April 19, 2015

Abortion actually is becoming RARE. Jailing women for "suspicious miscarriages" is trending. Coincidence?

Use of the term "rare" was a message that tested well in the 90s, but from where we sit now...it sets off all kinds of alarm bells. Namely because so many women can't access the procedure. Mandatory wait laws, mandatory counseling, mandatory invasive imaging, admitting privilege rules, and insane over-regulation has added up to the effective virtual repeal of Roe in many states.

Republicans in Mississippi cackled openly about how laws requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges in local hospitals were aimed at eliminating abortion in the state altogether. 

The use of the word "rare" has always bothered me and I thought I was the only one. I was glad to see the discussion on the term in this thread from yesterday.

Back in the 90s, under the misguided messaging that abortion should be "rare," Democrats entered into bipartisan negotiations with RW ideologues thinking they could "find common ground." It’s just a mandatory counseling session here, and a 24-hour “cooling off” period there. What’s a transvaginal ultrasound between friends? Surely this won't lead eliminating most of the women's clinics in Texas, or contribute to a woman in Indiana being sent to to prison for a 'suspicious miscarriage.’ To suggest this was a slippery slope down which the rest of rights would tumble, was considered unreasonable...because WE ALL AGREE IT SHOULD BE RARE, NO?

How wrong we were.

We've evolved beyond needing to use the word entirely. We can talk about having full access to family planning AND childcare AND healthcare AND equal pay so that having a family doesn't relegate women to poverty and abuse. And jail time for miscarrying.

Leave this "rare" language where it belongs -- in the 90s.

February 13, 2015

Anti-vaxxers are not the enemy: Science, politics and the crisis of authority -- SALON

This is perhaps the best thing I've seen written on the underpinnings of the vaccine controversy. What we're experiencing in this debate is the outcome of the "crisis of authority." No more no less. Today it expresses itself in the realm of vaccination -- tomorrow it will express itself elsewhere -- perhaps we'll be asked to accept a new war. Who knows.

A "crisis of authority" can lead in one of two directions depending on the programming of the people who are dealing with it at the time. If the population is leaning toward authoritarianism, it will lead to more authoritarianism. If the population is leaning is leaning toward enlightenment forms of culture, then the outcome will be better, more efficient problem solving. We've seen this repeated in history, and we're seeing it now in the Middle East.

Vaccines just happen to be a stage where Americans today are declaring their fealty to authority. Tomorrow it will be something else. I wonder what that will be. The TRUTH is that we are lied to ALL THE FREAKING TIME. Why should vaccines (or financial instruments, or the next war, or internet privacy) be any different?

What is for sure is that this is not a scientific argument, and you can tell it's not a scientific argument b/c the one thing that science does that political rhetoric/ideology doesn't do is question itself. That's the whole purpose of science. I find it ironic that those who are on the side of "science" are by definition siding with "faith" on this issue. "Have faith in science" they say.

Well, read on, and see how that might not be entirely rational.




http://www.salon.com/2015/02/07/anti_vaxxers_climate_deniers_and_the_crisis_of_authority/


Anti-vaxxers are not the enemy: Science, politics and the crisis of authority

One of the central characteristics of our age – which those of us with fancy educations often call the postmodern era, although even that term is starting to feel old – is a widespread crisis of authority. It isn’t quite true that nobody believes in anything and nobody trusts the experts, as in the rootless world of moral relativism feared by conservatives. It’s more that everybody gets to pick their own beliefs, their own experts and their own evidence...It’s entirely expected for somebody with my media platform to rage against right-wing kooks on television — or right-wing kooks in elected office, for that matter — who claim that climate change is a hoax or that vaccinating children against preventable diseases is dangerous and unnecessary. I agree that those people are deluded or misinformed, and in the case of climate denial they are serving as the agents of larger and darker powers. But those issues are not the same, no matter how closely they have become linked in the liberal and conservative hive-minds. For one thing, anti-vaccine sentiment is found across the political spectrum, although it’s most common among the libertarian-minded right and the anarchist-minded or New Agey quadrants of the left. Attempts to cram the vaccine issue into the binary discourse of partisan politics or the “culture war” are intellectually lazy, and misrepresent its true significance. Furthermore, the dangers of climate denialism are many orders of magnitude worse than the dangers of anti-vaxxer hysteria, which feels like one of those sideshow issues in American politics that’s really about something else.

