And Now, A Political Interlude

Today my local paper featured this story on the front page.



Analysis: 380,000 Arizonans May Lose Medicaid

Some highlights:

The analysis by the state’s Medicaid plan obtained by The Associated Press Friday shows keeping most of those people insured would cost the state nearly $500 million a year by 2023.

In a Republican-led state where tax increases are nearly impossible to enact, that’s extremely unlikely.

The report looks at the patients who gained coverage under a Medicaid expansion pushed through in 2013 by former Gov. Jan Brewer over opposition from many in her own party. It now covers about 400,000 Arizonans out of the 1.9 million covered by Medicaid in the state.

Of those 400,000, about 316,000 are childless adults who earn less than the federal poverty limit, and 81,000 earn between 100 percent and 138 percent of the limit.

The analysis released Friday by Arizona’s Medicaid plan looks at several scenarios, none of them pretty for the poor Arizonans currently on Medicaid.

Freezing the current enrollment for the two populations covered by expansion is one option. Another is to only freeze those in the plan who earn above the poverty level.

But the current GOP plan would cut matching funds to states, increasing costs.

Since we have a Republican governor springing from the mold of Kansas' Sam Brownback (i.e., cut taxes every year, no matter what that does to the state coffers, or how public education, to name just one example, suffers as a result), he would never support raising taxes to cover the shortfall, nor would the majority Republican Legislature pass any such thing. So all these people would be shit out of luck. And since, as the story notes, most of these people earn less than the federal poverty level, good luck on them being able to buy insurance on their own.

To put it bluntly, that is obscene.

What do you expect these people to do when they get sick? They're just going to clog the emergency rooms like they did before, and hospitals will lose money from their uncompensated care (which just means you and I, the everyday taxpayer, will pick up the slack). Or, y'know, they'll do what the Republicans seem to want them to do, which is die and get out of the way.

People will die. Make no mistake about it, people will die.

And in the meantime, this asshole Paul Ryan will chortle over finally getting to reduce an "entitlement."

I've said for some time that the driving theme of the Republican party is a simple five words: "I've got mine; fuck you." They don't believe in civilization, other than as a form of feudalism for the 0.01%. They certainly don't believe in the words of Jesus, with his famous refrain: "As you did it to the least of these my brothers, you did it to me."

And now they've voted a narcissistic, tinyhanded monster into the highest office in the land, who will push this clusterfuck that will kill people (hey, remember the retired coal miners, many of whom are afflicted with black lung disease? Say bye-bye to your health care too! And all you malingering old farts who live alone and can't work or drive and get a free Meal on Wheel every day? Screw you, suckers!!) on the country.

But Her Emails.

"Poverty is the worst form of violence"

“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." ~Confucius 

Rand Paul continues with his sadistic libertarian streak. Of course, we know he will; he can't help himself. (Or rather, he could, if he'd look at the facts, take a step back, and ask himself one simple question: "What would Jesus cut?")

I think, though, that he's reached a new low, going after elderly people who don't have enough money to feed themselves.

From The Notion: 

Rand Paul To America's Hungry Seniors: Let Them Eat Private Charity

Sen. Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.”  Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.

Jeez Louise, what a twit. When the "nobility of private charity" can't cover all the people who need help, that's what the government is for, you clown. That's also why this little program called Social Security was created in the first place--to reduce the poverty of elderly people. 

I dunno, maybe Rand thinks he's never going to get old. 

Al Franken did have the last word, however. 

Nevertheless, Paul—who’s home state of Kentucky is ranked 20th in the nation in senior citizen food insecurity, with over 5 percent of seniors there facing hunger—pressed on. Addressing Greenlee, he asked: “If we are saving money with the two billion we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? How much money should we give you in order to save money? If we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity.”

Sen. Al Franken turned on his microphone and offered a quick reply: “I think you just did.” 

For the win!

Take the New Pledge for Austerity!

I saw this is one of Paul Krugman's comments today (and I can't find the post now; Krugman generates intelligent discourse like Andrew Breitbart spouts inanities--too many to keep up) .

The New Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance,
To the logo,
Of the United Corporations of America,
And to the greed,
For which it stands,
One nation,
Under Mammon,
So divisible,
With usury and debt for all.

"Poorhouses" would also fit in the last line, and scan a little better, I think.

