RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
The End of Asylum - for Now Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54716"><span class="small">Philip G. Schrag, The Hill</span></a>   
Wednesday, 17 June 2020 08:19

Schrag writes: "On June 15, the Trump administration proposed new federal regulations that would, as a practical matter, end asylum in the United States for victims of persecution in other countries."

Migrant families. (photo: Getty Images)
Migrant families. (photo: Getty Images)


The End of Asylum - for Now

By Philip G. Schrag, The Hill

17 June 20

 

n June 15, the Trump administration proposed new federal regulations that would, as a practical matter, end asylum in the United States for victims of persecution in other countries. Human rights groups will protest during the 30-day comment period required by law, but there is no doubt that the administration will put the new regulations into effect.

In 1980, Congress recalled the shameful period before World War II when the United States turned away Jews and others desperately seeking protection in America. It passed the sweeping Refugee Act, authorizing asylum for anyone in the United States or at its borders who could show a well-founded fear of persecution in their own country on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. 

During the last 40 years, successive administrations then built a robust structure through which asylum officers and immigration judges adjudicated applications for asylum, granting about a third of them and allowing tens of thousands of people to enjoy safety in the United States. Many of the successful applicants were victims of prolonged imprisonment, beatings or torture, who had dared to oppose oppressive regimes. Some of the others were gay men and women who faced imprisonment or even death because of their sexual orientation; women threatened with genital cutting because of tribal customs; Christian ministers tortured because they proselytized; and women threatened with death by Central American gang members unless they agreed to become sex slaves for the gang.

Since 2018, the Trump administration has been chipping away at asylum through new regulations and decisions of Attorneys General Jeff Sessions, Matthew Whittaker and Bill Barr. Sessions’ A-B- decision, for example, made it exceedingly difficult for victims of domestic violence to win asylum. In 2019, a regulation under Barr’s oversight bars asylum for anyone who crosses the southern border without having sought asylum in Mexico, which has a barely-functioning asylum adjudication system. Most recently, the administration has been expelling all migrants at its southern border without any adjudication at all, ignoring the requirements of the Refugee Act. Many of the administration’s new restrictions, including the bar on those arriving via Mexico without having sought asylum there, were enjoined by federal courts, but the administration became increasingly emboldened as those injunctions were stayed by 5-4 decisions of the Supreme Court.

The pending regulation, obviously an attempt to make it difficult for a potential Democratic administration to reverse anti-asylum policies next year, is a belt-and-suspenders attack on every aspect of the plan that Congress enacted. Among other things, it provides that death threats from a regime’s officials should no longer be considered to be persecution, that women can’t win asylum even if persecution of them is ubiquitous and that former gang members who face death for having left the gang cannot qualify as members of a “social group.” 

It allows officials to dismiss asylum applications, without a hearing, if the written application form doesn’t show on its face that the claim is legally meritorious — even though many applicants fill out the form without legal assistance and can’t know exactly what kinds of claims the law allows. It codifies Sessions’ ban on asylum based on domestic violence. It makes evidence of societal factors, such as the prevalence of a culture of machismo that experts believe is the underlying cause of violence against girls and women, inadmissible in immigration court. Also, it strongly encourages officers to use “discretion” to deny asylum to applicants who transited through two other countries en route to the U.S. or who spent more than 14 days in one of them. It even provides that torture isn’t torture when committed by a “rogue” official — an ultimate irony in the month that the police officer who killed George Floyd was charged with murder for acts that violated Minneapolis’s policies for police conduct.

The new regulation is a slap in the face of the 1980 Congress, but it could be swept away by Congress in 2021. The obvious champion for its demise is Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who for years has pressed for his Refugee Protection Act. Leahy’s bill, which has also been introduced in the House by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), repeals some restrictions in the law that are relatively minor compared with what Trump has done, such as the bar on asylum for those who, because of ignorance of the law, waited more than a year after entering the United States to apply for it.

