RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: After Two Years of School Strikes, the World Is Still in a State of Climate Crisis Denial Print
Written by   
Thursday, 20 August 2020 12:15

Excerpt: "On Thursday 20 August, it will be exactly two years since the first school strike for the climate took place. Looking back, a lot has happened."

'The gap between what we need to do and what's actually being done is widening by the minute.' The Rhenish brown coalfield in Bergheim, Germany, Europe's largest carbon dioxide source. (photo: Sascha Steinbach/EPA)
'The gap between what we need to do and what's actually being done is widening by the minute.' The Rhenish brown coalfield in Bergheim, Germany, Europe's largest carbon dioxide source. (photo: Sascha Steinbach/EPA)


After Two Years of School Strikes, the World Is Still in a State of Climate Crisis Denial

By Greta Thunberg, Luisa Neubauer, Anuna De Wever and Adélaïde Charlier, Guardian UK

20 August 20


We can have as many meetings as we like, but the will to change is nowhere in sight. Society must start treating this as a crisis

n Thursday 20 August, it will be exactly two years since the first school strike for the climate took place. Looking back, a lot has happened. Many millions have taken to the streets to join the decades-long fight for climate and environmental justice. And on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a “climate and environmental emergency”.

But over these past two years, the world has also emitted more than 80 gigatonnes of CO2. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe: wildfires, heatwaves, flooding, hurricanes, storms, thawing of permafrost and collapsing of glaciers and whole ecosystems. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost. And this is only the very beginning.

Today, leaders all over the world are speaking of an “existential crisis”. The climate emergency is discussed on countless panels and summits. Commitments are being made, big speeches are given. Yet, when it comes to action we are still in a state of denial. The climate and ecological crisis has never once been treated as a crisis. The gap between what we need to do and what’s actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction.

Last month, just ahead of the European council summit, we published an open letter with demands to EU and world leaders. Since then, more than 125,000 people have signed this letter. Tomorrow we will meet the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and deliver the letter and demands, as well as the signatures.

We will tell Merkel that she must face up to the climate emergency – especially as Germany now holds the presidency of the European council. Europe has a responsibility to act. The EU and the United Kingdom are accountable for 22% of historic accumulative global emissions, second only to the United States. It is immoral that the countries that have done the least to cause the problem are suffering first and worst. The EU must act now, as it has signed up to do in the Paris agreement.

Our demands include halting all fossil fuel investments and subsidies, divesting from fossil fuels, making ecocide an international crime, designing policies that protect workers and the most vulnerable, safeguarding democracy and establishing annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best available science.

We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or may seem unrealistic. But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we’re heading for – as well as other disastrous ecological consequences of today’s business as usual. We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is, will the changes be on our terms, or on nature’s terms?

In the Paris agreement, world leaders committed themselves to keeping the global average temperature rise to well below 2C, and aiming for 1.5C. Our demands demonstrate what that commitment means. Yet this is just the very minimum of what needs to be done to deliver on those promises.

So if leaders are not willing to do this, they’ll have to start explaining why they’re giving up on the Paris agreement. Giving up on their promises. Giving up on the people living in the most affected areas. Giving up on the chances of handing over a safe future for their children. Giving up without even trying.

Science doesn’t tell anyone what to do, it merely collects and presents verified information. It is up to us to study and connect the dots. When you read the IPCC SR1.5 report and the UNEP production gap report, as well as what leaders have actually signed up for in the Paris agreement, you see that the climate and ecological crisis can no longer be solved within today’s systems. Even a child can see that policies of today don’t add up with the current best available science.

We need to end the ongoing wrecking, exploitation and destruction of our life support systems and move towards a fully decarbonised economy that is centred on the wellbeing of all people, democracy and the natural world.

If we are to have a chance of staying below 1.5C of warming, our emissions need to immediately start reducing rapidly towards zero and then on to negative figures. That’s a fact. And since we don’t have all the technical solutions we need to achieve that, we have to work with what we have at hand today. And this has to include stopping doing certain things. That’s also a fact. However, it’s a fact that most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short circuit.

