Category Archives: Class

White House fails to win House for TrumpCare™


Even his own party fails to fall behind Agent Orange.

From Reuters:

Republicans in Congress said they lacked the votes needed for passage of their U.S. healthcare system overhaul and a key committee chairman came out in opposition after Donald Trump demanded a vote on Friday in a gamble that could hobble his presidency.

Amid a chaotic scramble for votes, House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, who has championed the bill, met with Trump at the White House. Ryan told the president there were not enough votes to pass the plan, U.S. media reported.

If the bill is defeated, Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, the 2010 Affordable Care Act dubbed Obamacare, would remain in place despite seven years of Republican promises to dismantle it.

Repealing and replacing Obamacare was a top campaign promise by Trump in the 2016 presidential election, as well as by most Republican candidates, “from dog catcher on up,” as White House spokesman Sean Spicer put it during a briefing on Friday.

The showdown on the House floor follows Trump’s decision to cut off negotiations to shore up support inside his own party, with moderates and the most conservative lawmakers balking. On Thursday night he had issued an ultimatum that lawmakers pass the legislation that has his backing or keep in place the Obamacare law that Republicans have sought to dismantle since it was enacted seven years ago.

And a new Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals the reason for their reluctance [click on the image to enlarge]:

The Republicans are confronted with a harsh reality: Even those who voted for the short-fingered vulgarian, most notably those poorer heartland folks who voted for him are reluctant to inflict higher costs and even lack of emergency room access and maternity care on themselves,m their families, and their friends.

Headline of the day: The want freedom. . .to die


Yep the Koch brothers’ pals in Congress really do want to kill the poor, and the quickest way to do that is cut them off from things like emergency rooms and maternity care.

From the New York Times:

Consensus Eludes G.O.P. With Health Vote Looming

  • The hard-line Freedom Caucus met with President Trump but failed to reach a consensus on changes to the House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
  • They are pressing to eliminate federal requirements that health insurance plans provide basic benefits like maternity care, emergency services and wellness visits.

UPDATE: But it’s even worse. . .

More on what the Zealots want to cut from the McClatchy Washington Bureau:

House Republicans, looking for a deal to secure their health care legislation, may scrap one of the Affordable Care Act’s most important consumer protections: requiring individual health insurers to cover ten essential health benefits.

The benefits are:

  • Pediatric services, including oral and dental care
  • Pregnancy, maternity and newborn care
  • Outpatient care
  • Emergency services
  • Hospitalization
  • Prescription drugs
  • Mental health and substance abuse services
  • Laboratory services
  • Rehabilitative services
  • Prevention services and chronic disease management

Without the mandatory coverage of essential benefits, the health law’s limits on out-of-pocket spending would be “essentially meaningless” because it applies only to those essential services, according to a blog post on Thursday by Timothy Jost, an Emeritus law professor at Washington and Lee University.

The health law’s ban on annual and lifetime coverage limits also applies only to essential benefits, meaning they too would be eliminated under the still-evolving GOP bill.

Charting the American rural/urban divides


Donald Trump’s populism starkly revealed the growing rural/urban divide in the United States, a divide exploited by Pussygrabber’s peculiar brand of populism.

As a look at this cartographic breakdown of county-by-county presidential vote results by Penn State physicist Mark Newman reveals, Democrats won majorities largely in coastal and urban counties, plus those less populated areas where non-anglos are in the majority:

Why are the two polities so different in their responses to a populist promising a political panacea?

The Conversation, an open source, lay language academic journal, asked a group of academics to describe some key differences between city and countryside, and their explanations are both in words and graphics:

Editor’s note: We’ve all heard of the great divide between life in rural and urban America. But what are the factors that contribute to these differences? We asked sociologists, economists, geographers and historians to describe the divide from different angles. The data paint a richer and sometimes surprising picture of the U.S. today.