The 2021 version should systematically reverse all of the Trump administration’s impediments to asylum and restore the system that Congress provided, intending that the United States would never again be complicit in the overseas murders of people who have sought safety in America.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Decline of Democracy in Hungary Is a Troubling Vision of the Future Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54714"><span class="small">Imre Szijarto, Jacobin</span></a>   
Wednesday, 17 June 2020 08:19

Excerpt: "Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán has used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to silence his critics, even as he endorses street mobilizations by the organized far right. But these aren't just the pathologies of a country with weak democratic traditions - they're an extreme version of a reactionary turn happening across the West."

Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban attends his Fidesz party campaign closing rally on April 6, 2018. (photo: Laszlo Balogh/Getty Images)
Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban attends his Fidesz party campaign closing rally on April 6, 2018. (photo: Laszlo Balogh/Getty Images)


The Decline of Democracy in Hungary Is a Troubling Vision of the Future

By Imre Szijarto, Jacobin

17 June 20


Hungarian premier Viktor Orbán has used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to silence his critics, even as he endorses street mobilizations by the organized far right. But these aren’t just the pathologies of a country with weak democratic traditions — they’re an extreme version of a reactionary turn happening across the West.

hen Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán used the COVID-19 pandemic to grant himself virtually unchecked power to rule by decree, watchdogs and commentators rang the alarm bells. Others suggested that this is more likely to be a vile yet clever public relations trick — a move to allow Orbán to present opposition objections as if they were obstructing efforts to fight the pandemic itself.

Yet developments since the bill’s passage suggest that pessimism about Hungary’s future was largely justified. There is clear evidence suggesting that something dark and dangerous is brewing. The European establishment — including the center-right European People’s Party, of which Viktor Orbán’s party is still a member — has, nonetheless, chosen to look the other way.

When Orbán came to power ten years ago and began dismantling democratic institutions, this peripheral European country looked like an idiosyncratic case, with little if any global significance. Yet today, from Modi’s India to Trump’s America, the world we live in is a very different place. Looking at the current heating up of racial and ethnic tensions and the intensifying repression all around the globe, we might ask if Hungary isn’t such a deviant case — and if it instead points the way to a terrifying new normality.

State-Sanctioned Bullying

The restrictions on civil liberties were allegedly justified in the name of stopping the spread of the virus. Yet since the passing of the controversial emergency law, Hungary’s government has introduced a series of further regressive changes — making clear that alarmist voices about the bill were anything but unfounded.

Typical of the reactionary measures pushed through under the banner of the “corona bill” was the attack on trans people. They were stripped of their right to get their gender identity officially recognized; from now on, only the gender that was assigned to them at birth can be displayed in official documents. This means outing trans people not only to employers and landlords but even to receptionists and cashiers, whenever they use a credit card.

The government is well-aware what effect this will have. Since Hungarian society at large is anything but trans accepting, this move is not only an attack on trans people’s right to their “identities” in an abstract sense. It is likely to turn regular interactions with society into recurring rituals of humiliation. According to discussions on social media, some are contemplating emigration or even suicide.

As a desperate response, a group of trans activists decided to publicly burn their birth certificates. For Ádám Csikós, a trans activist and organizer of Budapest Pride, “We can only live safe lives if the name and gender which we identify with are the ones written in our official documents.”

Permanent Emergency 

For its part, the government suggests that the controversial “state of emergency” won’t last forever — on May 26, Deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semlyén submitted a bill to parliament that is supposed to bring it to an end. Such a measure is designed to reassure domestic and international observers who ask if Orbán plans to rule by decree indefinitely.

Yet all is not as it seems. Indeed, according to a first analysis published by civil-liberties groups like the Helsinki Committee, Amnesty International, and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, this new legislation does the exact opposite. It entrenches some of the most worrying aspects of the original bill by permanently weakening the constitutional oversight of executive power.

The way the bill was introduced also appears to expose the true modus operandi of the Orbán regime — demonstrating that in Hungary, it is not the parliament that chooses a government (as it is normally the case in parliamentary democracies) but the opposite. In Budapest, it is the government that has a parliament to do its bidding.

This is especially worrying when we consider the wider attacks on democratic rights. One of the most controversial aspects of the emergency law was that it introduced an up to five-year prison sentence for “spreading falsehoods.” The opposition immediately expressed its concerns that this measure would be used to silence dissenting voices. As it turned out, this is exactly what happened.