This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is at the very heart of the problem. As it is now, we can have as many meetings and climate conferences as we want. They will not lead to sufficient changes, because the willingness to act and the level of awareness needed are still nowhere in sight. The only way forward is for society to start treating the crisis like a crisis.

We still have the future in our own hands. But time is rapidly slipping through our fingers. We can still avoid the worst consequences. But to do that, we have to face the climate emergency and change our ways. And that is the uncomfortable truth we cannot escape.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Steve Bannon Got Busted by the Postal Service Police. Well Played, Irony. Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Thursday, 20 August 2020 11:01

Pierce writes: "It's simply grifters all the way down."

Steve Bannon. (photo: Getty)
Steve Bannon. (photo: Getty)


Steve Bannon Got Busted by the Postal Service Police. Well Played, Irony.

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

20 August 20


Another lesson from all this is that the genius dealmaker in the White House is the biggest sucker in two shoes.

t’s simply grifters all the way down. From CBS News:

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss said Bannon, Brian Kolfage, Andrew Badolato and Timothy Shea were arrested Thursday morning. Bannon, 66, is set to appear before a federal judge in Manhattan. The four men are accused of defrauding hundreds of thousands of people who donated to the "We Build the Wall" fundraising campaign that raked in more than $25 million to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, according to the indictment. Federal prosecutors said that while donors were assured 100% of the money raised would be used to build the wall, those claims were false.

The vision of the last heir to House Harkonnen in cuffs is delicious enough. (The "administrative state" has got your ass now, pally.) Just as flavorful is the report that this bust happened at all because administration* house counsel Bill Barr botched the neutering of the SDNY US Attorney's office and was forced to leave Audrey Strauss, the assistant to the US attorney he defenestrated, in charge, so that one day it would be Strauss who clapped Bannon and his co-conspirators in irons. And the single most delicious tidbit is that Bannon et. al. got themselves busted by...wait for it...the U.S. Postal Service police. Well played, Irony. Well played.

But there's another lesson in all of this—namely, that the genius dealmaker in the White House is the biggest sucker in two shoes. You can convince the guy of anything. Brad Parscale was not the brightest bulb in the chandelier and he got rich off the campaign. The MyPillow guy has sold him on poison as a cure. Bannon saw a guy on whom he could ride to glory and riches simply by reassuring him of his own towering genius. He almost got there, too. 

Update (11:43 a.m.): Here is the alleged scam’s “advisory board.” I knew Curt Schilling had to be in there somewhere. Another smart guy who could be held up by mail.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
You Can Drive a Full-Size Minivan Through the Loopholes in Louis DeJoy's Statement Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Wednesday, 19 August 2020 12:55

Pierce writes: "The Postal Service chief's backtracking press release had a number of glaring omissions."

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty)


ALSO SEE: Don't Breathe Easy About the Postal Service Yet

You Can Drive a Full-Size Minivan Through the Loopholes in Louis DeJoy's Statement

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

19 August 20


The Postal Service chief's backtracking press release had a number of glaring omissions.

ike hanging, the possibility of being sued by 20 state attorneys general, and/or being roasted on a spit in front of congressional committees, seems to concentrate the mind wonderfully. Postmaster General—and abandoned James Lee Burke character—Louis DeJoy on Tuesday issued a statement announcing that he (maybe, perhaps) will suspend all of the various shenanigans that have made him famous over the past month or so.

I am announcing today the expansion of our current leadership taskforce on election mail to enhance our ongoing work and partnership with state and local election officials in jurisdictions throughout the country. Leaders of our postal unions and management associations have committed to joining this taskforce to ensure strong coordination throughout our organization. Because of the unprecedented demands of the 2020 election, this taskforce will help ensure that election officials and voters are well informed and fully supported by the Postal Service.

I came to the Postal Service to make changes to secure the success of this organization and its long-term sustainability. I believe significant reforms are essential to that objective, and work toward those reforms will commence after the election. In the meantime, there are some longstanding operational initiatives — efforts that predate my arrival at the Postal Service — that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic. To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded.