1. Poverty is higher in rural areas

Discussions of poverty in the United States often mistakenly focus on urban areas. While urban poverty is a unique challenge, rates of poverty have historically been higher in rural than urban areas. In fact, levels of rural poverty were often double those in urban areas throughout the 1950s and 1960s.

While these rural-urban gaps have diminished markedly, substantial differences persist. In 2015, 16.7 percent of the rural population was poor, compared with 13.0 percent of the urban population overall – and 10.8 percent among those living in suburban areas outside of principal cities.

Contrary to common assumptions, substantial shares of the poor are employed. Approximately 45 percent of poor, prime-age (25-54) householders worked at least part of 2015 in rural and urban areas alike.

The link between work and poverty was different in the past. In the early 1980s, the share of the rural poor that was employed exceeded that in urban areas by more than 15 percent. Since then, more and more poor people in rural areas are also unemployed – a trend consistent with other patterns documented below.

That said, rural workers continue to benefit less from work than their urban counterparts. In 2015, 9.8 percent of rural, prime-age working householders were poor, compared with 6.8 percent of their urban counterparts. Nearly a third of the rural working poor faced extreme levels of deprivation, with family incomes below 50 percent of the poverty line, or approximately US$12,000 for a family of four.

Large shares of the rural workforce also live in economically precarious circumstances just above the poverty line. Nearly one in five rural working householders lived in families with incomes less than 150 percent of the poverty line. That’s nearly five percentage points more than among urban workers (13.5 percent).

According to recent research, rural-urban gaps in working poverty cannot be explained by rural workers’ levels of education, industry of employment or other similar factors that might affect earnings. Rural poverty – at least among workers – cannot be fully explained by the characteristics of the rural population. That means reducing rural poverty will require attention to the structure of rural economies and communities.

Brian Thiede, Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology and Demography, Pennsylvania State University


2. Most new jobs aren’t in rural areas

It’s easy to see why many rural Americans believe the recession never ended: For them, it hasn’t.

Rural communities still haven’t recovered the jobs they lost in the recession. Census data show that the rural job market is smaller now – 4.26 percent smaller, to be exact – than it was in 2008. In these data are shuttered coal mines on the edges of rural towns and boarded-up gas stations on rural main streets. In these data are the angers, fears and frustrations of much of rural America.

This isn’t a new trend. Mechanization, environmental regulations and increased global competition have been slowly whittling away at resource extraction economies and driving jobs from rural communities for most of the 20th century. But the fact that what they’re experiencing now is simply the cold consequences of history likely brings little comfort to rural people. If anything, it only adds to their fear that what they once had is gone and it’s never coming back.

Nor is it likely that the slight increase in rural jobs since 2013 brings much comfort. As the resource extraction economy continues to shrink, most of the new jobs in rural areas are being created in the service sector. So Appalachian coal miners and Northwest loggers are now stocking shelves at the local Walmart.

The identity of rural communities used to be rooted in work. The signs at the entrances of their towns welcomed visitors to coal country or timber country. Towns named their high school mascots after the work that sustained them, like the Jordan Beetpickers in Utah or the Camas Papermakers in Washington. It used to be that, when someone first arrived at these towns, they knew what people did and that they were proud to do it.

That’s not so clear anymore. How do you communicate your communal identity when the work once at the center of that identity is gone, and calling the local high school football team the “Walmart Greeters” simply doesn’t have the same ring to it?

Continue reading

Abby Martin dissects Steve Bannon: It ain’t pretty


There’s little doubt that Steve Bannon is the brains behind President Pussygrabber.

And if Donald Trump is an infantile personality, easily distracted by the latest shiny thing to enter his field of vision, Steve Bannon is another breed of cat altogether, a man with a plan.

And what Bannon plans, Martin shows in this edition of The Empire Files, is a return to the 1950s, when the white man’s word was law, both on the street and in the home, and women, minorities, and others not gifted with testicles and melanin deficiencies could be expected to know their places.

Oh, and he also wants a war with China.

Corrupt, cunning, and vicious, Bannon has fueled the rise of a reign of misfits, and we’ve only seen the beginning.