(snip)


Science, properly speaking, does not “believe” in itself. Any ethical scientist will tell you that the history of science is a history of doubt and mistakes and accidental discoveries. What is demanded here is not faith in people with white coats and prestigious degrees, who are just as likely to be evil and corrupt as anyone else, but critical thinking (which, by the way, is at the core of the scientific method). I specifically mean the ability to follow the threads of ideas back to their sources, and the ability to ask who benefits and who loses when a certain idea wins out. That’s a skill that can be learned by anyone, and one that is effectively suppressed in our current educational economy. It’s also the only possible way out of the American impasse around science, and the feedback loop created by the crisis of authority.

Let me try to forestall a few of the angry comments: I am not covertly agreeing with anti-vaxxers, I don’t want to give up my smartphone or undo the elimination of smallpox, and I don’t assert, after the style of 1970s French philosophy, that there is no such thing as objective reality and that it’s all a game of language and ideology. Still, the crisis of authority is a cultural phenomenon, meaning that it really is about language and ideology more than verifiable facts. To insist that “our side” has access to true facts and legitimate authority, while the other side relies on quacks and charlatans, is not much different from saying that our God is great and yours is a filthy donkey. We may be correct (in either instance), but the case is inherently unprovable in any terms the other side is ever likely to accept.

For the past half-century and more it has largely been the left that has challenged social, cultural and political orthodoxy on white supremacy, the Vietnam War, nuclear power, the oppression of women and LGBT people and the destruction of the environment for profit, among many other things. Until recently, American conservatives saw themselves first and foremost as defenders of authority and moral order, buttresses around a fortress of shared values that was buffeted by a corrosive tide.

(snip)

Trust in science, my ass. Questioning science is an urgent and necessary aspect of contemporary critical thinking, and the questions that anti-vaxxers start with are entirely legitimate: What are you putting in my kid’s body? Is it safe, and is it necessary? Who’s making money off this, and what do we know about them? And even beyond that: Can I trust that you are telling me the truth? My kids have had all their shots, and I believe that people who refuse vaccination are putting together shreds of old anecdote and flawed evidence and conspiratorial ideology to reach a faulty conclusion. As we have recently discovered, this can have unfortunate public health consequences. But I speak for many parents when I say that I don’t begrudge those people their doubts, because I have shared them. That last question, which lies at the heart of both the vaccine issue and the entire crisis of authority — “Why should I trust you, after all the lies I’ve been told?” — still gives me a twinge sometimes.

October 26, 2014

Centrism is for "LOSERS" -- what Thomas Frank says about Carter/Obama is a MUST READ

Actually, Frank is taking off from Rick Perlstein's "The Invisible Bridge" which is a deep dive into the Carter/Reagan years, but the thesis is just as bright coming from either writer: when we unburden ourselves of values we lose.

It's really simple, and yet we make the same mistakes again and again. It has nothing to do with the left not being action-oriented, or "achievement-minded." It has to do with how you losing your soul translates directly into losing votes. It's instant karma, yo.

But don't take my word for it -- look at where the unions, advocacy groups and (gasp!) party members are flocking now: paid sick days, raise the wage, and equal pay for women. These have been long-standing progressive values…and we WIN ELECTIONS WITH THEM.




http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/thomas_frank_we_are_such_losers/

Thomas Frank: “We are such losers”
Liberals yearn to believe in post-ideological blank slates -- and get disappointed every time. Will we ever learn?

(snip to the chase)

The job required much more than that, however. Carter could work out solutions on paper, Fallows acknowledged, but he failed “to project a vision larger than the problem he is tackling at the moment.” More bluntly: “Carter cannot explain what he is doing.” Narrative is always a problem for post-ideological Democrats, of course, but it has been a notable obstacle for Barack Obama, who (unlike Carter) is one of the great orators of our time and yet who is convinced, according to Jonathan Alter’s book “The Center Holds,” that presidential oratory doesn’t really matter.

