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the other progressive caucus co-chair, said liberals plan to put more pressure on Pallone specifically in the coming months. "It's very important, absolutely. That's a committee of record on health," Jayapal (D-WA) said of the need for a Medicare for All hearing at Energy and Commerce. "He has not committed to it yet but he's a good chairman. I believe I can work with him to make it happen." Pallone, meanwhile, has purposefully chosen to focus on the things he thinks can actually pass his committee, survive the House floor and in some cases even be considered by the GOP-controlled Senate. For the sprawling panel-- which has a say in nearly every major public policy issue-- that includes work on everything from lowering prescription drug prices and shoring up Obamacare to boosting pipeline safety and oversight of a recalled infant rocker. Pallone has also made a concerted effort to work across the aisle, teaming up with the panel's ranking member, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) on legislation to curb robocalls and outlaw surprise medical bills. And Pallone won't rule out the possibility that Democrats may be able to strike a deal with Trump on infrastructure or prescription drugs, two areas where the president has repeatedly suggested bipartisan negotiation only to back away. "Hope springs eternal," Pallone said. "I do think that on prescription drugs he's pushing Republicans in the Congress, and probably the same on the infrastructure bill. There are definitely Republicans who would like to vote for all of these things." Walden, for his part, said in a statement that Pallone has "a tough task keeping the socialist left at bay" and that it was "only a matter of time" before the committee held hearings on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.
Last month the Journal of Medical Anthropology published a relevant piece by Carole Browner, a research professor at UCLA in the Center for Culture and Health, NPI-Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, that I wish members of Congress would read, Moving beyond Neoliberal Models of Health Care. It would give them a better understanding about why progressives are demanding Medicare-For-All. Here are some excerpts, starting with a series of crucial questions Congress needs to answer-- and by Congress, that includes Pallone and Pelosi: "Why are U.S. health-care costs far higher than elsewhere in the world? And why, if so much more is spent, are such critical outcomes as rates of infant and maternal mortality, life expectancy and treatments for serious diseases not significantly better-- and often markedly worse-- than in other economically comparable countries? Why, moreover, do studies show high rates of patient dissatisfaction, turnover within the nursing and allied health professions and physician burnout? And why, despite recent efforts to ease access to medical care, do 34 million people still have no health insurance, while over 176 million delay in getting needed care-- or put it off completely?"
A new WestHealth-Gallup (2019) survey has reported that 65 million adults said that cost kept them from seeking treatment for a medical problem, while nearly a quarter reduced other routine household spending to pay for health care and/or medicine. As many as 45% of those surveyed said they worried that a major health event could bankrupt them, including one in three families earning at least $180,000 annually.
There is just one answer to each of these questions: there is no government-guaranteed right to health care in the U.S. This contrasts with all other high-income countries, and many others not as wealthy, which, through constitutional or legislative action provide their populations with “universal” health care: at least basic medical coverage and insurance against a financial catastrophe triggered by medical problems. In contrast, the U.S. health-care system is an agglomeration of private corporations whose chief function is to generate profits, and only secondarily to promote health.
Can we still even look to government to solve these kinds of massive societal problems? Unfortunately, there really is no viable alternative. But a government completely defined by establishment conservatives? Not a chance that something positive is going to come out of that, is there? I've lost all faith in Pelosi-- 100% after the concentration-funding episode and her vicious attacks on AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. And Pallone? He's a crooked machine pol from New Jersey and I'm afraid Pramila is just dreaming if she thinks he's part of the solution to any problems. Maybe the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be planning a strategy right now for post-Pelosi congressional leadership. Otherwise we'll be stuck flatfooted again... with another bag of stinking, rotten shit the way the DCCC election wound up this cycle. There are plenty more in Congress just like Cheri Bustos, just like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, just like Kurt Schrader, just like Josh Gottheimer...
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).