In at least two cases, police showed up at homes of dissenters at dawn to arrest them for nothing more than criticizing the government’s response to the pandemic. “At fault:” two Facebook posts that did not contain any false information, only the authors’ opinions. While both were released without charge, the humiliation and exposure that comes with arrest are more than enough to install fear — especially in the rural communities where both incidents took place.

After his release, one of the two men, János Csóka-Sz?cs, was denied any assistance in his journey home, despite the fact that he is disabled. With his phone confiscated and lacking any money, he was forced to make the journey home on foot.

This was not the first time the police had clamped down on him expressing dissenting views. He told Partizán, a left-wing online broadcaster, that the same happened to him back in 1987 when the Soviet-backed Kádár regime was still in power. As he recalled, “I was making jokes at home about the possibility that the world in which the police may come for you [for speaking up] will sooner or later return, but we did not take this possibility seriously.”

Suspending Civil Liberties (Except for the Far Right)

Orbán also used the pandemic to curb civil liberties in a way that went way beyond anything to do with containing the virus. Opposition MPs organized a series of demonstrations against Orbán’s unchecked power but in order to keep participants and the general public safe, they asked people to show up in their cars and honk.

While this type of protest carries almost no risk of infection, demonstrators were handed heavy fines of up to 750,000 forints (around $2,400) each. This staggering amount is several times the average worker’s monthly income, and more than enough to cause serious difficulties even for relatively well-off households.

Paradoxically, it’s likely that the police actually increased the risk of infection by forcing protesters to interact with them. The practice of handing out astronomical fines to protesters in cars carried on even after the lockdown had ended and bars and restaurants were allowed to reopen. It seems that in Orbán’s Hungary the freedom to consume is prioritized over civil liberties.

Not every demonstration, however, is stopped by the police. While pro-democracy activists in cars are harassed and fined, neo-Nazis, it seems, are allowed to take to the streets in their thousands without any social distancing whatsoever.

On the first weekend after the easing of social distancing measures, the news of a fatal double stabbing in downtown Budapest shocked the Hungarian public. The incident was newsworthy since Hungary like most EU countries has strict gun control regulations and relatively high public safety — making such outbursts of lethal violence rare.

The victims were football fans and it seems that at least one of them had far-right sympathies. On pictures of him in the media that appeared in the media, he was wearing a celtic cross — in many countries worn by neo-Nazis as a legal alternative to the banned swastika.

Certainly, fascists claimed the victims as their own. Soon after news broke, the far-right party “Mi Hazánk Mozgalom” or “Our Homeland Movement” called on its supporters to gather at HQ of  National Roma Self-Government for a rally against “gypsy crime” (as it later turned out, the attackers were most likely white). Groups of football hooligans, the so-called “ultras,” also mobilized.

While Mi Hazánk cynically disguised their rally as a “press conference” the ultras called for a vigil to circumvent the ban on protests. While the police banned the events and initially took some signs away from participants, in the end, they let the rally take place.

The two groups merged and chanted racist slogans such as “Yes, there is gypsy crime” and some even threw Hitler salutes as the police stood by and did nothing despite the ban. The rally was followed by violent hate crimes against Roma people throughout the evening.

While anti-fascist organizing has strengthened in recent months, activists did not mobilize, citing public health concerns. The unevidenced claim that the killers were “gypsies” spread across racist corners of the Internet like wildfire. The far-right’s ability to seize the momentum was characteristic of a new style of politics that completely disregards any pretense of truth; as Timothy Snyder notes, if this first appeared in the former USSR it is now increasingly common in “mature” western democracies such as the US and the UK.

The far-right Mi Hazánk movement behind the rally was established by former members of Jobbik, alienated by this latter party’s move to the center. (Jobbik has even elected a leader with some Jewish roots despite being outspoken anti-semites in the past.) While other opposition parties are completely excluded from both public media outlets and private ones under government control, this odd formation is given a surprising amount of free airtime. This despite it never having surpassed 4 percent of the vote in any election.

One does not need to wear a tinfoil-hat to have doubts about this party’s independence. The practice of using proxy opposition parties to simulate pluralism is well known from Russia as well as other post-Soviet states. Political scientist and Ukraine expert Andrew Wilson labelled this phenomenon “virtual politics.”

Indeed, scapegoating the Roma community in Hungary is not limited to the political fringes. Orbán himself seems to be increasingly interested in turning public opinion against the socially and economically marginalized Roma. As the public seems to get bored of other scapegoats such as George Soros (whose name is invoked as a euphemism for “Jewish finance”), migrants, and NGOs, Orbán’s propaganda network must shift its discourse and find new enemies — this time it seems, the Roma.

In some recent statements, Orbán’s outriders have openly defended racially segregated education. His government has attempted to stop the court-mandated payment of compensation to elementary school pupils taught in segregated classes in the village of Gyöngyöspata.

Despite Orbán’s efforts, such blatant discrimination is still illegal according to both Hungarian and EU law. Yet the climate is worsening. Mi Hazánk’s original purpose was likely to help the disintegration of Jobbik in favor of far-right forces more loyal to Orbán. Today, its use is to test the public’s appetite for the next state-sponsored hate campaign.

Some Good News… And a Grim Future

While the outlook for Hungary’s future is bleak, there is some good news as well. The European Court of Justice ruled on May 13 that Hungary’s practice of locking up refugees for extended periods is illegal. Perhaps surprisingly, the government complied — and inmates, including children who never saw anything beyond the camp’s razor-wire fence, were set free. This also ends the inhumane starvation tactics routinely used in these camps.

It is hard not to see parallels between these developments in Hungary and recent events elsewhere. In the US, authorities allowed far-right militias to demonstrate with assault rifles but reacted with extreme violence to the explosion of justified anger that followed the murder of George Floyd. Just as Orbán refused to condemn the racist thugs of Mi Hazánk, Trump called for the use of lethal force to repress the uprising, in a series of tweets marked by racist dog whistles.

After the 2008 recession, the rise of ethno-nationalist forces in many countries served elite interests by deterring public attention from the real cause of misery: capitalism’s tendency towards periodically recurring crises, with devastating human consequences. Since the current crisis is likely to be worse than the previous one, early evidence of racist mobilization by powerful actors such as Trump and Orbán are truly worrying.

There are specific historical and cultural reasons for the emergence of the Orbán regime. Yet liberal attempts to explain the decline of Hungary’s democracy in terms of the country’s traumatized past, the fragility of post-communist democratic institutions, or even the “Hungarian character,” are all missing the point. The structural factors (explaining Orbán’s rise have nothing to do with particular national or East European characteristics and everything to do with the dynamics of global capitalism.

While it is true that the transition from communism devastated former industrial towns, which created resentment against democracy and paved the way for authoritarianism, this transition was no more than a fast and radical local manifestation of the worldwide shift from Fordism to post-Fordism.

The shift in Eastern Europe was more rapid and painful. But what destroyed Hungarian industrial hubs is the same process that devastated northern England and the American “Rust Belt,” making them ideal targets for demagogues. Orbán was doubtless helped by his “Socialist” predecessor’s embrace of neoliberalism; many inhabitants of former left-wing strongholds, now facing economic deprivation, turned to Fidesz and Jobbik. This, again, is just a particularly painful manifestation of a global phenomenon, echoing the circumstances that empowered similar political forces elsewhere.

In this light, it becomes clear that the country’s present situation is not some aberration that can be explained in terms of Hungarians’ lack of moral decency. On the contrary, what is happening under Orbán can easily become the future of any country where the structural reasons for the rise of racism and fascism are not dealt with sufficiently. Max Horkheimer said in 1939, “If you don’t want to talk about capitalism then you had better keep quiet about fascism.” And, as Slavoj Žižek paraphrased this line, “those who do not wish to speak critically about global capitalism should also stay silent about Hungary.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why 'Gone With the Wind' Needs a Warning Label, Not a Ban Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38164"><span class="small">Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Hollywood Reporter</span></a>   
Tuesday, 16 June 2020 13:35