From teleSUR English:

Empire Files: Abby Martin Exposes Steve Bannon

Program notes:

Steve Bannon has been propelled over the last year from fringe media outlier to top propagandist of the U.S. Empire as Trump’s Chief Strategist.

From his Wall Street roots and apocalyptic film career to his cultivation of alt-right bigots at Breitbart News, Abby Martin exposes Bannon’s true character in this explosive documentary.

Dissection of Bannon’s ideology of “economic nationalism” and desire to “Make America Great Again” reveals the danger of his hand in Trump’s agenda.

Quote of the day: The secret of his success


From Corey Robin, professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, writing in Jacobin about real parallel between Adolf Hitler and President Pussygrabber:

I’ve been reading David Cay Johnston’s excellent book The Making of Donald Trump. And without mentioning or even alluding to Hitler or fascism, the book raises an interesting — if unexpected — parallel about Trump’s and Hitler’s rise to power.

One of the themes in a lot of the historical scholarship about Germany in the 1920s and 1930s is how Hitler and the Nazis were able to take advantage of the systemic weaknesses of Weimar: the cracks in the political structure, the division among elites, the fissures in the parties, the holes in the Constitution, and so on. What Johnston narrates, in almost nauseating detail, is how Trump’s ascension to wealth and fame and power — long before he makes his 2016 run for the presidency — is dependent not on the weaknesses of the political system but on the systemic corruption of a rentier economy.

At every step, Trump benefits, almost haplessly (it seems to require very little art), from the built-in advantages to wealth and the wealthy in our society: whether those advantages are in the tax system, the regulatory system, or the courts. (Trump actually spoke of this quite often during his campaign.) And in the same way that Hitler preyed upon his opponents’ cluelessness in the face of his political rise, so does Trump profit from his opponents’ cluelessness in the face of his economic rise.

At every moment when Trump might have been stopped, when he might have been forced into bankruptcy, had his credit denied, had his loans called in, his licenses revoked, at every juncture where he might have been convicted of a crime or sent to jail — and, again, this is well before he makes his successful bid for the White House — some unplanned and unintended conspiracy of economic reason and political lowlifery mobilizes to protect him. (And it really is unplanned and unintended. The genius of the American system is how the Invisible Hand works to produce systemic vice rather than incidental virtue.)

Whether it’s gaming regulators who don’t want to take him on because hotel values in Atlantic City might suffer, or an investigation-happy attorney general who suddenly gets a well-timed campaign contribution, or judges upon judges who preside over settlements where records are permanently sealed and vital public information concealed, or bank officials and industry magnates who decide he’s too big to fail — and Johnston makes a fascinating comparison between the way the banks were treated in 2008 and the way that Trump has been treated for decades — this man’s rise to power has been predicated on all the most basic institutions and features of our economy.

Quote of the day: The secret of Trump’s budget


From Michael Paarlberg, lecturer in government at Georgetown University, writing in the Guardian:

Trump’s budget isn’t about saving money – he’s said so himself, that military spending is “more important” than a balanced budget. And it isn’t about rebuilding a “depleted” military for a country that already spends more on defense than the next twelve countries combined. Trump’s plan is about catering to his base. Not the fabled white working class, who will soon lose their WIC, heating subsidies, and job training. No, his real base, those golfing buddies and board members at companies like Lockheed, who want lower taxes and access to the government spigot, and want poor people to pay for it all.

It’s also about disciplining the deep state. Notably, the agencies facing the sharpest cuts are not the most expensive but those Trump has suspected of disloyalty: the EPA, state department and the USDA, all of which Trump’s transition team sought to muzzle and requested lists of names of employees working on programs he opposes.

Taken as a whole, Trump’s proposal points to an increasingly paranoid strongman who sees budgets as tools to reward friends and punish enemies, the military as a personal ornament, and poor Americans as piggy banks for his boondoggles and vanity projects.

