October 26, 2013

The Tea Party's Big FU to Its Middle Class Base

When the Tea Party decreed that no self respecting red state would be caught dead expanding Medicaid, its middle class base agreed. Poor folks don't deserve to be coddled. Poor people are poor because God hates them and He wants them to suffer. The Tea Party's middle class base was not about to spend any of its heard earned tax dollars paying for mammograms and blood pressure medications for people who were better off seeking (uncompensated) care at the local ER for metastatic cancer or massive stroke. Anyone who dares to draw a breath while poor deserves what he or she reaps.

Well, now the Tea Party has taken things one step further. It has decreed that none of its wealthiest members' hard earned tax dollars should be spent paying for the middle class's mammograms or blood pressure medications. According to the fat cats who finance and run the Tea Party, Middle Class America is better off seeking (uncompensated) care in the ER for its own metastatic cancer and massive stroke. Any middle class American who dares to draw a breath while middle class deserves what he or she gets.

Sound far fetched? Here is the link:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-glitch-20131025,0,5402697.story#axzz2iruzq3cu

In case you can't read the link, the same lawyer who denied the poor health care in red states is now attempting the deny the middle class health care, too. He is arguing that anyone who signs up on one of the federal exchanges (as opposed to a state exchange) is not eligible for federal subsidies. And many states do not have their own exchange. Many Red states.

Who, you ask, is this lawyer who seems intent upon giving the Tea Party's Middle Class base the big Kiss Off? Meet Michael Carvin:

http://www.jonesday.com/macarvin/#

Mike Carvin focuses on constitutional, appellate, civil rights, and civil litigation against the federal government. He has argued numerous cases in the United States Supreme Court and in virtually every federal appeals court. These cases include the recent constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the decisions invalidating Sarbanes-Oxley's accounting board, preventing the Justice Department from obtaining monetary relief against the tobacco industry under RICO, overturning the federal government's plan to statistically adjust the census, limiting the Justice Department's ability to create "majority-minority" districts, and upholding Proposition 209's ban on racial preferences in California.

Mike was one of the lead lawyers, and argued before the Florida Supreme Court, on behalf of George W. Bush in the 2000 election Florida recount controversy. He also has represented state governments, financial institutions, telecommunications, and energy companies in "takings," First Amendment, civil rights, and statutory challenges to federal government actions.

Which states will get the shaft? Here is a map:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Maps-and-Data/State-Exchange-Map.aspx

Everyone in a dark green state---relax. You are getting federally subsidized health care. If you have a big family and your wife stays home meaning that you have to live off a single $50-$60 k income---you know, traditional right wing Christian family values---in a Blue state like New York or California, your kids will have health insurance next year. You wife will be able to get a biopsy of that breast lump. They will catch the cancer early. She will have a lump-ectomy and survive to raise your kids into adulthood. Your blood pressure will be controlled and you will not leave your kids orphaned due to a massive stroke.

If you live in one of the light green states where the feds and states are running exchanges together--keep your ears open. Or better yet, contact an elected official and suggest that they relabel their exchange "state run". Blue state officials in places like Illinois and Michigan may listen to your pleas.

Now, check out this map:

http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2013/10/eligibility-for-assistance-and-projected-changes-in-coverage-und.html

This one is important. Note that in those states that have chosen to exclude the poor, a relatively small number of people stand to benefit from the health care law. These are the working class. Working stiffs. Working stiffs in states where working stiffs tend to vote Red, because the GOP knows that they are better than Black folks and Poor White trash and Hispanics.

Oh, sorry. Did I say that working class voters in Red states stand to benefit. I meant to say they stood to benefit.

Listen up you 30-40% of folks in the South who thought that you would be getting insurance while the Black folks on the other side of the track and the poor White Trash in the trailer parks and the Hispanics who work at the mill would have to do without----you are not going to like this. You don't get insurance either. Not unless you are willing to fork over the entire premium yourself. Now, if you have lupus or a bad heart, I am sure that you will find a way to make that premium payment. But if your health has been good up until now, ask yourself, which is more important? Making the car payment or buying insurance without any subsidy? And if only the people who are sick sick sick sign up in your state, you know what that is going to do to health insurance premiums in your state, don't you?

And the best part? If you don't spend ten thousand dollars out of your own pocket for insurance, you get to pay a $1000 fine. Like Christmas in April!

So, kiss your hopes of health insurance goodbye, working folks in Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida etc. You will have the unique privilege of paying for health insurance for all the folks who live in Blue states---and traitorous Red states like Kentucky--- while you will get nothing. Jesus will be so proud of you! You are almost assured admittance to Heaven--where you will be heading a little bit earlier than planned thanks to that metastatic cancer and that massive stroke.

March 8, 2013

Prepare to Cry.

We all know that lack of access to health care has condemned millions of children and adults in this country to jail. Kids whose parents can not afford to get them inpatient treatment for diseases like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are told to have the courts declare them truant or unruly. Once they are locked up, the families are told, their child will be eligible for "free" mental health. They hear the same story when it comes to a suicidal brother or aunt or neighbor. "Let the criminal justice system take care of it."

We all know that the mental health services offered to these people while in custody are poor. Sometimes, there is no mental health care at all. Getting any type of medical care while in prison requires a clear head and perseverance. If you are a bright prisoner with a bad heart, you can probably get your state penitentiary to refer you to a cardiologist by threatening to sue them if they do not. But if you are not even sure who you are or where you are or what is wrong with you, then you can never hope to jump through the hoops the criminal justice system will set between you and the medical care you need.

We all know this. But a story at ABC allows us to feel what it is like to be mentally ill in a country that is more willing to incarcerate than it is to offer medical treatment.

Stephen Slevin, 59, was depressed in 2005 when he decided to drive across the country, with no particular goal or destination in mind, his lawyer Matt Coyte told ABCNews.com. After being pulled over in Dona Ana County, N.M., on Aug. 24 2005, Slevin was arrested on aggravated DWI charges, and for driving a vehicle that he did not own. He was brought into the Dona Ana County Detention Center.

From there, his long nightmare began.

"To find out what happened was difficult," Coyte said. "His mental health was so compromised from his time in jail, he had very little memory of his stay there."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/prisoner-left-solitary-years-receives-155m-settlement/story?id=18677197

Jail officials, recognizing that the patient suffered from mental illness, decided that looking him up in solitary for two years would be an adequate treatment. He was allowed access to mental health treatment for a couple of weeks in those two years, immediately got better---and then was forced back into solitary as he was awaiting his trial.

You caught that last part, right. He was awaiting trial. He was never convicted of anything. Prosecutors decided not to press charges, because he was not fit to stand trial. But he was considered fit to spend two years locked in a box where his mental status and health deteriorated.

This story does not have a happy ending. While he got a $15 million settlement, he is now dying of lung cancer. Would that cancer have been caught early enough to treat if he has not sent two years locked in a box? Probably not. The US denies all health care, not just mental health care to its uninsured citizens. But maybe his last few years of life would have been better if he could have seen a psychiatrist and gotten treatment rather than seeing a policeman and getting solitary confinement instead.

March 3, 2013

How Citizens United Encourages Corporations to Break the Law Like Enron

Surprise, Surprise, Sheldon Adelson's lawyers just admitted what we have known all along. His company used illegal bribes to get its Macau casino built.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/business/in-filing-casino-operator-admits-likely-violation-of-an-antibribery-law.html?hp

Last year, Adelson spent a measly $60 million of his $25 billion fortune attempting to unseat Obama and install a Republican---any Republican in the White House. In retrospect, it probably seemed like a good deal to him and his accountants. Remember what happen to Siemens? They settled their foreign bribery case for $1.34 billion. A gambling man, Adelson must have reasoned that $60 million spent to save $1 billion was a good bet. And though he lost the crap shoot, chances are if he had it to do over again---the bribes, the campaign donations--- he would. Because the Supreme Court has made it very profitable to ignore federal law.

Imagine what would have happened to Enron if Citizens United was already the law of the land in 2000. Ken Lay, Karl Rove and Antonin Scalia managed to get Bush selected. Their party controlled the House. However, the GOP had only a razor thin margin of the control in the Senate, and they lost that when one Republican turned Independent. Because the Senate was in Democratic hands, the bill which the House wrote and the White House endorsed to give Enron a huge infusion of taxpayer money in the wake of 9-11 was not passed. Enron's house of cards collapsed, much like the war that was lost for the want of a horseshoe nail in the nursery rhyme. Had Ken Lay been free to spend sixty million dollars shoring up the Senate in 2000, he would still be the head of the world's "biggest" company---

That is what Citizen United is all about. Giving corporate criminals like Ken Lay the ability to buy elections so that their crimes go unpunished and their debts get paid by you and me. The Supreme Court ruled the way they did in Citizens United because five of the Justices never, ever want to see any of their rich business buddies dragged through the mud again. Jail is for poor folks and minorities. The rich are different. If they sin, they buy a papal pardon. If they break the law, they buy a politician and get a bailout. It is the Neo Conservative American Way.

January 31, 2013

Kids of the Working Poor to Remain Uninsured Under "Health Care Reform"

Looks like the working poor just got screwed again. A portion of the new law which was supposed to limit the out of pocket for a family's employer sponsored insurance to less that 9.5% (a huge chunk if you are skating on the edge of poverty) is now being interpreted by the IRS as limiting the family's out of pocket to 9.5% of the income for the worker's insurance only. This is a big win/win for both health insurers (who like to insure workers, because, hey, they are healthy enough to work, so there can't be much wrong with them) and employers (who want their employees to get well as fast as possible so they can get back to work). However, it means that if your employer offers family coverage that will eat up 20% of your paycheck and you think you can't live off 80% of what you used to bring home, the government is not going to help your spouse or kids get insurance. In some cases, it will mean that the kids will no longer be eligible for SCHIP--meaning that the new law is costing them insurance.

The IRS has graciously decided not to charge the children of the working poor a penalty for being unable to afford insurance. Aw, how sweet of them.

At the risk of offending administration supporters, I smell a big, fat carrot/rat. As in health care is still being used as a carrot to get voters to the polls. The working poor (whose kids will be unable to get check ups, get asthma treatment etc.) will be told "It isn't our fault. Our hands are tied. Congress has to fix this loophole in the law. But the Republican House won't."

Which begs the question, if the IRS can unilaterally decide not to tax the kids who can not afford insurance, why can't the IRS decide that the 9.5% was supposed to cover both workers and their kids?

30 million people will remain uninsured in 2016---and many of them will be children. Stop playing politics with the health of our kids! Declare a national healthcare emergency, open Medicare up to all children. Then stand back and watch how quickly the privates drop their rates for coverage of children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/us/politics/irs-to-base-insurance-affordability-on-single-coverage.html?ref=health