The final ironic lesson of the Carter presidency should be a cautionary tale for any centrist Democrat who dreams of striking a “grand bargain” with the right: No matter what conservative deeds Democrats undertake, as Rick Perlstein told me in conversation a few days ago, they will never win respect for it. It was Jimmy Carter, not the Republicans, who enacted the sweeping deregulation of transportation. It was Carter, not Reagan, who recommitted America to the Cold War and who slapped a grain embargo on the Soviet Union after that country invaded Afghanistan. (Reagan is the guy who lifted it.) And yet, in the mind of the public, Carter will stand forever as a symbol of liberalism’s fecklessness.

Barack Obama survived his re-election, but he is suffering a form of Jimmy Carter’s fate nevertheless. The ambiguous idealism of Carter’s first run for the presidency was precisely what set the table for his downfall later on. Being a “blank screen” or the personal object of the enthusiasm of millions—these may play well when a candidate is unknown, but they are postures impossible to maintain as president. In both cases, they led inevitably to disappointment and disillusionment.

The moral of this story is not directed at Democratic politicians; it is meant for us, the liberal rank and file. We still “yearn to believe,” as Perlstein says. There is something about the Carter / Obama personality that appeals to us in a deep, unspoken way, and that has led Democrats to fall for a whole string of passionless centrists: John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart and Bill Clinton. Each time, Democratic voters are enchanted by a kind of intellectual idealism that (we are told) is unmoored from ideology. We persuade ourselves that the answer to the savagery of the right—the way to trump the naked class aggression of the One Percent—is to say farewell to our own tradition and get past politics and ideology altogether. And so we focus on the person of the well-meaning, hyper-intelligent leader. We are so high-minded, we think. We are so scientific.

We are such losers.

October 13, 2014

Dickensian US Working Conditions Almost Guarantee Ebola Catastrophe

Why is the US freaking out about Ebola while the rest of the world seems to be taking it stride? Damn good question.


Dickensian US Working Conditions Almost Guarantee Ebola Catastrophe

http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/2505


(snip)

One reason Europeans are not in a state of hysteria about Ebola the way the US public is, besides the confidence Europeans have in their universal health care systems, is that they know that waiters, maids and housekeepers have a right to paid sick leave, so they are not going to be on the job infecting others if they get the disease. They'll be availing themselves of free or next-to-free healthcare and getting tested and if necessary, treated.

Europeans also know that low-income workers are not going to send sick children off to day care or school. Unlike in the US, where many poor working parents have to choose between leaving small children home alone when they’re sick, or sending them to school anyway, so that their parents can keep their jobs, European parents in countries like Finland, where I spent some time last summer, and most other parts of the EU, have the right to paid leave so they can stay home and care for a sick child. Their schools also have nurses, unlike in the US, where impoverished school districts like Philadlephia have cut their school nurses from the payroll.

These programs are humane and just and have been won through years of labor movement struggle in Europe, but they are also beneficial to all the other people in a country -- the middle and upper classes for whom things like health insurance and paid sick days are simply expected.

Not so in the US, where a Darwinian philosophy prevails that argues that the poor do not deserve “handouts” like sick pay or health benefits.

PAID SICK DAYS IN US COMPARED TO REST OF WORLD

September 13, 2014

Did US policy on kidnappings create the pretense for war?

The day after Obama's prime time statement on going (not going) to war in the Middle East, here's what I said on Facebook...

But two new pieces of information have me reconsidering this morning after "what the hell let's go to war" feeling. One is that we now know that Foley's family was threatened by US military representatives not to pay ransom.

And the other is that European journalists have been rescued by ransom in amounts ranging from 1-5 million. Spain and Germany paid to avoid television beheadings of THEIR people, but we'll gladly embark on an open-ended military campaign costing trillions on the pretense that if we don't they'll behead more Americans. Why is that?