Health professionals declare war on TrumpCare™


Back when esnl was in knee-pants, members of the healthcare professions were adamantly opposed to government involvement in their bailiwick, with doctors especially deriding government involvement in the insurance racket as nothing less than [horrors] socialized medicine!.

Doctors in particular could be relief on by the GOP as reliably in their pocket.

But no more.

Consider the just-announced declarations of war from three healthcare alliances, allergists, psychologists, and nurses.

Allergists take a resolute stance

First, from the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology:

The American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (ACAAI) and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) are gravely concerned about the impact President Trump’s proposed budget, released earlier today, will have on the future of medical research. We call on Congress to reject the proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and instead, build on the commitment made last year to begin increasing spending for medical research.

The President’s budget blueprint recommends significant, largely unspecified, cuts to the budget of the NIH. In total, the proposed reduction would amount to approximately 20 percent of the NIH’s entire budget.

ACAAI president Stephen A. Tilles, MD and AAAAI president David B. Peden, MD said the following upon learning of the proposed cuts: “Although the budget blueprint released by President Trump earlier today is short on specifics, it is hard to imagine how cuts of this magnitude could be accomplished without doing serious harm to the core mission of the NIH – medical research. Together, we call upon Congress to reject any cuts to the NIH that would decrease the NIH’s ability to conduct life-saving medical research and training.”

NIH, and in particular the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) are providing vital funding for medical research that could lead to life-improving treatments for individuals suffering from allergies, asthma, immunologic disorders and infectious diseases (including HIV/AIDS, emerging and reemerging infectious diseases).

Each year, billions of dollars are spent treating the causes and symptoms of food, drug and skin allergy, immunodeficiency, and asthma. Through the work of NIAID, NHLBI and NIEHS and the research they are funding, we have the opportunity to identify and develop life-saving and life-improving treatments for these widespread chronic conditions.

This past October, NIAID researchers announced promising results from an NIH sponsored clinical trial on the efficacy and value of an intervention for treating children and young adults with peanut allergies. This January a NIAID sponsored expert panel issued clinical guidelines to help health care providers give parents and caregivers important information on early introduction of peanut-containing foods to infants to prevent the development of peanut allergy. These are the type of results the American people can expect from supporting NIH (NIAID, NHLBI and NIEHS) and their medical research mission.

ACAAI and AAAAI call on Congress to continue its bi-partisan support for the NIH and the NIAID, NHLBI and NIEHS as it completes the 2017 appropriations process and embarks on enacting appropriations bills for fiscal year 2018.

And the headshrinkers weigh in

From the American Psychological Association:

The American Psychological Association and its affiliated APA Practice Organization sent a letter to congressional leaders stating their opposition to the American Health Care Act after a Congressional Budget Office analysis projected that the bill, if enacted into law, could double the proportion of Americans without health insurance by 2026.

“We believe that any health care reform legislation to repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act considered by Congress should increase the number of Americans with coverage for mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment,” said the letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., signed by APA President Antonio Puente, PhD, and Interim CEO Cynthia Belar, PhD. “As the recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office concludes, the American Health Care Act would significantly decrease Americans’ access to these services, and by 2026 would take coverage away from an estimated 24 million people who would have otherwise been covered under current law.”

The letter voiced concern that the AHCA would severely undermine Medicaid by instituting per capita caps in federal payments to states that would not keep pace with per enrollee spending growth and by eliminating the Medicaid expansion for Americans with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty level. The CBO projected the AHCA would cut Medicaid spending by $880 billion over the next ten years and remove coverage from 14 million beneficiaries by 2026.

“These cuts are unconscionable in light of the large unmet need for mental and behavioral health and substance use services, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of Americans dying each year due to opioid addiction,” said the letter. “By drastically reducing federal spending for Medicaid, and by removing the requirement that Medicaid benchmark plans cover mental health, substance use, and behavioral health services, the American Health Care Act would jeopardize coverage for these life-saving treatments for the entire Medicaid population.”

Continue reading