Trump Tosses The GOP Another Live Grenade Before The Midterms: Pre-existing Conditions
>
As you see from the responses from the pessimistic commenters on my Friday night tweet, not everyone feels Señor Trumpanzee's decision to enable insurance companies to start denying insurance to people with "pre-existing conditions." Ending that practice was always one of the most popular pieces of Obamacare, even among people who didn't support Obamacare. I've written a lot about counties in places like, say, West Virginia, where Bernie didn't just beat Hillary on election day, but got more votes on that day than Trump did. Here's a random batch of red counties where Trump crushed Hillary in the general election but where Bernie beat both of them on primary day:
That wasn't a phenomena only in West Virginia. Michigan and Wisconsin, for example, were two states that have voted for Democratic presidential nominees for years-- until Hillary lost them both to Trump. But Bernie had beaten her in both-- and in many counties had beaten Trump on primary day as well as her. The implications are stark and undeniable. These are just some random counties to demonstrate what I'm talking about in each state:
I spoke with top Bernie operatives in Wisconsin and Michigan last week. They all told me the same thing. Among Wisconsin and Michigan voters who knew that Bernie was committed to Medicare-For-All, he was way ahead of both Hillary and Trump. "it was the issue that motivated voters in our primary," one of Bernie's top guys in Michigan told me. "In November he would have won Michigan in a walk." And it was the same thing in Wisconsin. "Because of single payer, Bernie kicked Hillary's ass in Kenosha and kicked Trump's ass. We beat Trump by over 3,000 votes in the county in the primary," one Democratic Party operative told me. "In November plenty of our voters defected... Trump beat Hillary by a few hundred votes here. If she would have backed Medicare-for-All, she would have won Kenosha and the whole state." Trump is opening up that can of worms again-- and congressional Republicans in swing states and swing districts are worried. If you can win without independent voters-- in places like rural Georgia and west Texas and all white districts in Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas, it doesn't matter. But in districts where Republicans need independent voters to win, this is very bad news. Everyone likes that Obamacare protects people with pre-existing conditions and Trump asking a federal court to strike that down is great election news-- for Democrats in an environment where health care is either the #1 or #2 issue for voters. On Thursday, the Trump Regime "asked a U.S. District Court in Texas to do something congressional Republicans weren’t willing to take on themselves during last year’s repeal effort: Strike the most popular part of Obamacare. Few congressional Republicans rushed to defend the administration's move Friday, instead emphasizing their support for preserving pre-existing condition protections. 'I’m not going to have to defend anything I don’t agree with-- regardless of who says it,' said Rep. Phil Roe of Tennessee when asked if he would defend the administration’s request on the campaign trail this fall. He added that rising premiums for Obamacare coverage will force lawmakers to address health care policy next year." Phil Roe represents the easternmost corner of Tennessee and was a Republican bastion as far back as the Civil War! The district hasn't elected a Democrat to Congress in 136 years. It's the most Republican district in Tennessee. Romney won with 73%-- and Trump beat Hillary 76.7% to 19.7%, her worst performance in the state. Roe doesn't need to worry. He hasn't ever had a serious electoral challenge-- not once.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine-- one of three GOP senators who blocked the Obamacare repeal effort last year-- also pushed back, warning the administration's new bid “exacerbates our current challenges” and could undermine key patient protections.
Other lawmakers pointed to past support for policies to prevent insurance companies from denying or dropping people with pre-existing conditions. In 2017, “I introduced [an amendment that] would guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions. I think that’s a pretty essential pact with the American people,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ). “We need to let them go forward and see if it goes anywhere. Right now they’ve simply made an appeal to the court.” And several Republicans dodged questions on the subject, saying they were unfamiliar with the legal request. “I want to think about it before I respond,” said Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI). Senate Democrats, who this week promised to force votes on health care during August, said the court filing proves their warnings that Republicans remain intent on repealing Obamacare through any means available. “I’ve decided not to be surprised about anything this administration does,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT). “It’s our job to make sure everybody knows who’s responsible for that, so that they can hold Republicans responsible at the polls this November.” Within hours of the news, Democrats pounced on the Senate Republicans up for reelection this fall. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee blasted releases questioning whether those Republicans-- such as North Dakota hopeful Rep. Kevin Cramer-- back the Trump administration’s decision. Murphy dismissed Republicans' efforts to distance themselves from the administration’s legal position, arguing that it was the GOP that fueled the case by repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate. “Republicans and the Trump administration are working hand in hand,” he said. During last year's repeal debate, Republicans decided to leave pre-existing conditions protections in place after they repeatedly became the subject of sometimes fiery town hall meetings with constituents. The legal move Thursday threatens to revive those tensions and overshadow positive messages about Republican policies such as tax cuts. “It just blows me away how dumb it is,” said GOP consultant Rick Wilson. “They really wanted to spend this summer saying the tax bill’s great, the economy’s great. But they go off the rails at every opportunity, and it just slays me.” Texas and several Republican-led states brought the Obamacare challenge, arguing that the elimination of individual mandate penalties-- which the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 were valid under Congress’s taxing power-- invalidated the constitutionality of all of Obamacare. The Trump administration said it agreed that the mandate was unconstitutional and that the consumer protections should be wiped out, but most of the rest of the law should remain in place.
Some Republicans privately worried about having to defend the move in their districts if the court rules in favor of the administration before the November election. But others said the government needs to get out of the health insurance business-- even if the only way is to go through the courts. “It isn’t [hard] for me because I’ve long held the position that the federal government should get completely out of the health insurance business,” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA). “The last time the health insurance business worked right was before the federal government got involved. So I don’t have any problem going home to defend that.”
Medicare began in 1966. Is that what King is talking about? He'll be debating J.D. Scholten soon enough on the merits of taking away insurance from Iowans.
There were 3 Democrats vying for the party nomination to take on King. Last week, J.D. Scholten, who's been traveling the sprawling west Iowa district advocating moving towards a single-payer healthcare system, won the primary decisively:
Yesterday Scholten told me "I believe in Medicare-For-All for many reasons. One is so that we don’t become prisoners to our jobs just because that’s the only place we can afford or have quality insurance. It would also benefit small businesses that made our Main Streets in this district. These are just two of the reasons why we need a public option immediately (to at the very least stabilize the markets) with a Medicare buy-in at 55+. Medicare-For-All is my goal. It’s pathetic that we live in the wealthiest nation in the world and we see donation boxes at almost every grocery store or gas station asking to help someone who had an accident or got sick."
The insurance industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans swiftly broke with the Trump administration Friday, warning that eliminating Obamacare’s major protections would be “destabilizing” to the market and drive premiums even higher. AHIP signaled it will file an amicus brief in the case, officially siding with the blue states that have stepped in to defend the law’s constitutionality. “Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019,” the group said in a statement.
The World Seems To Be Collapsing Around Paul Ryan's Ears
>
The Ryan/Trump tax plan (short version): over the long run, it raises taxes on the entire middle class while repealing health coverage for around 13 million people, all to give corporations and the 1% gargantuan tax cuts. No one should have expected anything else from these two serial liars. Keep in mind that an NBC/WSJ poll in September found that 55% of Americans said they that taxes on corporations should be increased and only 16% favored decreasing them. It's a shame Democrats can't promote that as a motivation for getting people to go to the polls and voting. Oh, right... that could endanger Blue Dogs, New Dems and other corrupt conservative Democrats favored by the DCCC and the part's DC establishment.
Yesterday, several endangered Republicans-- Darrell Issa (CA), Chris Smith (NJ), Leonard Lance (NJ), Elise Stefanik (NY), Peter King (NY), Dan Donovan (NY), Lee Zeldin (NY)... a few others-- announced they're voting against the Trump/Ryan tax bill that cuts taxes on billionaires at the expense of the middle and working class. The American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Federation of American Hospitalsand several other nonpartisan groups sent Congress a letter panning it for seeking to repeal the individual mandate. The AARP is also telling it's members that the bill is not friendly to seniors (and future seniors). And the CBO response to the House Democrats made it clear that Ryan's bill raises deficits for $1.5 trillion through 2027, and leads to $25 billion in IMMEDIATE Medicare cuts. Bernie:
"If this legislation is passed, it would trigger automatic cuts to Medicare totaling more than $400 billion over the next decade and unconscionable cuts to affordable housing, nutrition programs, education and other vitally important programs. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, it is absurd to provide tax breaks to billionaires while cutting programs for the elderly, children, the sick and the poor."
And yesterday, Bernie used the opportunity to remind his supporters who's responsible for this outrage and how to do something about it:
"At a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, there is no single member of Congress who does more to hurt the working people than Speaker Paul Ryan. Right now he is fighting to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the one percent, while throwing tens of millions of people off their health care, cutting Medicare and Medicaid, education, nutrition, affordable housing, and other desperately needed programs. “Randy Bryce, on the other hand, has literally helped build his community with his own hands. He knows what it means to struggle and he knows what it feels like to work harder and harder while having less and less to show for it. Randy Bryce is building a strong grassroots campaign, and I am committed to helping him beat Paul Ryan. He has my full support."
Closer to home-- in Maine-- Bernie will soon be hearing about how Rep. Bruce Poliquin ran in the other direction from the handful of Republicans trying to defend their constituents. Yesterday, Poliquin, a multimillionaire himself, who will benefit tremendously from the Ryan/Trump plan, announced he's voting for the tax cuts for the super rich, despite being aware it's not what his constituents want. The strongest of half a dozen Poliquin opponents, Jared Golden, said that "Economic inequality is on the rise in this country and this tax plan will only make it worse... "a fiscally irresponsibles giant tax giveaway to millionaires, billionaires and corporate shareholders." In the district (ME-02) where Poliquin and Golden will fight it out next November, Bernie and his message of change beat Hillary and her status quo message in a 2 to 1 rout. In fact, Bernie beat her in every single county in Maine's second district. And Maine is hardly the only place this core conflict is going to destroy the Republican Party in 2018. Right across the country in Orange County, Sam Jammal is taking on Ryan rubber stamp Ed Royce (CA-39). "This week the House of Representatives will vote on an extreme tax bill that will increase taxes on the middle class in order to benefit millionaires, and Ed Royce is set to vote YES," wrote Sam to his supporters. "This is not a tax plan, but a tax scam. In our district alone, families stand to lose an average $15,575 in state and local tax deductions and 71% of households will be impacted by caps on mortgage deductions. In addition, the same 71% of homeowners who experience devastating natural disasters, such as the recent canyon fires, will no longer be able to deduct their losses thanks to the new tax plan. From teachers who wish to invest in their classrooms and students, to recent college graduates who are faced with student loan debt, the middle class relies on these deductions that are now under attack. If Republicans like Ed Royce cannot stand up for families in our community, then he should step down." Yesterday the CBO report-- with the report of $136 billion in mandatory spending cuts in 2018 and $1.5 trillion in deficits-- moved across Capitol Hill like a wildfire. One top Republican Senate staffer, drunk on his ass before 6pm told me that this "mess" proves what "the Democrats keep saying about us, that we're an opposition party, not a governing party... They're right... By letting Trump into our party-- you know damn well he's a Democrat-- we ruined the whole thing. We're going to lose the House next year; Ryan's either going to retire or be beaten by that construction worker... Who ever though we could lose the Senate in 2018. It's impossible, right? I think we're going to lose it and that sleaze Schumer will take over from Mitch... I'm drunk and I'm sick. If Moore gets elected I'm quitting." Then he sent me this and claimed credit for it. Poor guy! I didn't even realize he was an alcoholic until today and I've known him for the better part of a decade.
It's Almost Like The Chimp Grabbed An AKA-47 And He's Just Shooting It Indiscriminately In Every Direction
>
As you can see on the chart above, a huge majority of 2016 Trump voters polled by PPP approve of his executive order to hobble the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if the majority would go down if PPP described what exactly Trump's executive order is trying to accomplish. Only 34% of registered voters overall, approve of the order-- and only 8% of Clinton voters (which includes the nearly 3 million more who voted for her than for Trumpanzee). But that Trump base of support-- about a third of voters-- seems to be adhering to him through thin and thinner. Presumably when their relatives die from lack of medicare care they'll just blame Obama. Friday, Greg Sargent suggested that the executive order was a gun pointed at the heads of congressional Republicans. I hope so... because the DCCC sure doesn't have any guns to point at their heads. Sargent points out that "Trump’s peculiar combination of malevolence, certainty in his own negotiating prowess and cluelessness about the details of policy sometimes leads him to issue fearsome-sounding threats that are rooted in a baffling misread of the distribution of leverage and incentives underlying the situation at hand. Case in point: The big news of the morning, which is that Trump will cut off paying the 'cost-sharing reductions' in his latest bid to sabotage the Affordable Care Act." He asserts that Trump's move "puts more pressure on congressional Republicans than on Democrats to agree to" a bipartisan fix like the one Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Patty Murray (D-WA), two centrists who head the Senate Health and Education Committee, have been working on.
According to a Democratic source familiar with the talks, there is broad agreement that Congress should appropriate the money to cover the billions of dollars in cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which, if halted, could cause the individual markets to melt down. The sticking points are over how much flexibility the deal should give to give states in defining what counts as insurance coverage, and there’s a decent chance those sticking points will be resolved. Indeed, Alexander has publicly confirmed that he believes Congress should appropriate the funds to cover the CSRs. He has also publicly allowed that he believes Murray has already made serious concessions towards the flexibility of ACA rules that Republicans want, though Murray still insists that the regulations requiring insurers to offer “essential health benefits” must remain. What this means is that, presuming a deal is reached, the real lingering question will be whether Republican leaders in Congress will accept such a compromise and allow a vote on it. And the pressure on Republicans to do that will be intense. The Washington Examiner recently reported that vulnerable House Republicans worry they could have a major political problem on their hands if these payments are stopped, because it could harm large numbers of people in their districts. As it is, millions are enrolled in plans with cost-sharing reductions, which pay money to insurers to subsidize out-of-pocket costs, and if they are halted, insurers could exit the markets, further destabilizing them and leaving millions without coverage options. Tellingly, influential House Republicans such as Reps. Tom Cole (OK) and Greg Walden (OR) have called for Congress to appropriate the payments. ...[T]he issue is whether Congress will appropriate the payments to cover the CSRs. It would not be that hard to reach a bipartisan deal to do this, at which point the question will become whether GOP leaders and Trump will support it. If not, it is likely that Trump and Republicans will take the blame for any disruptions that ensue.
By the way, when Trump says Obamacare is “imploding,” which will allegedly pressure Dems, he’s lying: The exchanges were stabilizing, and many of their travails are largely attributable to his own multiple efforts to sabotage them. The public understands this: Large majorities say Trump and Republicans will own the ACA’s problems going forward and want them to make the law work. So in what sense will Democrats feel pressure from Trump’s escalating sabotage? All the versions of repeal Trump has supported would harm more people than stopping the CSRs will. Why would Dems feel pressure to choose the former over the latter? It’s true that Dems, worried about the humanitarian toll this could have, might be more inclined to make concessions in the talks with Alexander. But all indications are that Alexander is approaching those talks in good faith and that a reasonable deal is possible. In the end, Trump and Republicans are the ones likely to feel more pressure to support such a deal, which will put them in the tough spot of choosing between taking the blame for chaos in the individual markets and weathering the rage from the right that accepting a deal will unleash. Even if Trump doesn’t understand this, congressional Republicans surely do.
This Charlie Dent appearance on CNN probably didn't please the so-called "ill-advised" Trump yesterday. But it isn't so much that he's ill-advised as that he's mentally ill and not paying any attention to his advisors.
This is not “letting” Obamacare fail. Many nonpartisan experts believe that these active measures are likely to undermine the pillars of the 2010 law and hasten the collapse of the marketplaces. The Pottery Barn rule comes to mind: You break it, you own it. Yes, the plate you just shattered had some cracks in it. But if you dropped it on the ground, the store is going to blame you. As Barack Obama learned after the Great Recession, with heavy Democratic losses in the 2010 midterms, it’s hard to blame your predecessor for problems two years after you take office. Especially when your party has unified control of the federal government. No matter how much it might be the previous guy’s fault, many voters won’t buy it. People have very short attention spans. The uncertainty about what Trump would do has already driven premium prices higher for 2018. Now it’s going to get worse. Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin explain why: “Trump has threatened for months to stop the payments, which go to insurers that are required by the laws to help eligible consumers afford their deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. But he held off while other administration officials warned him such a move would cause an implosion of the ACA marketplaces that could be blamed on Republicans … The fifth year’s open-enrollment season for consumers to buy coverage through ACA exchanges will start in less than three weeks, and insurers have said that stopping the cost-sharing payments would be the single greatest step the Trump administration could take to damage the marketplaces … Ending the payments is grounds for any insurer to back out of its federal contract to sell health plans for 2018.”
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the dean of the Florida Republican delegation to Congress, complained that Trump's mind-boggling decision to unilaterally and precipitously cut health care subsidies "will mean more uninsured in my district." She reminded him that he promised "more access, affordable coverage" complaining that his actions do the opposite. Is it possible that she's the only Republican with the integrity and guts to even question Trump on this decision that will so drastically impact the lives of so many millions of Americans? Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) told her constituents what most Democrats in Congress are telling theirs. "Late last night, President Trump announced that he will torpedo the individual insurance market by ordering the government to stop making the Cost-Sharing Reduction (CSR) payments it owes. He is right to be so ashamed of this spiteful action he would only announce it in the dead of night. Stopping these payments won’t just hurt the lower-income people whose out-of-pocket costs are defrayed by CSRs, it will also hurt every one of the millions of Americans who buy their own coverage. That’s because insurance companies say they are going to charge everyone more to make up for the lost funding. Congress must act immediately to fund CSRs and protect our constituents from Trump’s vengeful and destructive actions." Friday another Republican sheepishly joined Ros-Lehtinen in trying to separate himself from Trump's insanity. Tom Reed (R-NY): "If Congress doesn't get it done the people who suffer are the people back home." We reached out to Laura Oatman, the progressive running for the Orange County seat (CA-48, just downgraded by Cook from "leans Republican" to "toss-up") occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Dana Rohrabacher. "What Trump has done with the stroke of his pen," she told us, "now ends government subsidies that help our nation’s poorest people obtain the life-saving health care they need. There are more than 6 million low-income people across our country that will be affected by this, and in our district, there may be as many as 76,000 that will be left without health insurance. Rohrabacher’s record is clear-- he has voted with Trump to dismantle Obamacare every step of the way, and seems to have no regard for those 76,000 people that he’s supposed to represent and whose very lives will now be at risk. This is immoral and unacceptable. No one should have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because they cannot afford the lifesaving medicine or surgery they need to survive. It is time for him to go. We need strong, bold, progressive leadership here in District-48 to represent us in DC now, to fight for health care as a human right." When I reached Kendra Fershee in a West Virginia district where Trump beat Hillary 68.0-26.4%-- but where Bernie also beat Hillary and, in many counties got more votes than Trump did on primary day-- she told me that my question made her think we were separated at birth. "I drafted a post about this exact issue this morning. Over the last couple of weeks, voters in the West Virginia First have been receiving a glossy tri-fold mailing from David McKinley, who pats himself on the back for his vote for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would kick 14 million Americans out of their healthcare plans by next year. The AARP said the bill could cost many older West Virginians "$6,332 to $8,482 more per year" for healthcare (and inflict a lot of pain district-wide). Despite knowing all of this, Rep. McKinley voted for the bill, which he reports in the mailer under a heading that says, 'Promises Kept.' Is this the kind of promise we want our Representative to make?" She continued with her own communication to people in the northern third of West Virginia, district that includes the Panhandle, Wheeling, Parkersburg, Morgantown and Clarksburg:
Yesterday, President Trump slashed subsidies to health insurance companies, which will strip insurance from the people who need it most (despite his promise in January that he would provide "insurance for everyone"). Rep. Paul Ryan said the move was appropriate because Congress controls the "power of the purse." So, West Virginians want to know whether Rep. McKinley is going to use the power his constituents granted him to do the right thing and seek support in Congress to fund the subsidies. After his vote to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with a much worse option (the AHCA), it's hard to imagine he will step up now. We need leadership who will ensure that this political gamesmanship will stop and fight for universal healthcare. I'm ready to be that leader.
State Senator Daylin Leach is the leading candidate contesting Pat Meehan's seat in the suburbs of Philadelphia (PA-07). He told us just what he's telling voters in Delaware, Montgomery, Berks, Lancaster and Chester counties. "It's clear that America's access to health care is more under attack than ever. And Pat is not someone you can have confidence will fight for us and our families on this. He was for the awful Republican health care bill before he was against it. But don't forget, he voted to completely and totally repeal the Affordable Care Act, with NO replacement at all, over 50 times. That's no replacement, zero protection for pre-existing conditions, zero minimum coverage, no subsidies to help families afford it, nothing. So like most of the rest of his Republican colleagues, ideology was more important than making sure kids can go to the doctor when they are sick." Dayna Steele is running against one of the most extreme anti-healthcare Republicans in East Texas; maybe Louie Gohmert is worse, although Babin and Gohmert usually vote in tandem. "It is unfathomable to me how many times the incumbent Babin has voted to take away health care from thousands of his constituents in Southeast Texas," Dayna told me yesterday. "Instead of improving during his watch, the health of people in the district and their health care has declined every year. We have a large populated county in the district without a hospital. Texas has the #1 maternal death rate in the U.S. (and higher than many industrialized countries.) Women's clinics have been shut down. CHIP is being taken away. Veterans benefits will decrease. the list goes on. And now, in the aftermath of Harvey, national media is referring to the Gulf of Mexico and the Houston Ship channel as a "toxic gumbo" after all the leaks, spills, and explosions caused by the hurricane. This will add to an already catastrophic health situation in CD-36 over the next few years. It is as if they are 'culling the herd' as we say in Texas. One of the many reasons #whyIrun." Lillian Salerno is another strong and brilliant progressive woman running in a completely different part of Texas (north Dallas) for a seat held by a slippery member of Paul Ryan's leadership team, Pete Sessions. Yesterday, she told us that she's "seen first hand how Sessions and the Washington elite use their positions as a way to line their own pockets from a broken healthcare system at the expense of working families. Pete Sessions does not have the background to understand healthcare, but that does not stop him from writing bills meant to gut Obamacare. By ending cost-sharing reduction payments, many ACA enrollees may see steep premium increases and some insurers may pull out of the marketplace all together. It has never been more critical for the people of Texas-32 to have a real leader in Congress-- let me have at 'em." Here in California, 673,104 people rely on the cost-sharing reduction payments Trump just abolished, primarily so he could give the wealthiest 1% of Americans tax reductions-- while driving up the cost of insurance by around 20%. Any California Republicans willing to stand up to Trump's reckless gambling with the lives of so many of the state's citizens? Not Mimi Walters, that's for sure. Kia Hamadanchy, one of the progressives vying for the nomination to take her on told us that "Trump is going out of his way to deliberately sabotage and undermine the Affordable Care Act. His actions will lead to less people in this country having health insurance. There is no healthcare policy expert who thinks this is a good idea or that will it do anything to make health insurance more affordable or accessible. But yet again Mimi Walters continues to remain silent and refuses to say or do anything to contradict Donald Trump, even when she knows he is acting against the interests of her constituents. I've said a number of times that I think we need to transition to single payer. But that does not mean we should actively work to make the healthcare system worse, which Donald Trump and Mimi Walters are doing." Predictably, three physicians running for Republican held seats felt very strongly about Trump's action. Alina Valdes is running for the south Florida seat occupied by Trump rubber-stamp Mario Diaz-Balart. She sent us a statement that says it all:
As a physician, who has taken care of the poor and uninsured for 35 years, I have always felt that a one payer health care system, without private for-profit companies, is the way to go in this country. Politicizing health care makes it seem like it is optional in people's lives, like something that could be bought or not. Sooner or later, we all need medical care and that is why I support Medicare for All or HR 676 and its counterpart in the Senate, S 1782. While I support fixing the ACA as a temporary measure to continue healthcare coverage for the maximum number of people possible, the only way to guarantee healthcare, which is a human right, is to make it a benefit for all Americans guaranteed by the US government regardless of ability to pay. Right now, for profit insurance companies, who are beholding to their investors and stock holders, determine who gets certain benefits and this, in turn, is determined by the users ability to pay. This translates into better healthcare for those able to pay more and many with no healthcare because they cannot afford it. We need a humane, all inclusive option that will be cost effective while covering every single American. This leads to a one payer healthcare system run by the government, like Medicare, which has a 3% administrative cost when compared to a privatized insurance system, many having as high as 30% administrative costs. Insurance is generally based on risk and this determines premiums but how can you assess risk on a newborn? By covering all 350 million with a minor increase in Medicare payroll deduction, you eliminate for profit companies and the attached premiums these bring. No matter which company provides your healthcare now, they are all increasing their premiums and crying poverty while their stocks continue to rake in record profits. Employers are removing many choices from their employee benefits because of these ever increasing costs to their bottom line. We can eliminate all other forms of insurance beholding to Congress and its whims like CHIP, which has not been funded past this year, leaving 9 million children uninsured and Medicaid, which covers the destitute, disabled, and many elderly now being cut in the proposed budget. Businesses, especially small ones, can benefit by eliminating workmen's compensation, which now consumes a large portion of costs to companies. I conclude that the logical solution to the difficult logistics of providing healthcare to the maximum number of people for the minimum cost is a one payer healthcare system backed by the US government, like Medicare For All. Until you have walked in somebody's shoes or side by side with them, healthcare may be a luxury many cannot afford but by making it available to all regardless of ability to pay, we can have a healthier, generally more productive working class.
Dr. David Gill, running for a seat in central Illinois, is laser focused on improving the healthcare system, not wrecking it. He just said "My Republican opponent, Rodney Davis, stated in a radio interview yesterday that President Trump's cut to health care subsidies will 'lower premiums.' This couldn't be further from the truth. There may be some small number of residents in the district that will see lower premiums, but the vast majority of IL-13 residents will see steep increases in premiums; in many cases, this will make health insurance completely unaffordable for families here in central Illinois. Mr. Davis' deceit and support of the president is not at all surprising-- he has backed every version of TrumpCare, and he has repeatedly lied in stating that TrumpCare would prevent insurers from billing higher premiums for those with pre-existing conditions. Mr. Davis and I are like night and day on the topic of health care: he stands with the for-profit private health insurance industry that subsidizes his campaigns, while I, as a 25-year member of Physicians for a National Health Program, advocate for the single-payer system which Americans have been deprived of for decades. I look forward to sending Mr. Davis home from Washington, and once I've taken his seat, I intend to speak as a boldly progressive physician in providing leadership toward the effort to finally bring a single-payer plan to fruition here in America."
Our third physician is an award winning oncologist and cancer researcher in Houston, Jason Westin. Early this morning he told us that "After Trump decided to allow 'junk' insurance plans and refused to pay critical CSR subsidies, it was clear to all that he was deliberately working to sabotage the ACA. Two Republican Members of Congress had the courage of their convictions to rightly declare Trump's moves to be wrong-- John Culberson was not one. Once again, Culberson has decided to stand with Donald Trump and turn his back on us in Texas 7th. After I take Culberson's seat in 2018, I will fight for true universal coverage, to bring down the drivers of healthcare costs like prescription drug prices, and to speed up our search for new cures. It's long past time for our leaders to lead on healthcare, and if career politicians like Culberson want to play partisan political games instead, we will need to elect new leaders to get the job done."
Tom Guild's campaign keeps picking up steam in Oklahoma City and we could wind up with a progressive Democrat in Congress from Oklahoma for the first time in more decades than anyone remembers. "Trump," he said, "has done it again! He never misses an opportunity to disappoint us. Although he said all the politically correct things running for president about health care, at every opportunity he does everything in his power to undermine health care for Americans. He has undermined Medicare, Medicaid, and gone after the Affordable Care Act with a vengeance rarely seen in American politics. Steve Russell goes merrily along with each and every attempt the Donald cooks up to hurt hard working Americans. He wants to cut trillions from Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA, and Russell supports Trump at every turn. The new federal budget, voted for by Russell takes from working people and the middle class and gives to the top 1% in huge tax cuts. Both must have been distracted when their teachers read the story of Robin Hood to their classes. Now Trump has signed an executive order with the intent of further weakening the ACA and destroying the individual market place created under the law. Once again, like two peas in a pod, Russell is on board and a member of the Trump Wrecking Crew. I am disgusted that Trump and Russell have intentionally sabotaged the ACA, needlessly leaving 130,000 Oklahomans seeking health care coverage with an avoidable 30% increase in their premiums. Dr. Terry Cline, Oklahoma’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and Commissioner of Health at the Oklahoma State Department of Health recently chided both Trump and his recently departed HHS Secretary Tom Price for denying the state of Oklahoma a waiver provided for in the ACA that would have helped more than 130,000 Oklahomans struggling with dramatic increases in premiums. It would have afforded a more than 30% premium reduction for 130,000 Oklahomans, who now are forced to buy health insurance under the ACA rendered unreasonably more expensive because of the malicious actions of Trump’s appointees, supported by his lackeys in Congress like Russell. Russell does the bidding of a treacherous and toxic president while laying waste to working people in our congressional district. It is time to repeal and replace Russell in the 2018 elections and elect a hard working progressive to represent the fifth district of Oklahoma. The more the twin towers of tyranny work to destroy health care coverage for Americans, the more inevitable and necessary universal affordable healthcare becomes. Single payer. Dragon slayer." Paul Clements is running for a seat in southwest Michigan held by one of the architects of Trumpcare, Fred Upton. He told us today that "at the end of April Upton opposed the Republican health care plan. Then Donald Trump called him for a meeting and promised $8 billion dollars to address insurance costs for pre-existing conditions-- a pittance compared to their actual cost, and Upton flipped. On May 4 the Upton Amendment got the bill the final handful of votes it needed to pass the House. This bill would have hurt poor people, older Americans, people with pre-existing conditions, state governments, hospitals, and Planned Parenthood. It would have helped high-income earners and people who wish to go without health insurance. If Upton had held firm, Congress would have had a chance to actually start a bipartisan discussion. Now Trump is throwing our health care system into chaos, doing even more to hurt poor people, older Americans, and people with pre-existing conditions. Sadly, evidence on how the health of Americans can actually be improved at lower cost has had no role in Republican plans. Opposing President Obama seems to have been a priority. For the evidence is clear-- it is the private health insurance system that gave us the most expensive health care system in the world, one that yields worse health results. The way to make care cheaper and better is to move to single payer, such as, for a first step, by making an expanded Medicare available to all." Dan Canon is running against right-wing Indiana freshman Trey Hollingsworth (IN-09) and the two couldn't be more different when it comes to healthcare. "I've been very clear that I believe healthcare is a human right," said Canon, "and should be accessible to everyone regardless of how wealthy they are. Representative Hollingsworth voted to repeal the ACA but, like most of his colleagues, hasn't offered any solutions to replace it. Now, as Trump unilaterally dismantles the ACA from the inside out, Hollingsworth lacks the integrity to speak on the matter at all, even as his fellow Republicans are finally starting to show some courage. Hollingsworth knows full well that Trump's actions will take away meaningful access to healthcare from hundreds of thousands of Hoosiers. He just doesn't care." Today the DCCC was railing against Republicans who support Trump's healthcare plans and who voted against aid for the victims of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Virginia Foxx fits both categories to a "t." Yet, for all their bluster, the DCCC is just collecting money for itself and doing absolutely nothing for the candidates running against these Republicans who fit that description. Nothing! Jenny Marshall is taking on Foxx on her own. Yesterday she told us that Foxx "has sought to dismantle the ACA at every turn since it's passage. In Foxx's opinion 'The American people desperately need relief from a failed health care law that has increased costs, taken away choices, destroyed jobs, and burdened small businesses. Republicans are committed to delivering that relief.' Well, the past 24 hours gave Foxx what she has been seeking, the dismantling of the ACA. A position that will increase costs and raise the uninsured rates across the country. I, on the other hand, advocate for a single payer universal healthcare system that would cover everyone without worry of co-pays or deductibles. We must join the rest of the industrialized countries by investing in our citizens and accepting that healthcare is a basic human right."