Something we've known for a long time is that we allow corporations to spring American executives kidnapped in the Middle East as well as Africa and Central and South America. It's done secretly and there's even insurance for it called K & R -- K & R is actually a thing, and not just on DU. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnap_and_ransom_insurance

Young freelancers aren't likely to be paid fairly, much less have K & R policies.

But this isn't the only problem facing families of kidnapped American journalists. The US and Britain are out of step with European countries who do rescue their journalists. According to this article by Steve Coll in the New Yorker, negotiating consultants believe it's imperative to move ideological kidnappings to being economically motivated b/c that's how you take the political gain off the table for the kidnappers.

It makes me wonder, was our policy on kidnappings to blame for creating the pretense for war?

I'll leave you with David Rohde, an investigative reporter for Reuters and contributing editor for The Atlantic who back in 2008 was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan, and held for more than seven months before escaping.

In a piece that ran on August 20 on Reuters, Rohde asks:

Did America’s policy on ransom contribute to James Foley’s killing?

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-rohde/2014/08/20/did-american-policy-help-kill-james-foley/



James Foley must not die in vain.

July 27, 2014

"How the left took over the Democratic Party" -- sez beltway hack

(h/t scarletwoman for improved subject line!)



BLUE CRUSH: How the left took over the Democratic Party.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/left-took-over-democratic-party-109348_full.html#.U9UgsqXVQs0


This is an interesting piece from former Clinton political director Doug Sosnik wherein he says our party is more united than ever before, but: "simmering beneath the surface of this united front is an ascendant progressive and populist movement that is on the verge of taking over the party."

And I'm not sure if he's thinks this is a good thing or a bad thing.

There are a lot of charts and framing up the claim that progressives have taken over the party, and then Sosnik lays down the problem as he sees it:



I'm here to tell you this is a small hurdle. First of all, the ACA has saved lives and kept families afloat. Dems who run away from this (like Alex Sink in FL's D-13 loss) pay the price. Running from anti-government rhetoric doesn't win elections for Dems. We need to OWN THIS.

This is true, especially in the face of epic real-life "small government" disasters such as Brownbeckistan and Detroit, and the refusal of Republican-run states to expand Medicaid resulting in dystopian "donut hole deaths."

Sosnik nevertheless claims that this one tiny piece of public perception is strong enough to put the kibosh on progressive action going forward. I say he's dead wrong.

Big government vs small government is a disingenuous semantic game that disguises the fact that EVERYONE wants government to work for them. "Small government" is a bullshit administrative definition that means nothing to working families, or the Tea Party conservatives who use it. Corporate conservatives love "big government" in the form of corporate welfare. Social conservatives want government in everyone's bedrooms and women's health clinics. Mid-level business conservatives never miss a chance to socialize risk while privatizing rewards.

Meanwhile, there's impassioned calls for an Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders presidential run. Do you see anyone knocking down Chuck Schumer's or Diane Feinstein's door? Warren and Sanders know that "big government vs small government" is easily exposed as an excuse to steal from the poor and give to the rich, and they speak the truth that it's a core Democratic value to reverse this.



This "public desire" for a thing called "small government" might register on opinion polls, but not around the dinner table. We want better schools, 21st Century public transportation, and a fair deal for workers in which full-time work results in being able to afford a damn apartment. You want to change "public desire"? Keep talking about minimum wage, sick days for working families, and affordable child care. Refuse conservative talking points, already.

And when it comes to our "public desire" let's not forget where we were just 25 years ago with regard to another "insurmountable" public perception: LGBT issues and the AIDS crisis.

In the late 80s I attended a meeting of southern college progressive groups in Chapel Hill. The goal of the meeting was to form a "powerful new coalition for change." We'd hoped to build on the success of the so-called red/green alliance of environmental and social justice groups.

The conference literally blew up in the face of a proposal to embrace LGBT human rights and mobilize to end the AIDS crisis. I remember that hot auditorium like it was yesterday. "Gay rights, are you crazy?" It's "too difficult," and "a losing battle." Some said it wasn't pragmatic. Now isn't the time…the usual. And this from our country's brightest young progressive leaders. Sure, I was intimidated by the proposal, but knew deep down that we had to go through that fight because it was the right thing to do.

