Tuesday, June 9, 2020
To Defeat Coronavirus, We Need to Expand Medicare
Congress must act decisively to guarantee health care to everyone in the country. It should do so on moral grounds, it should do so on public health grounds, and it should do so to help ensure our economy gets back on track and stays back on track.
by
Diane Archer, Wendell Potter
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/06/08/defeat-coronavirus-we-need-expand-medicare
The novel coronavirus pandemic has exposed many failings in our health care system, among them the unreliability and excessive cost of employer-sponsored health insurance. More than 40 million people are newly unemployed as a result of the pandemic. According to economists at University of Massachusetts, PERI, among these newly unemployed, 25.6 million workers and their families—more than 75 million people—are also likely to be uninsured.
To contain the virus and relaunch the economy, everyone needs health care. But without employer-sponsored health insurance and a paycheck, many workers are no longer able to afford the care they need. During a pandemic, that puts all of us in danger.
Congress has already passed more than $2.7 trillion in COVID-19 stimulus funds. But, it has not yet passed legislation that will ensure no one skips or delays care because of the cost. Last month, under the leadership of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the House passed legislation that would cover the cost of COBRA—health insurance that is an extension of employer coverage—for about 52 million people, 17.2 million workers and their families. This does nothing to help workers who lost their jobs but did not have employer coverage. It also does not guarantee that workers who did have employer coverage will get care, since out-of-pocket health care costs for families with employer health insurance average more than $3,000 a year.
Both Senator Sanders’ and Representative Jayapal’s bills would remove financial and bureaucratic obstacles to needed care. In the words of Senator Sanders: "When so many people in this country are struggling economically and terrified at the thought of becoming sick, the federal government has a responsibility to take the burden of health care costs off the backs of the American people.” These bills would also make it far easier to access care, creating an open provider network.Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) have proposed a simple, cost-effective way to guarantee everyone who recently has lost their jobs, including those without employer coverage, health care during this pandemic. The federal government would cover their health care costs through Medicare; it would also cover any out-of-pocket costs that exceed five percent of their income. In effect, these workers and their families would have coverage that’s better than employer coverage
The vast majority of the public supports the Sanders-Jayapal Medicare proposal, according to a Data for Progress poll. Nearly three in four voters (73 percent) favor having the federal government pay for people's out-of-pocket health care costs during the pandemic, including a majority of Republicans (58 percent). In fact, when voters understand the difference between the Medicare proposal and the COBRA proposal, 61 percent favor it versus 14 percent who favor the COBRA bill.
The Medicare proposal enables people to get care from the doctors and hospitals they want to use. People don’t need to worry about whether a doctor is in-network or out. They don’t need their insurer to approve their care before they can get treatment. And, they know they won’t get a surprise medical bill because all their costs are fully covered.
Equally important, the Medicare proposal establishes a strong infrastructure for containing the novel coronavirus. It helps millions of Americans by removing barriers to care, while also creating a federal database for tracking the spread of the virus. The federal government would know where treatment and resources are most needed.
If Congress is concerned about costs, passing the Sanders-Jayapal legislation is a no-brainer. For about $93 billion, the Medicare legislation covers the full cost of three months of care for 76.8 million people. For roughly the same amount, the COBRA legislation covers the full cost of three months of care for only 51.6 million people.
It should go without saying that our health care system is broken and that Congress should guarantee care to everyone in the country. It should do so on moral grounds, it should do so on public health grounds, and it should do so to help ensure our economy gets back on track and stays back on track.
Mr. Sanders’ and Ms. Jayapal’s legislation demonstrates the value of guaranteeing everyone care through improving and expanding Medicare. If Congress passes their legislation, people would not be forced to choose between health care and other basic needs. They would not be up against a corporate health insurance system that profits from denying them care. Losing a job would not mean losing health insurance. And, the nation would be far better prepared to contain the spread of the novel coronavirus or any new virus.
No member of Congress should support the COBRA proposal. It’s a multi-billion dollar gift to corporate insurers, who are profiting from the coronavirus pandemic. And, it’s a slap in the face to their constituents, who won’t be safe so long as they can’t get the care they need.
80 Lawmakers Demand Trump Ditch Any Thought of Resuming 'Dangerously Provocative' Nuclear Tests
"When Americans say that they want and need tests, they weren't talking about the nuclear kind."
by
Andrea Germanos, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/08/80-lawmakers-demand-trump-ditch-any-thought-resuming-dangerously-provocative-nuclear
A group of 80 Democratic federal lawmakers on Monday called on President Donald Trump to drop his reported consideration of atomic bomb nuclear testing, calling it an "awful" and "dangerously provocative" proposal that could give rise to "a new nuclear arms race."
The demand came in a letter to the president—also sent to Pentagon chief Mark Esper and Energy Secretary Dan Broulliette—led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.).
The letter comes after the Washington Post reported last month that the administration had floated in May the idea of a carrying out the first nuclear test explosion since 1992 as a show of force to Moscow and Beijing, with one senior administration official calling the idea "very much an ongoing conversation."
"A return to nuclear testing is not only scientifically and technically unnecessary but also dangerously provocative," wrote the lawmakers. "It would signal to the world that the U.S. no longer has confidence in the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. It would needlessly antagonize important allies, cause other countries to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and prompt adversaries to respond in kind—risking a new nuclear arms race and further undermining the global nonproliferation regime. None of these developments would improve America's national security or strengthen its position in the world."
The possible of the resumption in testing was also the subject of a separate letter sent Monday to Esper and Broulliette from a group of House Democrats.
In that letter, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Wash.) along with Reps. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), and Pete Visclosky (D-IN) express concern that Congress was not informed of the content of the meeting in which the idea was floated. The lawmakers also called it "unfathomable that the administration is considering something so short-sighted and dangerous, and that directly contradicts its own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)."