Abdul-Jabbar writes: "I have mixed feelings on John Ridley's well-reasoned Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article asking HBO Max to temporarily remove Gone With the Wind, which the service then did on Jun 9. On one hand, Ridley is 100 percent correct."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Getty Images)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. (photo: Getty Images)


Why 'Gone With the Wind' Needs a Warning Label, Not a Ban

By Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Hollywood Reporter

16 June 20


The Hollywood Reporter's columnist says that though such racist content is damaging, "we need a way to present art within its historical context so the works can still be available and appreciated for their achievements but not admired for their cultural failings."

have mixed feelings on John Ridley’s well-reasoned Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article asking HBO Max to temporarily remove Gone With the Wind, which the service then did on Jun 9. On one hand, Ridley is 100 percent correct. The film glorifies the Confederacy as if they were a bunch of highly principled martyrs hunkered down in holy glory instead of an entitled mob of human-trafficking murderers, rapists and traitors trying to destroy the United States. The film also romanticizes slavery as if it was nothing more than a workplace sitcom in which all the slaves were happy baristas at the plantation’s Starbucks. On the other hand, very few movies or TV shows from the past could withstand today’s rightfully rigorous standards. Almost every one of them that pees on the stick of political correctness will come up positive for insensitivity— or worse.

The question is whether or not works of art should be censored, regardless of how offensive they are. Americans are especially sensitive to this issue because we know that the quickest way to undermine democracy is by silencing a free press, which we’ve seen the Trump Administration make their main priority, from demonizing reporters at rallies, to spreading false rumors about a journalist being a murderer, to demanding CNN retract and apologize for a poll showing Trump vastly trailing Biden. Once we start silencing voices, the only voice left will be the one echoing those in power.

However, Ridley did not call for banning Gone With the Wind. It’s clear that those who are so vigorously raging against his article haven’t actually read the whole thing. Offering an opinion on something you only skimmed or heard about is just another form of censorship because now you’re poisoning the well for others. Here’s what he actually wrote:

"Let me be real clear: I don’t believe in censorship. I don’t think Gone With the Wind should be relegated to a vault in Burbank. I would just ask, after a respectful amount of time has passed, that the film be re-introduced to the HBO Max platform along with other films that give a more broad-based and complete picture of what slavery and the Confederacy truly were. Or, perhaps it could be paired with conversations about narratives and why it’s important to have many voices sharing stories from different perspectives rather than merely those reinforcing the views of the prevailing culture."

So, what he’s asking is that, given the current public heated climate of widespread protests over police brutality and systemic racism, maybe let’s hold off shoving the joys of slavery and heroes of racism in our faces. 

Which brings up the crucial question of where do we draw the line. Whoopi Goldberg responded to the editorial by stating on The View that she was against pulling the film: "If you start pulling every film, you're going to have to pull ... a very long list of films." Her solution was to have a frank conversation with her children about how filmmakers in the past “weren’t as enlightened as we are now.” Meghan McCain responded by saying she would explain to her child that "this is a fantastical, completely fictionalized version of the South during this time that was wrecked with slavery.” These may be a fantastical, completely fictionalized versions of the influence of parents in a world where kids watch movies spontaneously on their phones with no one around. What about the parents who say nothing to their children, or worse, praise the film’s portrayals of history? 

Most adults have been brought up on an unhealthy diet of movies and TV shows that were proudly racist, misogynistic, homophobic and xenophobic. Women were addled-headed sex objects that were especially cute when they tried to act equal to men. Gays were predators or objects of ridicule. The portrayal of Blacks was generally as subservient, drug-addicted, or perhaps worse, non-existent. (Did you know that 25 percent of cowboys were Black? Not if you watched Western movies or TV shows.) It’s disturbing to me that many of the films and TV shows I loved as a child make me wince with embarrassment at their bold cruelty and callous dismissiveness. John Wayne in two different films spanking grown women to show them their place. The Beatles song, "Run for Your Life," with the lyrics: "Catch you with another man/That’s the end of little girl." Never mind the fact that he’s creepily referring to her as "little girl," more to the point he’s threatening to kill her if she dates someone else.

Should we ban John Wayne and the Beatles? No, and no one is calling for a ban. 

What we need is a way to present art within its historical context so the works can still be available and appreciated for their achievements but not admired for their cultural failings. The easiest way would be to include an introductory explanation—filmed or written—that explains that the work contains harmful racial or gender stereotypes that were acceptable at the time but which we now know are harmful. Links to further discussions and information also could be provided. That is the bare basics of what we should do to emphasize that these portrayals are no longer acceptable. To do nothing is a tacit endorsement of their destructive messages. And, like vaping, prolonged exposure causes damage to our children. We put a warning label on one, why not the other.

Art can either inform us of past follies or it can perpetuate them. Movies and TV shows that display the subjugation, humiliation, or marginalization of anyone are like the Confederate monuments: they have a place in history as both manifestations of and warnings against our ignorance. In contemporary life, they are weighty anchors pulling us down to the bottom while the rest of the world swims freely toward the future. 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why Our Union Is Asking the AFL-CIO to Get Rid of Police Unions Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=37487"><span class="small">In These Times</span></a>   
Tuesday, 16 June 2020 13:35

Excerpt: "The entire bargaining unit of the In These Times union is calling on the Washington-Baltimore News Guild to urge the News Guild, as well as the CWA, to pass a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to disaffiliate from the International Union of Police Associations and other police unions."

A demonstrator holds her hands up while she kneels in front of the Police at the Anaheim City Hall on June 1, 2020, in Anaheim, California, during a protest over the police killing of George Floyd. (photo: APU GOMES/AFP/Getty Images)
A demonstrator holds her hands up while she kneels in front of the Police at the Anaheim City Hall on June 1, 2020, in Anaheim, California, during a protest over the police killing of George Floyd. (photo: APU GOMES/AFP/Getty Images)


Why Our Union Is Asking the AFL-CIO to Get Rid of Police Unions

By In These Times

16 June 20

 

he entire bargaining unit of the In These Times union is calling on the Washington-Baltimore News Guild to urge the News Guild, as well as the CWA, to pass a resolution calling on the AFL-CIO to disaffiliate from the International Union of Police Associations and other police unions. We believe that the mission of the AFL-CIO is to build a strong labor movement that fights for justice and equality for all working people. It is not possible to carry out that mission while also representing the interests of police, who oppress, beat, and imprison working people, particularly Black people. It is time for the AFL-CIO to recognize that it cannot fight for both sides in America's battle for justice.

Over the past few weeks, journalists have been systematically targeted by police while covering protests. Journalists have been attacked with tear gas, pepper spray and “less lethal” ammunition. One photojournalist was blinded in her left eye after being shot by police with a rubber bullet. The Freedom of the Press Foundation and the Committee to Protect Journalists are currently investigating over 380 press freedom violations cataloged since May 26, including more than 56 arrests and 50 physical attacks by police.

As an organic upswell of people exercise their First Amendment right to hold officers who use unjustified lethal force against civilians accountable, the police union has routinely come out to support officers who face even minimal consequences for their actions. To continue our affiliation with the IUPA would go directly against the AFL-CIO’s stated goal of achieving a “better life for working people” by protecting one of the greatest threats to Black workers in this country. Additionally, it would undermine our best interests as media workers who are at the forefront of defending free speech.

We want to ensure our union is on the right side of history. Please consider this our endorsement of a formal statement asking our labor coalition to separate itself from police unions.

In Solidarity, 

The In These Times Union

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A $1.1 Million Hospital Bill After Surviving the Coronavirus? That's America for You Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=54706"><span class="small">Ross Barkan, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Tuesday, 16 June 2020 13:35

Barkan writes: "After he nearly died from Covid-19, Michael Flor probably thought he couldn't be shocked by much else. He had survived a battle with a deadly virus that had killed more than 100,000 people across America."