"What the heck were we thinking" we ask now. Our insecurity on the "public desire" regarding gay rights actually demonstrated that this was exactly where the pressure needed to be applied. Now it seems unimaginable that LGBT support required debate. It's boilerplate.

__________


At the end of the article the author states: "democratic activists will need to reconcile the public’s desire for smaller government with their own progressive impulses."

Sure, but we've already reconciled it the same way we reconciled LGBT support in the 80s and early 90s. It's not "big vs small." That's disingenuous bullshit. The real tension is between government that's on the side of working families, vs government on the side of big business. This battle may seem "impractical" today, but I guarantee you it's tomorrow's "what the heck were we thinking."

He says as much here:


Activists change public perception; we don't chase it. Progressives are on the front lines and poised to lead, while Clinton and the ever-shrinking Blue Dog Coalition are tee'd up to fight the last war.

Looking back on my experience of the 80s, it's clear that the impossible task of changing the "public's desire" on LGBT issues wasn't as impossible as we thought. As a matter of fact, it was absolutely necessary, and right and moral to take those positions, and THAT'S WHY we won in the end. We must take that lesson forward with regard to the pressures we face today such as reigning in Wall Street, curbing global warming and supporting economic security for working families.

Now is the time to apply pressure precisely where our political and economic systems are broken. To refuse to do so -- because of "public desire" for "smaller government" -- would be political malpractice.

June 6, 2014

RWNJs spitting on soldier returning from Afghanistan. They're drunk and we need to go home.

Spent hours in a medical waiting room where I couldn't escape FOX News with their wall-to-wall Bergdahl-is-a-commie coverage. then came home and checked out the DemocracyNow piece on Bergdahl found here: http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2014/6/5/veteran_politicians_using_freed_pow_bowe

In this piece former solder, Brock McIntosh, Veterans For Peace spox-person talks about being lied into this war, and the horror of having to shoot at people in a context that doesn't make any sense historically, politically or strategically. If Bergdahl was disenchanted with the war, he had good reason to be. It only took 10 years to fight the fucking French Revolution -- this should have more like a "clean up on aisle 5." WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

I think the RWNJs and "sneer-casters" on FOX News want people to think that Bergdahl is not worthy of being rescued b/c he questioned the war. Period. Full-stop. They don't like people who think and they don't like his dad's beard. They're trying to SHAME them. It's disgusting. They've got no coherent narrative except a dirty whisper campaign, and they're flapping hysterically that he might have studied languages, or islam, or cared about the kids being killed over there. Holy cow. What's next? Jailing people for having peace stickers?

And I think they also don't realize that this a discussion we're dying to have. It's time to talk about Afghanistan itself. Who is not sick to death of sending our troops and tax money into an ill-defined, unstrategic, badly managed fiasco?

We're 10 years in with no end in sight, and these nut jobs think the most important thing to do is attack a rescued prisoner of war. This is madness, and they can easily be made to pay for it. It's so anti-American it turns your stomach.

Do not let these fuckers get away with it.

April 13, 2014

UPDATE: Charlene Dill story HITS MSN (mother murdered by Rick Scott's Medicaid Gap)

You might remember the thread a couple of weeks ago on the death of a young Florida mother of three with a heart condition who couldn't receive healthcare b/c she fell into the state's enormous Medicaid Gap created by Republicans refusing to take federal monies to expand the program. Thom Hartmann picked up the story from that post and then Truth-Out did a piece.

After a cover story in the Orlando Weekly, the story has caught fire, being featured on Al Sharpton's show, Alex Wagner's show and on Huffington Post Live.

Tomorrow night Lawrence O'Donnell will have it on, and The Maddow Show producers have also reached out to primary contacts for the story.



While the story threatens to go national, I hope everyone remembers that the politics in play are state and local. And it couldn't be any more clear to someone paying attention to what's going on in Tallahassee.

ALEC-led Republicans are leaving dead Americans on their ideological battlefield. They are being helped along by ALEC-led "think tanks" and publications and lobbyists with lots and lots of money. Now they're moving into local government:

We need to get mad about Charlene Dill, and we need to direct that energy where it can do some good: state and local legislative bodies that have created two sets of rules -- one for us and one for them. Now, they're creating two sets of outcomes -- one for us and one for them. And we can't go on like this. It's no wonder the most talked about economics book of the year is a warning us that the gap between the rich and poor threatens to destroy society. I'm feeling it, Mr. Piketty.

State and local government holds the power here, which I suppose is predictable since they've spent so much time and money in buying our corrupt political system here in Florida. We need to understand how that turns up the heat. It's our own neighbors who think it's just fine for young mothers to die if they have the "wrong kind" of job -- the kind that doesn't pay or offer benefits. This exploitable labor exists, in fact, because of policies set by our state and local politicians. In Florida, that' means ALEC.

If you live in Orange County or want to know more about this, visit http://www.votelocal2014.org








Here's the story from the Orlando Weekly:



http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-perils-of-florida-s-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-1.1665144?pgno=1

The perils of Florida’s refusal to expand Medicaid
Charlene Dill is one of an estimated 2,000 people who expected to face dire health issues due to lack of access to care


Charlene Dill didn’t have to die.

On March 21, Dill was supposed to bring her three children over to the South Orlando home of her best friend, Kathleen Voss Woolrich. The two had cultivated a close friendship since 2008; they shared all the resources that they had, from debit-card PINs to transportation to baby-sitting and house keys. They helped one another out, forming a safety net where there wasn’t one already. They “hustled,” as Woolrich describes it, picking up short-term work, going out to any event they could get free tickets to, living the high life on the low-down, cleaning houses for friends to afford tampons and shampoo. They were the working poor, and they existed in the shadows of the economic recovery that has yet to reach many average people.


(snip)

Dill’s death was not unpredictable, nor was it unpreventable. She had a documented heart condition for which she took medication. But she also happened to be one of the people who fall within the gap created by the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed states to opt out of Medicaid expansion, which was a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s intention to make health care available to everyone. In the ensuing two years, 23 states have refused to expand Medicaid, including Florida, which rejected $51 billion from the federal government over the period of a decade to overhaul its Medicaid program to include people like Dill and Woolrich – people who work, but do not make enough money to qualify for the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies. They, like many, are victims of a political war – one that puts the lives and health of up to 17,000 U.S. residents and 2,000 Floridians annually in jeopardy, all in the name of rebelling against President Barack Obama’s health care plan.

(snip)

These are the people in the coverage gap – the unknowns, the single mothers, the not-quite-retired – the unnamed 750,000 Floridians who are suffering while legislators in Tallahassee refuse to address the issue in this year’s legislative session, which ends on May 2. The working poor – who used to be the middle class – are on a crash course with disaster for no logical reason. Charlene Dill, at the age of 32, didn’t have to die.

In the Sunshine State, 440,000 people signed up on the health care exchange, while 125,000 were judged to be eligible for Medicaid. Florida, with its retirees and low-wage workers, is on the demand side of health care.

“We are No. 2, plus we have a federal exchange,” SEIU state council president Monica Russo says. “I find that quite a statement. Floridians need health care. I think [Republicans] can campaign all they want against health care, but at the end of the day, what are they going to do? Rip health care out of their hands?”


snip -- much more at link: http://orlandoweekly.com/news/the-perils-of-florida-s-refusal-to-expand-medicaid-1.1665144?pgno=1

March 24, 2014

Charlene Dill was murdered by Rick Scott, FL republicans RE Medicaid funding ("donut hole" death)

This was written by a friend of mine (news of the death came this weekend). Posted with permission.

I was aware of Charlene's predicament with not being able to get meds or see a doc with her heart condition -- Kathleen (the writer) did a fundraiser to get her meds a while back. Now she's doing a GoFundMe for her funeral.

This is so horrific, and predictable. And preventable. And the result of Republicans in their insane crusade against Obama using the people of Florida as sacrificial lambs. And I just can't even begin to imagine all the other millions of people in Florida who aren't covered, and how many will also die or suffer permanent disability or lose their homes… the list just goes on and on.





Kathleen Voss Woolrich: A Loss Of Life, Caused By Partisan Politics – The Denial Of Obamacare

An unedited story told by a fellow Floridian. The consequences of Florida’s modern day partisan politics. A call to vote for change.

March 24, 2014

By: Kathleen Voss Woolrich

“Born in Pennsylvania to a warm family, Charlene moved to Florida when she was 18 years old. She worked at fast food joints and Disney, cleaned houses and babysat, but through the years found herself as a single mother with 3 kids. She had heart issues that needed to be managed. Her teeth needed to be fixed and constantly had infections, but Charlene never complained. She made $11,000 dollars last year – babysitting other peoples’ children and cleaning other peoples’ houses. She proudly paid her property taxes in February and took care of her little trailer, which she owned and took all three kids to school.

But, Charlene had no health insurance. Charlene was unable to get Obamacare, because she made too little to get the subsidies to purchase health insurance. She had no dental insurance. Her teeth hurt her at night and had so many cavities, but could not find a way to get the decay in her teeth fixed. She was denied medicaid and when she went to get Obamcare she was told she could not get subsidies.

So she went to the emergency room 2012. She had heart issues and was told to get on medicine and be monitored. But, had no health insurance to do so. 2012 Obama won and we all were so sure… NOW Charlene would have health insurance. But the Republican Party of Florida and Rick Scott turned down medicaid expansion. In December Charlene went to the emergency room with abcesses in her legs. Her teeth hurt her constantly. Charlene never complained. She took her two older kids to school each day and reported for work at her various jobs. Recently she began selling vaccuum cleaners in addition to the babysitting and house cleaning. She took antibiotics. She got her healthcare at Florida hospital emergency rooms.

On March 21st, she was supposed to come see me – on my first day off, in a while. She was excited about seeing my daughter who she had raised since she was 3. The kids were all going to play together. She had only 2 short appointments in Osceola County, to show the vaccum to customers. At about 4 pm, that afternoon, I got a message from her niece that she had died at the customers house. They rushed her to Poinciana Medical Center and worked on her. They could not bring my best friend back. She died. She was 32.



You see, the main argument Republicans use is that its some lazy person who needs medicaid expansion. That, those of us living without healthcare or dental care are lazy. But my friend, a single beautiful mother, worked 3 jobs. She paid taxes. She paid her house taxes. And now she’s dead.

Please think of Charlene when you decide who you are going to vote for in August and December. Please vote democrat. Please vote for people who want people like Charlene and me to have healthcare – to have a fighting chance.

I am burying my best friend soon, because of Rick Scott and Will Weatherford. I am buring my best friend, because of the policies of the Republican Party. I am burying my best friend, because had medicaid expansion passed her needs would have been met. She is one of the 7 people who will die each day, because the Florida House of Represenatives Republicans and Tea Party decided that we are not worth living. We are not worth healthcare. We were not worth medicaid expansion.




Please vote for Charlene.

Please help get the Republicans out and expand medicaid. I’ll never have her back. I’ll never see my friend again. I’ll never have another day with her, because of the Republican House of Representatives. Please, for Charlene and for me, register to vote and promise to vote against Rick Scott and any Florida Republican who runs. They need to know we know. We know who they hurt and we see what they are doing to the poor of Florida.”

– Charlene Dill 1981 to 2014

if you want to help the family:
http://www.gofundme.com/17bf60

Here's some information and an info graphic on the Medicaid Gap:

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/

December 4, 2013

Emerging meme alert: "Not cutting Social Security puts national security at risk."

Two separate narratives emerged today regarding sequestration and the upcoming CR. One is being pushed by right-leaning/centrist dems, and the other by establishment GOPers.

Here's the first: Steny Hoyer says NO CR with military sequestration cuts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014662486

And the second is:
New GOP Plan Would Save Military From Sequestration By Cutting Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024125632

Taken together you see how the two sides who're both beholden to investment bankers want us to see how there's "bipartisan agreement" that military cuts are so scary and so unthinkable that it's our sovereign patriotic duty to each and every one give up our Social Security benefits for the good of the country.

I have to go make dinner, so instead of a reasoned response, I'm just going leave you with this: