Mediaboss Marketing

The basics of Republican health legislation, which havent changed much in different iterations of Trumpcare, are easy to describe: Take health insurance away from tens of millions, make it much worse and far more expensive for millions more, and use the money thus saved to cut taxes on the wealthy.

Donald Trump may not get this reporting by The Times and others, combined with his own tweets, suggests that he has no idea whats in his partys legislation. But everyone in Congress understands what its all about.

The puzzle and it is a puzzle, even for those who have long since concluded that something is terribly wrong with the modern GOP is why the party is pushing this harsh, morally indefensible agenda.

Think about it. Losing health coverage is a nightmare, especially if youre older, have health problems and/or lack the financial resources to cope if illness strikes. And since Americans with those characteristics are precisely the people this legislation effectively targets, tens of millions would soon find themselves living this nightmare.

Meanwhile, taxes that fall mainly on a tiny, wealthy minority would be reduced or eliminated. These cuts would be big in dollar terms, but because the rich are already so rich, the savings would make very little difference to their lives. More than 40 percent of the Senate bills tax cuts would go to people with annual incomes of more than $1 million but even these lucky few would see their after-tax income rise only by a barely noticeable 2 percent.

So its vast suffering including, according to the best estimates, around 200,000 preventable deaths imposed on many of our fellow citizens in order to give a handful of wealthy people what amounts to some extra pocket change. And the public hates the idea: Polling shows overwhelming popular opposition, even though many voters dont realize just how cruel the bill really is. For example, only a minority of voters are aware of the plan to make savage cuts to Medicaid.

In fact, my guess is that the bill has low approval even among those who would get a significant tax cut. Warren Buffett has denounced the Senate bill as the Relief for the Rich Act, and hes surely not the only billionaire who feels that way.

Which brings me back to my question: Why would anyone want to do this?

I wont pretend to have a full answer, but I think there are two big drivers actually, two big lies behind Republican cruelty on health care and beyond.

First, the evils of the GOP plan are the flip side of the virtues of Obamacare. Because Republicans spent almost the entire Obama administration railing against the imaginary horrors of the Affordable Care Act death panels! repealing Obamacare was bound to be their first priority.

Once the prospect of repeal became real, however, Republicans had to face the fact that Obamacare, far from being the failure they portrayed, has done what it was supposed to do: It used higher taxes on the rich to pay for a vast expansion of health coverage. Correspondingly, trying to reverse the ACA means taking away health care from people who desperately need it in order to cut taxes on the rich.

So one way to understand this ugly health plan is that Republicans, through their political opportunism and dishonesty, boxed themselves into a position that makes them seem cruel and immoral because they are.

Yet thats surely not the whole story, because Obamacare isnt the only social insurance program that does great good yet faces incessant rightwing attack. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, disability benefits all get the same treatment. Why?

As with Obamacare, this story began with a politically convenient lie the pretense, going all the way back to Ronald Reagan, that social safety net programs just reward lazy people who dont want to work. And we all know which people in particular were supposed to be on the take.

Now, this was never true, and in an era of rising inequality and declining traditional industries, some of the biggest beneficiaries of these safety net programs are members of the Trump-supporting white working class. But the modern GOP basically consists of career apparatchiks who live in an intellectual bubble, and those Reaganera stereotypes still dominate their picture of struggling Americans.

Or to put it another way, Republicans start from a sort of baseline of cruelty toward the less fortunate, of hostility toward anything that protects families against catastrophe.

In this sense theres nothing new about their health plan. What it does punish the poor and working class, cut taxes on the rich is what every major GOP policy proposal does. The only difference is that this time its all out in the open.

So what will happen to this monstrous bill? I have no idea. Whether it passes or not, however, remember this moment. For this is what modern Republicans do; this is who they are.

Paul Krugman is a columnist for The New York Times.

See the original post here:
Understanding Republican cruelty - Rutland Herald

Democrat Kanew seeks to challenge Republican Rep. Blackburn Kansas City Star A film writer and producer says he is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee next year. The Tennessean reports that Justin Kanew says he was inspired to run for the heavily Republican 7th ... and more »

Read the original post:
Democrat Kanew seeks to challenge Republican Rep. Blackburn - Kansas City Star

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health research group, Pennsylvanians would see a 72 percent increase in out-of-pocket premium costs under the new bill, compared with a national average increase of 74 percent.