Feel free to drive your full-size family minivan through the loopholes in this statement. For one thing, there’s nothing in there about repairing the damage DeJoy already has done; are the sorting machines that have been removed from USPS facilities around the country going to be returned? Who knows? The indefatigable Ari Berman reports on the electric Twitter machine that 671 sorting machines have been removed already, including 24 in Ohio, nine in Wisconsin, and 11 in Detroit. (Micro-targeting much?) Berman also points out that DeJoy’s statement does not address the directive to leave undelivered mail behind or the move to charge first-class rates for ballots, and that it says nothing about overtime pay for USPS employees working what is anticipated to be a Christmas-level rush at the beginning of November. 

These omissions caught the eye of the House of Representatives, which plans to move ahead on Saturday with a bill meant to confront the damage already done by DeJoy and by the administration* he serves. And, behind it all, is the single most immutable political fact of this era—nothing, absolutely nothing, this administration* says can be taken as the truth.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Collusion? Yes, There Was Plenty of That Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53214"><span class="small">Heather Digby Parton, Salon</span></a>   
Wednesday, 19 August 2020 12:01

Excerpt: "Bipartisan committee finds a massive conspiracy of dunces and dupes. Does anyone really think Trump didn't know?"

Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: Getty)
Russian president Vladimir Putin. (photo: Getty)


Collusion? Yes, There Was Plenty of That

By Heather Digby Parton, Salon

19 August 20


Bipartisan committee finds a massive conspiracy of dunces and dupes. Does anyone really think Trump didn't know?

ince the moment President Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey and admitted to NBC's Lester Holt that it was "because of Russia," he has called the investigations a "hoax" and a "witch hunt." Attorney General Bill Barr declared Trump to be exonerated in all matters related to Russian interference in the 2016 election and the ensuing cover-up, and all Senate Republicans except one voted in his impeachment trial to acquit him of charges that he similarly enlisted the help of the Ukraine government in the 2020 election.

We know Trump abused his power in the Ukraine matter: That is a matter of public record, which he himself released. We also have Robert Mueller's voluminous report, which proved that the Trump campaign welcomed, if not directly conspired with, Russian government interference in the 2016 election and that the president subsequently obstructed the investigation.

All these probes have been attacked by Republicans as unjustified partisan attacks on Trump. However, this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., released the final volume of its investigation and it's impossible to make that charge. The report was signed by all members of the committee. Indeed, this is the only time during Trump's first term that Senate Republicans, aside from Mitt Romney of Utah, have done their duty to protect our democracy.

Essentially, the report shows the Trump campaign was crawling with Russians, many more than is commonly realized, and the evidence strongly indicates that any intelligence or law enforcement officials who didn't look into this bizarre circumstance would have been derelict in their duty.

The Mueller report stated explicitly that as a law enforcement investigation Mueller's team was not concerned with the non-legal concept of "collusion" and were instead bound by the criminal code's definition of "conspiracy," which they were unable to prove, largely due to a lack of cooperation by those involved in the probe. The Senate committee had no such restrictions and did investigate collusion — and found it.

Committee Republicans, led by Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, cherry-picked certain conclusions to deny that, but the details they provided in this 1,000-page report prove them to be either lying or delusional.

The report finds that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was basically acting as a Russian agent. The campaign chairman. This is the man Trump publicly heaped glowing praise upon two years ago, patting him on the back for refusing to cooperate with the special counsel:

The New York Times describes the Manafort-Russia relationship that Trump was so delighted Manafort refused to talk about: 

[T]he report showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied to the Kremlin — including a longstanding associate of the onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Konstantin V. Kilimnik, whom the report identifies as a "Russian intelligence officer."

In 2016, "on numerous occasions," Trump's campaign chairman "sought to secretly share internal Campaign information" with Kilimnik, who the investigation found was very likely tied to the main Russian interference operation centered at the GRU, successor organization to the KGB. There is also information that raises "the possibility of Manafort's potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations," which would be big news if it's true.

The report calls Donald Trump's campaign chairman a "grave counter-intelligence threat." How that doesn't fit everyone's definition of collusion is hard to fathom.