The letter continues:
The NPR, which this administration often cites as inviolable, makes clear that "the United States will not resume nuclear explosive testing unless necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal." There is no information to suggest nuclear explosive testing is necessary based on these factors. In fact, the entities responsible for the safety and effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent—the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and its nuclear weapons laboratories—have, without fail for 24 years, certified to the President that our nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and reliable without the need for testing.
[...]
As the nation which tested more nuclear devices than every other nation combined, the United States benefits most from a global testing moratorium. For this same reason, ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would substantially enhance our national security. The notion that resuming testing would somehow pressure Russia or China into arms control negotiations is baseless and uninformed. Resuming testing would open the door for widespread global testing, which would only serve to benefit our adversaries and make Americans less safe. The administration should instead focus its efforts on productive arms control negotiations, including extending the New START Treaty, seeking limitations on the introduction of new and unnecessary military capabilities, and continuing to champion the long-standing global moratorium on testing.
The House lawmakers also pointed to the "far-reaching human and environmental impacts" that would accompany the resumed nuclear testing.
"One need look no further than the public health and environmental toll that previous nuclear testing—both by the U.S. and by others—has taken here at home and around the globe," the letter states.
The lawmakers gave a June 22 deadline for the answers to a number of questions including what legal authority Trump would cite to conduct the testing; whether intelligence agencies have analyzed the likely impacts of the testing; and what changed since the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) certified in February that the nation's nuclear stockpile was safe.
The possibility of the resumed nuclear testing had already sparked concern outside of Capitol Hill.
Sara Z. Kutchesfahani wrote Friday at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
A U.S. resumption of nuclear tests would send a bad signal to other countries and prompt them to test and create their own nuclear weapons. Moreover, innocent bystanders could be exposed to the radioactive fallout from a nuclear explosion. Tens of thousands of people have been afflicted by leukemia, thyroid cancer, miscarriages, and severe birth defects as a result of past nuclear testing in the United States alone.
Kutchesfahani also pointed to Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto's dramatic time lapse map of the 2,053 nuclear explosions that took place between 1945 and 1998.
Half of those tests—1,030—were conducted by the U.S., Kutchesfahani wrote, a total "more than the number of tests done by the other seven nuclear testing countries combined."
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation executive director and former Congressman John Tierney (D-Mass.) also recently criticized the administration's proposal, calling it "nothing short of appalling" and "a clear sign of this administration's continued willingness to put Americans at risk," and especially concerning in light of the coronavirus pandemic.
"We are in the midst of the worst public health crisis of our lifetime and this is what the Trump administration is doing with its time?" he said. "When Americans say that they want and need tests, they weren't talking about the nuclear kind."
"Nuclear brinkmanship is not a game; nuclear weapons are not toys; and the Americans who live near or downwind of the Nevada National Security Site are not pawns to be blasted across a radioactive chess board," added Tierney.
The proposal has also drawn rebuke from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN).
"A Trump nuclear test would cross a line no nation thought the U.S. would ever cross again, and is threatening the health and safety of all people," said ICAN executive director Beatrice Fihn.
"Testing poisons environments, food, and lives—Americans are still dying from the original nuclear weapons tests. It would also blow up any chance of avoiding a dangerous new nuclear arms race. It would complete the erosion of the global arms control framework and plunge us back into a new Cold War. Only a multilateral solution can shore up these bilateral treaties Trump is ripping up," said Fihn.
"The TPNW is that solution," she said, referring to the historic 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which would ban the bomb.
The U.S. has not signed that treaty.
"Stay in the Streets. It's Working": Two Weeks Into Racial Justice Protests, New York State Classifies Use of Chokeholds as Felony
"Let's keep pushing, marching, organizing, and winning for our communities."
by
Julia Conley, staff writer
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/08/stay-streets-its-working-two-weeks-racial-justice-protests-new-york-state-classifies
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday urged Americans to stay the course in the massive protests which have been held in cities and towns across the U.S. for the past two weeks, pointing to New York State lawmakers passing long-awaited legislation to classify chokeholds as a felony as evidence the pressure is working.
The Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act passed in the New York State Assembly with a vote of 140-3. The bill now heads to Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is expected to sign it into law.
"Stay in the streets," tweeted Ocasio-Cortez. "It's working."
The bill was passed two weeks into a nationwide uprising over police brutality and racial injustice sparked by the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and countless other black Americans.
The legislation is named after Eric Garner, whose killing in 2014 by former NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo also sparked widespread protests. At Black Lives Matter protests since Garner's killing, many participants have chanted and carried signs reading Garner's last words as he was placed in a chokehold: "I can't breathe." The phrase was also uttered by George Floyd on May 25 when he was killed by Minneapolis police officers, sparking the most recent protests.
The NYPD banned the use of chokeholds in 1993, but there is no law holding police officers accountable for using the maneuver. The Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act will classify its use as a Class C felony, carrying a sentence of up to 15 years in prison.
The city received hundreds of complaints per year about the police chokeholds well after the practice was banned, and judges over the years weakened the definition of the term. Most reports of chokeholds happened in predominantly black New York City neighborhoods.
"We're going to make sure next time this happens in New York State, police officers will be going to jail," said Assembly Member Walter Mosely, who co-sponsored the bill. "They are here to enforce the law, not to be above it."
The New York City Council announced last week that it was also planning to vote on legislation to criminalize the use of chokeholds.
Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat running to represent New York's 16th congressional district, joined Ocasio-Cortez in crediting protests in New York with pressuring lawmakers to pass the legislation.
"Let's keep pushing, marching, organizing, and winning for our communities," Bowman wrote.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)