Mr. Alexanders carefully worded statement is technically accurate, but leaves a misleading impression.

The bill places a limit on the federal governments share of Medicaid spending for different groups at different times. In 2020, it pegs funding growth to the medical inflation rate for children and adults at 3.7 percent, and at 4.7 percent for disabled adults and older Americans. In 2025, growth for all groups would be tied to the Consumer Price Index.

But Medicaid spending for adults and children under the current law is expected to grow faster, at 4.9 percent per year a substantial difference in funding, the budget office said.

The budget office estimated that the bill includes tax cuts totaling $700 billion over the next decade. People at all income levels would see some of the money, but characterizing the cuts as a boon for the middle class is misleading.

More than $230 billion comes from repealing two taxes that apply only to individuals making over $200,000 a year. The bill would also eliminate a tax on health insurers, amounting to a cut of $145 billion.

Middle-class households would see an average tax cut of $280, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. In contrast, a household in the top 1 percent would get a cut of $250,000. Looking at overall distribution, two-thirds of the $700 billion would line the pockets of the richest one-fifth of Americans.

A reader asked The Times to check a graphic circulated in the White Houses newsletter, Your 1600 Daily, stating that premiums are up by 105 percent since the A.C.A.s enactment. Mr. Trump later bemoaned a 206 percent (actually 203 percent) increase in Alaska specifically.

The figures come from a May report from the Department of Health and Human Services that said premiums increased to $476 this year from $232 in 2013. According to the report, Alaska saw a huge jump in average premiums, to $1,041 from $344.

As The Times explained in a fact-check of Mr. McConnell, the comparison is imperfect and Mr. Trump errs further by selectively choosing the second-highest increase to exaggerate the reports findings.

Mr. Trump compares two fundamentally different universes of plans: all the plans on the individual market in 2013 and those only on the federal exchange in 2017. The plans are different, with Affordable Care Act plans covering more and sicker people and offering more comprehensive benefits.

The report also does not take into account premium tax credits that most Obamacare enrollees 93 percent in Alaska, according to a different Health and Human Services report receive to help blunt the cost of premiums. Subsidies in Alaska this year averaged $976 a month, so people actually paid significantly less under the current bill than they did in 2013.

An estimated 2.6 million people are uninsured because they live in states that did not expand Medicaid, but earn too little to qualify for premium tax credits in the Affordable Care Act markets. Blaming the health care law for the coverage gap distorts a chain of causality.

As written, the health law provides subsidies for marketplace insurance for people with moderate annual incomes, from 100 to 400 percent of the poverty level (about $22,160 for a family of four). It simultaneously increases Medicaid eligibility for low-income individuals, to 138 percent of the poverty level from the previous threshold of 44 percent.

But the Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that the federal government could not compel states to expand their programs, with 19 states then declining to do so. In those states, people making 44 to 100 percent of the poverty level did not qualify for Medicaid or marketplace subsidies.

The A.C.A. intended to provide coverage across the income spectrum, said Rachel Garfield, a Medicaid expert at the Kaiser Family Foundation. The only reason that gap exists is because of those state decisions.

Original post:
Five Misleading Republican Claims About Health Care - New York Times

Twitter Facebook Email

Republican efforts to impose voter ID laws and redraw election districts both wound up in federal court. Dale Schultz ended 30 years in state politics lamenting the recent displays of partisanship.

Republican efforts to impose voter ID laws and redraw election districts both wound up in federal court. Dale Schultz ended 30 years in state politics lamenting the recent displays of partisanship.

by Topher Sanders ProPublica, July 3, 2017, 2:37 p.m.

Dale Schultz, a Republican, served in the Wisconsin Legislature for more than 30 years, from 1983 to 2015.His Senate district is located in south Wisconsin, much of it rural farmland. Schultz was considered a moderate, and so much of what happened in state politics near the end of his tenure dismayed him: partisan fights over the rights of unions, a gubernatorial recall election, and claims of partisan Republican gerrymandering that will now be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

And then there was the prolonged entanglement over voting rights in the state who could vote, when they could vote, how they could vote. In the face of years of political combat and federal court fights, the legislature ultimately adopted a vast array of changes to election laws. Among them:

Voters would have to produce certain types of identification.

Early voting was reduced.

Restrictions on absentee balloting were implemented.

Time frames for how long people had to be residing in the state before they could vote were lengthened.

Republicans hailed the moves as overdue steps toward improving the integrity of state voting. Democrats cried foul, alleging a conspiracy to suppress votes among people of color and others inclined to vote Democratic.

Schulz was in office for the birth of the efforts to tighten voting procedures and often present for the Republican deliberations about their aims. Schultz, before leaving office, voted for the initial voting measures, a decision he came to regret. He opposed some of the subsequent measures as litigation over the issues made their way through the courts and his career wound down.

ProPublica had a rare interview with Schultz recently about the issue of voting in Wisconsin. The Q&A follows. It has been edited and condensed for length and clarity.

ProPublica: You were initially in favor of Republican efforts to tighten voting and reconfigure districts. What first appealed to you about those ideas?

Dale Schultz: Well, the blunt truth is, as a partisan politician, your knee-jerk reaction is to protect the standing of your party because that solidifies your power to accomplish what you want to do. My good friend and former colleague, Tim Cullen, also served as Senatemajority leader but on the Democrat side, and weve said wereboth guilty of voting for redistricting maps which were politically motivated. This isnt a one party sin. It happens on both sides, and thats why we introduced our bipartisan bill to change how we redistrict in Wisconsin.Im happy the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue this fall.

TheRepublicans pushing the voter ID effort cited voter fraud as a concern and a reason to tighten voting rules and requirements. Did anyone ever show you compelling evidence of that?

No, in fact, quite the opposite. Some of the most conservative people in our caucus actually took the time to involve themselves in election-watching and came back and told other caucus members that, Im sorry, I didnt see it.

In terms of voting laws, look, I dont have a fundamentalproblem with having to show a photo ID in order to vote, but what I do have a problem with are the severe restrictions on what kind of photo ID is allowed and also using these laws to suppress the votes of specific groups.

We had more than 1,000 people watching the vote on Election Day. If millions of people voted illegally, we would have seen some sign of it. Read the story.

You need to understand, I come from the old school of the Institutionof the Senate. When I was coming up through the ranks, and even when I was majority leader, I put great stock and respect into the chairmanship system. When you were given a chair of a committee, you were expected to put the good of the Senateabove all else. So when the chair of the Senate elections committee says theres a problem with voter fraud in the state, and the committee passes a bill out, you take them at their word.

But thats on me.

Anyway, I ultimately ordered my staff to launch our own investigation and come up with three concrete examples of voter fraud in Wisconsin. Well, guess what? They couldnt do it, and you need to understand the time, I had graduates from the University of Wisconsin journalism school on staff whod worked for national publications. But we did come up with two examples. One was a Republican legislative staffer whod voted in the Madison area as well as back in her hometown in the same election. The other was the estranged wife of a Republican. Thats it, and both examples were on the Republican side.

Did you ever raise the lack of evidence with your Republican colleagues?

Our caucuses were quite raucous. Our meetings and how we dealt with one another was blunt.

I asked my colleagues to show me three specific examples, and all I got was a bunch of hand-wringing and drama-filled speeches about the buses of Democrats being brought up from Chicago. I said, Show me where that was ever prosecuted or even charges brought. It was crickets. Nobodycould give me an answer, and that was both an eye-opening and sad moment for me because I think it finally hit me that time-honoredtradition of the Institution of the Senate was all but dead.

You know, I had, I think its fair to say, a reputation for challenging the thinking of our caucuses. But if you find yourself in a situation where youredissenting too often, pretty soon people go, Well, he never agrees with us, hes not really one of us. Were not going to bother to listen. So, you learn to pick your spots and try to make a difference where you can.

I want to be clear. I dont want to cast myself as some sort of superhero. Look, Im a politician. I was for 30 years. Inherently, that means that you compromise and that everybodys hands get a little dirty as they try to work out a solution that is the best for people.

People were very frank and this is not a game for the timid. People were very emotional, but you know when it comes to casting votes, people know that once the decision is made, the team pretty much sticks together.

Talk about why you later came to regret ever voting for the measures.

I voted for the first voter law bill, and then I did what Id done since I first got elected in 1982; I went out and did my regular scheduled district office hours. It took all of my first stop to realize I didnt do my homework. I had town and village clerks coming up to me saying, Dale, are you nuts? Do you realize how restricting voting hours and early voting and absentee voting is going to affect how people can vote let alone making our jobs all the harder? They also made it clear that there was no voter fraud happening that they were aware of. Because of the feedback from my constituents, I voted no on the subsequent bills.

I enjoyed all the people I represented and it was a great honor. But there were occasions where people said, Dale, Ive heard your explanation on what youve done and why youve done it, but I think you got this wrong. And I think voter ID was one of those.

A long time ago my father told me on the farm, if you happen to, when youre out in the pasture, put your foot in a cowpie, dont sit there and explain why you stepped in it, just take it out. And its been my experience politically, that when you do that, and you explain the reasons, people tend to see that as a politician evolving and thinking and listening, and I think most people are hungry for that. And theyre supportive of that, as long as it doesnt become a daily flip-flop.

The numbers are in from the 2016 election in Wisconsin. The state surprised the pollsters by going for Trump. And now theres likely to be a long debate and examination of whether the voter ID and other measures played a role in that outcome. Any early thoughts?

Oh, yeah, all of these things have an impact. Even just constantly keeping up a steady drumbeat of claims about election fraud has an impact. It motivates a base. How big an impact probably varies from state to state. In very close elections, even seemingly small impacts can have great consequences.

You got out of elective office after 32 years. Why?

Well, because I like to think Im old enough and wise enough to know that theres more to life than politics, as important as its been to me and as enjoyable as it has been to me for all those years. Then again, its not that I havent been bothered by the changes Id seen around me or just the simple reality that it was less fun than it used to be as people stopped thinking and became more Pavlovian.

Topher covers racial inequality for ProPublica.

Visit link:
A Wisconsin Republican Looks Back With Regret at Voter ID and Redistricting Fights - ProPublica

WILKES-BARRE, LUZERNE COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU)- Today's rally in Wilkes-Barre centers around the ongoing debate over the controversial Republican healthcare bill.

Right now, lawmakers are discussing reforming and possibly repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Some of the biggest concerns from Democrats with the two proposals? Dramatic cuts to Medicaid- spending would be cut by 26%. Those cuts would start in 2021 and accelerate into 2025.

Opponents of the healthcare bill, which will be front and center in Washington after the July Fourth holiday say it wil lhave a devastating impact on people who rely on Medicaid for healthcare.

Among those impacted- the poor and those who are caught up in the ongoing opioid epidemic.

They all came from all walks of life, but with a single mission: stop the Republican driven healthcare bill.

"How absolutely inhumane," says Representative Eddie Pashinski. "We're going to cut the program and we're going to take the money away from the program so people who need it won't have it and give it to people who don't need it. The millionaires and billionaires."

The folks here are concerned the legislation would eliminate funding for all types of treatment programs. The biggest concerns? The opiod crisis. Based on the current pace, 142 people are expected to die from overdoses in LuzerneCounty this year.

"If you do the math, that breaks down to one person every two and a half days," says Steve Ross, Director of theLuzerne-WyomingCounty Drug-Alcohol Agency.

"We are making progress because of Medicaid expansion," says Senator Bob Casey.

Casey is one of the Democrats leading the charge against both versions of the Republican replacement for Obamacare.

"We cannot afford this Senate bill to pass," says Casey. "It will cut that Medicaid, city those services to people who are benefiting right now from the kinds of services, those kinds of treatment."

Other folks in the crowd like Martha Hart say they rely on Medicaid for their basic healthcare. If it's not there, they will be out in the cold.

"Medicaid means so much to me," says Hart. "I'm on disability. I worked for 35 years in healthcare myself. The only way for me to get anything is to go on disability."

Casey also says he's concerned about the recent rise in the numbers of people addicted to meth. He says those people are being forgotten in the broader concern with the opioid epidemic. He wants to make sure funding is available to help those folks as well.

Senators return from break the week of July 10th. That gives them three weeks before the Republican-imposed deadline of August 1st to make changes to their bill, pass it, and then send it to the house.

See the rest here:
Rally in Wilkes-Barre over Republican healthcare bill - PA home page