'Every person in pain deserves the dignity of life without medical bills.' (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
'Every person in pain deserves the dignity of life without medical bills.' (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


ALSO SEE: Mike Pence Encouraged Governors to Downplay New Community Spread of Coronavirus

A $1.1 Million Hospital Bill After Surviving the Coronavirus? That's America for You

By Ross Barkan, Guardian UK

16 June 20


It shouldn’t take a once-in-a-century pandemic to make policymakers understand the tragic absurdity of healthcare in the United States of America

fter he nearly died from Covid-19, Michael Flor probably thought he couldn’t be shocked by much else. He had survived a battle with a deadly virus that had killed more than 100,000 people across America.

But Flor, a 70-year-old from Seattle, was hit with an incomprehensible hospital bill for his stay: $1.1m, the Seattle Times reported.

The bill included $9,736 per day for the intensive care room, nearly $409,000 for its transformation into a sterile room for 42 days, $82,000 for the use of a ventilator for 29 days, and nearly $100,000 for two days when he appeared to be on his deathbed.

Luckily for Flor, Medicare will pick up the bill. For other Americans, medical debt could follow them for the rest of their lives.

When Janet Mendez, a 33-year-old New Yorker, also nearly died from Covid-19, she learned that surviving a deadly virus wasn’t going to be her only life-altering challenge. Soon after she left the hospital and returned to her mother’s home, her medicals bills started to pile up.

First, a bill for $31,165, the New York Times reported. Then an invoice for an absurd $401,885.57, though the hospital, Mount Sinai Morningside, said it would reduce the bill by $326,851.63 as a “financial assistance benefit”. That still left a tab of more than $75,000.

Mendez was unable to walk, let alone find work. She told the New York Times she was optimistic that her insurance company would cover a large part of the costs, though she had already been on the receiving end of harassing phone calls from the hospital.

She was yet another victim of America’s immoral and Kafkaesque healthcare system.

Federal funding is supposed to cover the vast majority of medical bills Americans incur from Covid-19, which has killed more than 100,000 nationwide and almost 30,000 in New York. It was a rare gesture toward socialism for a nation that has mostly known predatory capitalism when it comes to the business of staying alive; private, for-profit healthcare amounts to an American religion.

In New York City, hospitals received more than $3bn in federal funds last month from an early round of bailout payments. The money is supposed to compensate hospitals and healthcare providers for the expense of treating coronavirus patients and make up for the revenue hospitals lost from canceling elective procedures.

Though the federal money comes with some conditions that are intended to protect patients from medical debt, loopholes remain. Doctors who treat patients can send their own bills to patient directly. The doctors who treated Mendez individually charged between $300 and $1,800 for each day, according to the New York Times.

And depending on their insurance plan, patients may still be stuck with paying co-payments, deductibles and a percentage of the bill. This can still amount to many thousands of dollars. For those without insurance entirely, still possible even in a world with the Affordable Care Act, the consequences are even more dire.

Coronavirus, momentarily, turned even the most jaded conservatives into socialists, as a broad consensus emerged that the federal government needed to spend trillions of dollars to save people’s lives. Tea Party Republicans called for coronavirus testing to be free. Josh Hawley, a Republican senator who hopes to be an heir to Donald Trump, has argued that the federal government should subsidize businesses to keep workers on their payrolls, mirroring the kind of programs carried out in nations like Germany, where the social safety net is far more robust.

In no civil or sane society should anyone experience what Mendez had to endure: astronomical medical bills and threatening, harassing calls from a hospital that is supposed to only care about sustaining life. But that is what happens when the profit motive is so directly tied to healthcare. Instead of a single-payer system that covers everyone and eliminates medical debt, we are left with a patchwork of private insurance companies that price gouge the sick and vulnerable.

The fallout from coronavirus, even in a world with a vaccine, promises to be more painful for Americans than Europeans who have health plans subsidized by their national governments. For Americans with shoddy health insurance or no insurance at all, the hospital bills may be staggering. No serious economic recovery is possible if thousands of people are choosing between paying a healthcare bill or buying groceries.

More importantly, it shouldn’t take a once-in-a-century pandemic to make policymakers understand the tragic absurdity of healthcare in the United States of America. Every day, people encounter medical crises that alter the trajectories of their lives. If it’s not coronavirus, it’s cancer or diabetes or a broken bone. Every person in pain deserves the dignity of life without medical bills.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 Next > End >>

Page 451 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