(Incidentally, if you look up the history of English poorhouses, it's a scary thing. See here and here. What's most frightening is that I can see this country heading down that road, if Republicans get their way.)

Rare Birds

Finally, someone writes a letter to the editor that makes sense.

(If you've been following Arizona politics lately, you know people who make sense in this state are vanishingly rare birds.)

This person is named Susan Lanning, and I felt like cheering when I read her comments.

"The budget is coming up for a vote in Congress now, and the GOP is saying they want to save money so they don't burden our children and grandchildren with the national debt. They also say they refuse to raise taxes, even though we're paying the lowest taxes since Eisenhower.


Now, if people are really serious about not wanting to burden their offspring, then they would pay taxes through the nose to get rid of the debt. They would pay enough to have decent schools and health care for their kids. But they won't do this. Instead, they're willing to let education, healthcare and the modernization of our country crumble.


Seems to me they're talking out of both sides of their mouths. Tell me again how important the children are?"
 
Let's see, what can I add to this? Not much. Except maybe that if you care about your children, you sure as hell don't go around busting teachers' unions.

Also, if you claim to have been elected to create jobs, you don't propose a budget that will axe between  700 and 800,000 jobs, and then say "So be it."

It's an interesting point though, and one I haven't heard before--if you really care about the debt and the deficit, you should be wanting to pay more taxes, not less. If taxes were raised back to where they were in the 50's, both those suckers could be gone in one generation. Certainly the Republicans won't touch this idea with a ten-foot pole--and when it falls to billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates to make this very basic point, you know the Republicans are empirically, provably wrong on this issue.

(Although I do wish Buffett, Gates and George Soros would spend some of their billions on one thing--buying Fox News and shutting that mofo down. I would end my self-imposed boycott of the Fake Noise channel for one night and gleefully watch Bill O'Reilly's, Sean Hannity's, and Glenn Beck's final hours. I might even shed some crocodile tears.)

As the title to Susan's letter said, "Legislators need to think of the future." Unfortunately, the Repooks are only thinking of the future of people like the Koch brothers, not us peons. As a  reincarnated Marie Antoinette might say, "Let them eat austerity."

Here's a larger version of this graph, found at the New York Times. You'll probably have to go there to see it fully.



The subtitle to the graph is "How the International Monetary Fund's "Advanced economy" countries compare on various measures."

America is at the bottom of the list. Six of nine rankings are "worst" or "worst of the worst." The categories include: income inequality, unemployment rate, food insecurity, life expectancy at birth, prison population and student performance (math).

Obviously, some of this has resulted from the recession. But a lot of it can be seen as a direct result of Republican policies, starting with Saint Ronnie.

You get what you pay for, after all. Or don't, in this case. It should be clear (but isn't, thanks to Fake Noise) that elections have consequences, and the Reptiles/Teatwits who are doing their best to run this country into the ground won't be satisfied until we're a Third World, polluted, poverty-stricken nation.

Except for the rich, of course.

Update: SB 1405

Committee Takes SB 1405 Off the Table

Yes. This monstrosity needs to be stomped into the ground and buried forever.

The piece made a point I hadn't thought of.

Doctors envisioned scenarios in which immigrants with contagious diseases such as tuberculosis would stay home from the clinic or hospital and put themselves and the public at a grave health risk.

Well, duh. Let's put an entire population at risk just to satisfy Russell Pearce and his rabid teatwit ideas. Not to mention the possibility of people dying because they're afraid to get health care.

Once again, Arizona supposedly hates federal mandates but sure doesn't balk at imposing mandates of their own.

By the way, don't read the comments to this article. They're vile.

Arizona--Accessory Before the Fact

Proof positive of what happens when the inmates run the asylum.

This is a small blurb on the front of the Valley & State section of the Arizona Republic this morning.

Hearing set on bill requiring hospitals to check patients' immigration status

[snip]

Senate Bill 1405 would require hospitals to confirm an individual is a legal resident before admitting him or her for non-emergency care. The hospital would have to notify federal immigration officers if the individual was not in the country legally. The bill would allow hospitals to provide emergency care to illegal immigrants, but it would require them to report the individuals once the care was completed.