Kilimnik was also found to have "almost certainly helped arrange some of the first public messaging that Ukraine had interfered in the U.S. election" which, coincidentally I'm sure, Trump pushed in his famous phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, an act of betrayal for which he was impeached. Yet somehow, Trump and his henchmen continue to say that the president was absolutely untainted by any of this.

It is also made clear in the report that Trump's top dirty trickster, Roger Stone, directed some of the WikiLeaks dumps and that Trump almost certainly knew about it, according to numerous witnesses. So two people close to Trump, Manafort and Stone, appear to have been intimately involved in the most outrageous of the Russian interference operations, the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the timed leaks of those emails on behalf of Donald Trump. Unless we are to believe that the man who claims to have "aced" a memory test right about the same time forgot that he repeatedly spoke with Stone about the WikiLeaks operations, this means that the president lied to Mueller in his written answers.

Just as Mueller found that the White House obstructed his investigation, the committee found that it obstructed their investigation as well:

As this experience illustrated, White House intervention significantly hampered and prolonged the Committee's investigative effort. Most importantly, some witnesses were directed by the White House not to tum over potentially privileged information...

And a whole lot of people lied. As the Los Angeles Times has reported, the committee made criminal referrals of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince and Sam Clovis to federal prosecutors in 2019, for misleading Congress. There's no word on what might have come of those referrals.

The report looks at the possibility of Kompromat and details some juicy testimony about trips to Moscow, an affair with a beauty queen and evenings at fetish clubs, among other things. They couldn't produce evidence of blackmail but kept it in the report for the purposes of showing that even misinformation could be deployed to gain influence.

The picture that emerges is of a presidential campaign, and an administration, so completely out of its depth that it "presented attractive targets for foreign influence, creating notable counterintelligence vulnerabilities." In other words, Trump and his cronies were willing dupes and the Russian government took full advantage of it. In fact, it still is.

This is not a particularly startling revelation but it does track nicely with another national security story this week, the commentary by former DHS national security official Miles Taylor who wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post headlined "At Homeland Security, I saw firsthand how dangerous Trump is for America." He offers a scathing assessment of the president as an ignorant, reckless, obsessive, self-centered fool who cannot be trusted with a second term.

Taylor says that if Trump wins re-election it will be "shock and awe" and there will be no guardrails left at all.

In case you're wondering what that might mean, just last month Vladimir Putin sneaked in a change to the Russian constitution that allows him to stay in power until 2036. He and Trump have been chatting frequently on the phone of late. We can only guess what they're talking about.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Democrats Seem All Too Willing to Surrender on Health Care Reform Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=55750"><span class="small">David Sirota and Andrew Perez, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 19 August 2020 10:38

Excerpt: "For-profit health companies are launching a new national ad campaign to persuade Democrats to abandon their plans to create a public health insurance plan - something many elected Democrats are very happy to be convinced of."

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden signs required documents for receiving the Democratic nomination for president on August 14, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden signs required documents for receiving the Democratic nomination for president on August 14, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty Images)


Democrats Seem All Too Willing to Surrender on Health Care Reform

By David Sirota and Andrew Perez, Jacobin

19 August 20


For-profit health companies are launching a new national ad campaign to persuade Democrats to abandon their plans to create a public health insurance plan — something many elected Democrats are very happy to be convinced of.

n the eve of a Democratic National Convention taking place as millions lose health care coverage, the health care industry is launching a new ad campaign pressing Democrats to back off from the party’s already compromised health care promises. That pressure seems to be having its intended effect on Capitol Hill, as congressional aides say the party will not push the initiative if Joe Biden wins the presidency. The signs of retreat come as health care industry profits are skyrocketing and the industry’s campaign cash has flooded into Democratic coffers.

The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future (PAHCF) — a front group created by health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital lobbying groups to oppose “Medicare for All” — announced on Friday that it is launching a new national ad campaign to persuade Democrats to abandon their plans to create a public health insurance plan. The group said it will run ads during the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week. PAHCF is led by a former Hillary Clinton aide and run out of the offices of a DC lobbying firm led by former top Democratic congressional aides.

A substantial “public option” plan — which polls show is wildly popular — was the centerpiece of recent policy negotiations between supporters of former vice president Joe Biden and progressive Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who had been pushing for a more expansive Medicare for All program. A draft of the party platform, approved by DNC members late last month, includes a pledge to pass a public option, or a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers.

Within twenty-four hours of the launch of the industry’s new ads, however, anonymous Democratic congressional sources were telling the Hill that Democrats likely won’t bother with the public option fight next year if Biden wins the election. Instead, they said, the party will work to tweak its 2010 health care law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has done little to limit insurance or hospital costs and has failed to ensure universal coverage.

To justify the preemptive retreat, Democratic congressional aides told the newspaper that the party’s moderate crop of 2020 Senate challenger candidates could make it harder to pass a public option. That assertion comes even though every single one of those candidates is currently campaigning in support of a public option, according to a TMI review of campaign statements.

The situation echoes the Democratic promises and subsequent surrender on a public option that marked the debate over health care more than a decade ago — only this time around, the health care crisis is an even more acute emergency. While most developed countries have managed to contain COVID-19, the pandemic is spiraling out of control in the United States, and an estimated 27 million people have lost their employer-based health insurance plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

At the same time, the coronavirus crisis has been a boon for much of the corporate health care industry — particularly for insurance companies and drugmakers, but also for some investor-owned hospital companies. As PAHCF gears up to fight the public option, the interests that the group represents have been generating outsize profits and benefiting from massive federal assistance.

Democrats Promise Big Reforms

The idea of a public option isn’t new — progressives fought unsuccessfully for its inclusion in the ACA, but the Democratic-controlled Senate refused to pass it. Ten years later, the public option has become a middle-ground proposal favored by many moderate Democrats.

One of the more common arguments for supporting a public option over Medicare for All is that it would be easier to pass through Congress than a single-payer program that eliminates the need for private health insurance coverage.

The public option generally polls better than Medicare for All — people like being told they can buy into a plan or choose to keep their existing plan — though public polling has also found strong support for both ideas, especially as Americans grapple with the coronavirus crisis.

Of course, whether you keep your employer-based health insurance plan is less up to you than your boss or the overall state of the economy, as millions of Americans have experienced during a pandemic that’s caused global business shutdowns. Medicare for All would also likely cost the country far less in the long term.

During the 2020 Democratic primary, Biden repeatedly slammed Sanders’s Medicare for All proposal, while offering scant details about what a government health insurance plan would look like in his administration. Last month, the joint policy task force between the Biden and Sanders camps released a detailed framework for a public option plan that would actually represent a significant piece of reform, if enacted.

“The public option will provide at least one plan choice without deductibles, will be administered by the traditional Medicare program, not private companies, and will cover all primary care without any copayments and control costs for other treatments by negotiating prices with doctors and hospitals, just like Medicare does on behalf of older people,” the task force wrote.

The Biden-Sanders task force plan includes some key details about what a public option would look like that weren’t clear during the Democratic primary campaign. Biden’s website never said (and it still doesn’t say) whether his public option plan would have a deductible. It also wasn’t clear who would administer the plan — the task force document says Medicare. Anyone could sign up.

A draft of the DNC platform includes similar language about a public option. It says that Democrats will “make available on the marketplace a public option administered through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) which includes a platinum-level choice, with low fees and no deductibles.” The DNC language would also make the public option available to all Americans, and “will cover all primary care without any co-payments and control costs for other treatments by negotiating prices with doctors and hospitals.”

“A More Modest Package of Fixes”

Despite optimism from progressives about Biden’s health care plan, the negotiations between the Biden and Sanders teams might not ultimately matter.

According to a new report in the Hill, Democratic congressional aides anticipate “the party would start next year with a more modest package of fixes to Obamacare that did not include a public option in an effort to get some early points on the board.”

The story reads like a trial balloon offering prefabricated talking points for the early weeks of a Biden administration when Democrats make huge concessions to industry in exchange for peanuts, while progressives watch in horror.

The Hill further reported: “A Senate Democratic aide . . . noted that if Democrats win back the Senate, it will be through red or purple states, and there will be plenty more moderate members in the caucus.”