You know, for a state that is constantly bitching about unfunded federal mandates, they're not shy about burdening state employees with an unfunded (and unethical and immoral, as far as I'm concerned) mandate of their own. Hospitals will have to hire and/or train people to investigate immigration status, which they should not be involved with. Can you imagine an emergency-room doctor telling his sick or dying patients that once he's finished treating them, he's going to report them to the Feds?

That's assuming the sick or dying patients are even there in the first place, which is the real rub--and I assume, the ultimate goal of this inhumane legislation. After all, if undocumented immigrants know they're going to be reported if they go to the emergency room, they just won't go. Which means, for all practical purposes, that they will die, since the emergency room is often their only source of health care.

(And please, don't hand me the ridiculous canard about "what part of illegal don't you understand?" Even if you believe that, I assume--although it's probably not wise to do that nowadays, especially in this state--you just want undocumented people to leave. You don't want to kill them.)

(Notice the phrasing I used there? Unlike the Arizona legislature, Governor Jan Brewer, and most Republicans in general, I believe undocumented people are still people, with basic human rights. This includes the right not to die in the street.)

It also occurs to me that this is an attempted end run around the federal law EMTALA, which mandates emergency-room care for all. One can only imagine Russell Pearce and co-horts rubbing their hands together and cackling as they contemplate all the money they'll be saving by not having to treat those pesky brown people.

"Hey, Governor Brewer! Here's a few million dollars we didn't spend to save Hispanic lives, that you can use to finance more corporate tax cuts!"

The hearing on this bill is at 2 PM today in Senate Hearing Room 1, 1700 W. Washington St, Phoenix, Arizona. Please, somebody, show up and protest this monstrosity.

Hypocrisy for Dummies

I saw this letter in the Arizona Republic today and couldn't help but reply to it. I don't expect the paper to publish my reply, so I decided to post it here.

The letter:

I would like to say "Bravo" to Gov. Jan Brewer for telling New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to keep his nose out of Arizona's business regarding gun sales. I am proud that Arizona has lawmakers who do what is right and not what might be politically correct.  


For all the folks wanting taxpayers to pay for their transplants, I don't recall the Constitution requiring taxpayers to pay for everyone's health care. I know the liberals will say that is cruel. But I fought for this country for people to be free, not for free stuff. - Doyle Carmody,Mesa

One could take this apart sentence by sentence, starting with the idiocy of approving of demonstrably illegal activity regarding gun sales, and the "political correctness" of trying to gut the Constitution. I concentrated on the last paragraph. Here's what I said.

Re: "Free country, yes; free stuff, no"


Shorter Doyle Carmody: "I've got mine, so screw you."


If he is indeed a veteran, as implied in his letter ("I fought for this country for people to be free") then he is a monumental hypocrite. He is given low-cost or free health care, courtesy of the taxpayers via the Veterans Administration, yet he would deny such life-saving care to others.


He seems to forget that among the things he fought for is the obligation of a civilized society to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.


There's a word for that, my friends. Selfishness.

This is, of course, in reference to my state's cutting off Medicaid coverage for transplants, and possibly condemning 96 people to death.

Mr. Carmody doesn't say he's a conservative, although it's strongly implied. Regardless, this is how conservatives run. As I've stated before, their philosophy is morally bankrupt.

Bye Bye, America

Roger Ebert tweeted:

GOP against middle class, poor, unemployed, Hispanics, blacks, gays, and the uninsured. Who's left?

RICH WHITE GUYS, of course.

Forget about "descending" into a plutocracy. We're already in one.

Well, How About That

This is good news. Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to set up and run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, bypassing the fractious, divided kiddie playground of the Senate.

This means she can get to work protecting people like you and me from the rapacious pirates of the financial sector--and it's also a bit of a nose-thumbing directed to Mitch McConnell and his endless confirmation delays.

If we had to wait for her to be officially confirmed, everyone in America--not just one in seven, or 14 percent--will be in the poorhouse.

Poor, Poor Babies

Top Earners Lose Cost of BMW If Bush Tax Cuts Expire

Oh gee, a whole BMW.

Out of more money made in one year than I will make in my entire life.

What a freaking hardship.

It's the (Oh-Dear-Dog) Christian Thing To Do!!

For those who would like to do something to help out a fellow human being, read this, and think about how incredibly lucky you are.

Then spare a little bit of your wealth. I did.