Every single Democratic challenger running in a competitive Senate race this cycle has publicly campaigned on a public option — Mark Kelly in Arizona, Sara Gideon in Maine, Jaime Harrison in South Carolina, John Hickenlooper in Colorado, Theresa Greenfield in Iowa, Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Steve Bullock in Montana, Jon Ossoff in Georgia, and Barbara Bollier in Kansas. Even Amy McGrath, the Trump Democrat running in Kentucky, supports a public option.

There are some better potential explanations for why Democrats might give up on the public option already.

For one, Democratic lawmakers have received $86 million from donors in the health care industry since 2019, according to OpenSecrets. That’s an average of $310,000 per politician. The party’s Senate-focused super PAC and an affiliated dark money group have also received large donations from health care interests.

Perhaps the biggest factor at play is that the corporate health care industry can and likely will spend tens of millions of dollars to try to make the public option unpopular and demonize the Democratic Party by extension.

After all, in 2009 and 2010, the health insurance lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) secretly funneled $100 million into the US Chamber of Commerce to finance a marketing and astroturfed campaign against the Affordable Care Act. Democrats ultimately nixed the public option before passing the bill, and they ended up losing control of the House of Representatives in a landslide election anyway.

Thriving Health Care Industry Ready to Pounce

PAHCF — a dark money group led by AHIP and lobbying groups for pharmaceutical companies and hospitals — already spent $4.5 million on slamming Medicare for All in presidential primary states and at least as much to block a state-level public option in Colorado this year.

And that was before COVID, which has been an absolute windfall for much of the corporate health care industry.

Health insurance companies doubled their profits between April and June compared to last year, specifically because Americans are avoiding medical care and putting off surgeries.

The Trump administration has been throwing piles of cash at pharmaceutical and biotech companies — at least $8 billion so far — to produce stockpiles of potential COVID vaccines “before clinical trials have been completed,” according to the New York Times.

Hospitals have been hit hard by the pandemic, as emergency rooms have seen surges of patients with deadly respiratory issues. Doctors and workers have risked their lives to save others, often without adequate protective gear. Hundreds of health care workers have died. Many hospitals are struggling financially because people are avoiding medical care.

Some hospitals are doing better than others. In June, Reuters reported that two major investor-owned hospital chains, HCA Healthcare and Tenet Healthcare, had received billions of dollars in federal loans and grants since the start of the pandemic and “appear to be benefiting disproportionately from the initial government relief as some other hospitals struggle to stay afloat.” HCA and Tenet are both PAHCF members.

On Friday, PAHCF previewed its new advertising campaign against the public option.

One ad warns that “your taxes would pay for a public option.” This should evidently scare people who are already paying expensive monthly premiums to insurance companies that often find ways to avoid paying for their care.

Another ad says the public option could become “the third largest government program” behind Social Security and Medicare.

Echoes of the Public Option Retreat a Decade Ago

If the promises and subsequent retreat seem familiar, that’s because the situation echoes what happened a decade ago.

During the 2008 election, Barack Obama’s platform included a promise to create a public health care option — a promise he later pretended he never made.

Obama and Biden came into office with sky-high approval ratings and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority — a perfect setting for the new Democratic administration to quickly pass a public option. However, soon after being elected, Obama and Biden’s White House began backing away from the public-option pledge — well before the party lost its sixty Senate votes.

“One of the earliest signs that the public option was a negotiable item for the administration came in July 2009, from Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff,” reported Health Affairs. “Emanuel floated the idea of a ‘trigger’ that would enable the public option only if the desired competition and cost control failed to materialize. During the congressional recess in August 2009, at the height of the town hall pushback against health reform, other administration voices began to downplay the importance of the public option.”

By the end of 2009, Senate Democrats dropped their support for a public option in response to opposition from Senator Joe Lieberman. A few months later, as the ACA was being finalized, Democratic senators refused to even use their power to force a recorded public vote on legislation to create a public option.

Fast forward ten years, and some Democratic congressional aides appear to be telegraphing the retreat process again — setting the stage for backing off a public option before the election has even occurred.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 Next > End >>

Page 384 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN