Food Stamps, Obamacare, The Ukraine

The Ukraine
Russia is wrong to send troops into the Ukraine.  Not anywhere on the scale of US wrong in invading Iraq, for example, but wrong nonetheless.  The Ukraine and Russia share more than 1400 miles of border and you can see how Russia may have concerns about stability on its door step.

(Map is adapted from ESL-in-Canada's website)

The situation in the Ukraine is complex but here's a brief summary.

• The elected president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, was ousted after demonstrations protesting his cancellation of talks on a European Union trade agreement.  Russia had offered $15 billion in aid to keep the Ukraine in their sphere of influence.  Yanukovich's  sympathies and inclinations lie more with Russia than Europe.  
• Yanukovich's assets and those of 17 others were frozen this morning by the EU, alleging embezzlement of government funds.  
• The Crimean Parliament has voted to leave the Ukraine and join Russia with a referendum set for March 16.  Crimea has a large Russian population and was part of the Soviet Union until 1954, when Nikita Khruschev gave it to the Ukraine. 

The turmoil in the Ukraine is being identified as a restart of the Cold War.  This is utter nonsense.  An editorial in The Nation calls for "the international community [to push] for compromise to prevent this fragile and bitterly divided country from breaking apart."  The Nation notes "We are reaping the bitter fruit of a deeply flawed post–Cold War settlement that looks more like Versailles than Bretton Woods, a settlement inflamed by the shortsighted American decision to expand NATO eastward and pursue other policies aimed at isolating Russia and ignoring Russian interests."

Food Stamps
Democratic governors in New York and Connecticut and the Republican governor of Pennsylvania have taken measures to thwart the Congressional cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  As explained at philly.com : "The cuts to SNAP delineated in the federal Farm Bill passed last month were being borne by 15 states that operate the "Heat and Eat" program, which coordinates energy assistance with SNAP...Under the program, some of the families that received as little as $1 in federal heating assistance saw increased SNAP benefits...Last month, Congress changed the rules, stipulating in the Farm Bill that a family would have to have at least $20 in heating assistance before receiving increased SNAP benefits."  And that's exactly what these governors have done.  Kudos and let's get the governors of the rest of the states affected by these cuts (see below) to act in a similar manner.

Comedy Central's Jon Stewart has a hilarious take down of Fox News' whining about food stamp recipients.  You can watch it here.

Obamacare
As the well-funded Republican right continues to pour millions into negative ad's against swing state Democratic Senators supportive of the Affordable Care Act and as the do-nothing House of Representatives vote yet again to defund or subvert the program, "Obamacare" enrollments are quietly growing.  As of February 1, enrollments in the Obamacare market place were nearly 3.3 million.  Also, according to ThinkProgress, in what it calls the woodwork effect,: "A new analysis by Avalere Health finds that the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment season is boosting Medicaid signups even in the states that have refused the health law’s optional Medicaid expansion...All told, between 2.4 million and 3.5 million of the poorest Americans started receiving Medicaid coverage for the first time during the first four months of Obamacare’s enrollment season."  So as of end January, there were an additional 6 million people with health insurance.

ACA proponents are not done yet.  MoveOn.org has mounted a campaign to get non-Medicaid-expansion states to change their decisions.  The advantages to the states seem to be coming more and more clear: "Faced with the prospect of tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, in federal funding, states are racing to find politically palatable ways to expand Medicaid. [Washington Post, March 4].  Even the brilliant op-ed writers for self-proclaimed "capitalist tool" Forbes are changing their tune.  Take a look at these two headlines:
Nov. 11 - "Obamacare Will Be Repealed Well In Advance Of The 2014 Elections"
Feb. 12 - "New Signup Numbers Show Why Obamacare May Be Impossible To Repeal"

But don't expect the right-wing to throw in the towel.  They will continue to spend tens of millions in negative ads even though as Kevin Drum wonders "whether there's a single genuine Obamacare horror story out there, given that virtually every yarn promoted by Republicans or conservatives about people hurt by the Affordable Care Act has deflated like a pricked balloon on the merest examination." [LA Times, Feb 20]


In the final set of rules published Wednesday, the Obama administration will "let people with health insurance plans that don't comply with Affordable Care Act standards keep them through October 2017 if their states allow it."  [CNBC, March 5]

The enrollment deadline - after which an individual without health care insurance may be subject to a fine - is March 31.  If you haven't got insurance yet, here's a link to healthcare.gov to help you get started. The site works.

Other info
"Those “heat and eat” states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin. Some lists compiled by non-profits lists add or subtract a state or two from that lineup." [Washington Post, Feb 5]

Finally, a couple of links from the Daily Kos website:

Minimum wage increase would cut food stamp costs beyond Republican's wildest dreams 
(based on a report by the Center for American Progress)

Obamacare boosting household income and  spending (based on an article that first appeared in the Wall Street Journal)

The cuts to SNAP delineated in the federal Farm Bill passed last month were being borne by 15 states that operate the "Heat and Eat" program, which coordinates energy assistance with SNAP. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are Heat and Eat states.
Under the program, some of the families that received as little as $1 in federal heating assistance saw increased SNAP benefits.
Last month, Congress changed the rules, stipulating in the Farm Bill that a family would have to have at least $20 in heating assistance before receiving increased SNAP benefits.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20140306_In_surprising_move__Corbett_forestalls_deep_cuts_in_food_stamps.html#A2ZZrfpZ6fFPkBkp.99

The cuts to SNAP delineated in the federal Farm Bill passed last month were being borne by 15 states that operate the "Heat and Eat" program, which coordinates energy assistance with SNAP. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are Heat and Eat states.
Under the program, some of the families that received as little as $1 in federal heating assistance saw increased SNAP benefits.
Last month, Congress changed the rules, stipulating in the Farm Bill that a family would have to have at least $20 in heating assistance before receiving increased SNAP benefits.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20140306_In_surprising_move__Corbett_forestalls_deep_cuts_in_food_stamps.html#A2ZZrfpZ6fFPkBkp.99

The cuts to SNAP delineated in the federal Farm Bill passed last month were being borne by 15 states that operate the "Heat and Eat" program, which coordinates energy assistance with SNAP. Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey are Heat and Eat states.
Under the program, some of the families that received as little as $1 in federal heating assistance saw increased SNAP benefits.
Last month, Congress changed the rules, stipulating in the Farm Bill that a family would have to have at least $20 in heating assistance before receiving increased SNAP benefits.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20140306_In_surprising_move__Corbett_forestalls_deep_cuts_in_food_stamps.html#A2ZZrfpZ6fFPkBkp.99

State Of Obamacare

I've been fortunate . I've been covered by health insurance since the day I was born. To me it seems natural and more necessary than almost any other type of insurance. Why anyone would want to deny this to their fellows is beyond my comprehension. Health care is a right, not a privilege. And don't say that we, the richest nation on the planet, can't afford it. With some adjustments to the military budget and the tax laws, we could have universal health care as does every other advanced industrial nation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction. At the time it was signed into law, nearly 50 million Americans were uninsured - many or most because they could not afford it. Single payer or some public-private mix to get truly universal coverage would have clearly been better. But the ACA is perhaps the most we could have hoped for in light of the rabid opposition to the expansion of access to medical insurance.

It's been a hard road so far. Opponents have successfully hampered its implementation (25 Republican-controlled states decided not to expand Medicaid). The startup of the government website was beset with problems. The confusion over health insurance plans that did not meet the new standards was stunning and people were ill informed to deal with the "we're cancelling your insurance" notices sent out by insurance companies.

And it is not going to get any easier. Massive amounts of money are being spent to defeat vulnerable Democrats who supported the ACA in the upcoming 2014 elections. Since September, just one group, the conservative Americans for Prosperity, has spent $20 million on anti-ACA-supporter TV ads. [NY Times, Jan. 15] There are ongoing ad campaigns aimed at convincing younger, healthier Americans not to sign up. Should they be convinced by this onslaught of negativity, premiums will necessarily go up and the rabid opponents of the ACA, who poured millions into these campaigns will say "I told you so."

Here then are some thoughts on the Affordable Care Act at the start of its first fully operational year.

The healthcare.gov rollout was inexcusably botched... The single most important piece of legislation enacted during Obama's first five years relied on a website whose development appears to have been rushed and that lacked adequate pre-startup testing. This one is on Obama and his staff. All IT projects run into problems and, as red state after red state declared their intentions not to set up state health care exchanges, the writing was on the wall. This website would be overwhelmed. Progressives should be angry with Obama for this lack of oversight. The Affordable Care Act is an acid test of the most distinguishing feature between the political philosophies of the two main political parties: Does government have a role in improving the lives of its ordinary citizens? As the title of the History Channel presentation on the NASA space program says "Failure is not an option." The botched rollout was more than what any red blooded Tea Partier or supporter of the corporate oligarchy and the 1% could have hoped for.

...but things are looking up for the healthcare.gov website. After 400 fixes, the downtime was less than 5% by the end of November and it is even better now. "Ping time" (the round-trip delay time for a computer signal) is down to 15- 50 milliseconds. The site can now handle an estimated 800,000 visits per day.

After the fixes, enrollments surged. The LA Times reported on January 13: "More than 2.1 million Americans signed up for health insurance in the last three months of 2013 through new online marketplaces created by President Obama’s health law, as a December surge in enrollment helped the initiative recover from its disastrous launch." Don't forget that one of those last three months was October which saw very few enrollments. So it appears that ACA is enrolling new customers at a rate of about 1 million per month. And there are 3 million more who "have not yet selected a plan but have filled out applications for coverage on the new insurance marketplaces since Oct. 1 and have been deemed eligible for a plan." Finally, in October and November alone approximately 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid.  If one of the prime purposes of expanding health insurance coverage is to cover those who could not afford it, this surely has to count as a success.

Cancellation of existing policies provided another black eye for the rollout... I don't think the Administration had a clue as to the extent that insurance companies would choose to cancel policies that did not meet Affordable Care Act standards. Rather than enact the necessary provisions (e.g., coverage for prescriptions, hospitalizations and emergency room care), many insurers chose to cancel the policies.  What could have been done to prevent this from bollixing up the works at the eleventh hour as people went to a malfunctioning website after being told they would no longer have health insurance after the end of the year? Several things come to mind: grandfather policies from say January 1, 2013; a notification period of no less than 6 months that your policy was being cancelled; a clear explanation by the President as to what "if you are happy with your existing policy" actually meant (policies in effect as of March 2010 were "grandfathered") ; and, of course, a fully functioning website.

 

...but Obamacare success stories are getting some press.

The Daily Beast, Oct.23 - "The Obamacare Success Stories: From a retired business owner in Arkansas to a young freelance filmmaker in Hollywood, Eleanor Clift highlights a few of the people the media has found who are happy to have Obamacare."

The Daily Kos, Nov. 4 -"Obamacare 'rate shock' victim changes her mind, calls the law a 'blessing in disguise'

TPM,Nov.25 - looks at how "Kentucky Uninsured React To SecuringHealth Care Coverage Under Obamacare"

TheDaily Kos, Dec. 10 -"What Republicans don't want: Florida woman cries tears of joyafter getting $3.19 Obamacare policy"

The Hill, Dec. 29 - "Five states with ObamaCare success"

The most obvious, but surely not the last attempt to defund, repeal or sabotage the Affordable Care Act was the phony debt-ceiling crisis manufactured last year by Republicans. The government was shutdown by the extremists who control the Republican Party. Though it failed miserably, people have a short memory and Republicans' approval ratings are increasing. There's a well-funded campaign in the run-up to the 2014 elections aimed at defeating Democratic legislators who supported the ACA.

There are the advertisements urging young people to opt out. A Yahoo News November 11 headline of an article reporting the shenanigans at the University of Miami read "Anti-Obamacare group entices students with models and a boozy party." What's the reasoning here? As the Yahoo post explains "You see, in order for the health care law to function, lots of healthy, young people must sign up for the exchanges to subsidize older, sicker insurance seekers. So conservative groups are spending a lot of money to convince them not to sign up." Now this logic should outrage any fair-minded person. The absence of a healthier cohort in a health insurance plan raises the rates for everyone. Expect an all-out blitz on this front in the coming months.

Legal challenges may cripple the legislation yet.   It's not over yet in the courts as several legal challenges wend their way towards the Supreme Court.  As reported in the LA Times "The new suits take aim at the parts of the law that offer subsidies to those who are above the poverty level but still may struggle to pay for insurance." 

The most threatening of these lawsuits borders on nit-picking insanity - whether insurance obtained on the Federal health care exchange (as opposed to State exchanges) is eligible for subsidies.  Wording issues such as this one would usually be ironed out between the Administration and Congress.  But in today's hyper-partisan environment, no cooperation can be expected. If this law suit succeeds, then no state without its own exchange would be able to participate in the Federal subsidies. There are 36 states without their own exchanges. Such a ruling would effectively dismantle the Affordable Care Act in these states.

Now for the good news. On January 15, a Federal District Court judge ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act.  Reuters reports that the judge "upheld subsidies at the heart of President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, rejecting one of the main legal challenges to the policy by conservatives opposed to an expansion of the federal government. A ruling in favor of a lawsuit brought by individuals and businesses in Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, West Virginia and Virginia would have crippled the implementation of the law by making health insurance unaffordable for many people.  In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington D.C. wrote that Congress clearly intended to make the subsidies available nationwide under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 'There is evidence throughout the statute of Congress's desire to ensure broad access to affordable health coverage,' the judge wrote." 

The respite might be temporary if the plaintiffs take the case to the Supreme Court. But for now, the greatest legal challenge has been overcome.  Stay tuned.  As a great philosopher once said, "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Other Links

Medicaid expansion is going forward in just half of the states.  If every state agreed, more than 20 million Americans could be insured in the next decade.  Here's a link to the Medicaid expansion webpage on the ObamaCare Facts website.  

 

Gun Deaths, the Second Amendment and the NRA

The shooting tragedy at the Nevada middle school this Monday has brought gun violence back to the nation's attention.  A twelve year old, a seventh grader, wounded two students, killed a teacher and then killed himself.  It's not a mass shooting (there have been 16 mass shootings since Newton) so it won't stay in the news cycle for long.  But it's the kind of tragic event that should give us all pause to think what the American attitude towards guns is costing the nation.  Scott Sonner (AP/Huffington Post) reported Tuesday that the student got the gun from his home: "Washoe County School District police said they are still working to determine how the boy obtained the 9mm semi-automatic Ruger handgun used in the Monday morning spree at Sparks Middle School. The boy's parents are cooperating with authorities and could face charges in the case, police said."  The teacher who was killed, 45-year-old math teacher and former Marine Michael Landsberry, was approaching the boy asking him to hand over the gun when he was shot fatally in the chest.  Michael Landsberry's heroic actions allowed students to run to safety and saved lives.  So we have two more deaths that may have been prevented with stricter laws to prevent gun violence.

Slate reports that from an analysis of the "most recent CDC estimates for yearly deaths by guns in the United States, it is likely that as of today, 10/23/2013, roughly 28,177 people have died from guns in the U.S. since the Newtown shootings."  There is so much that can be done to reduce the deaths but it is stymied by the guns lobby, led by its well-funded mouthpiece, the NRA.  They had a recent success in Colorado in the recall of two State legislators involved in the passage of Colorado's tough new gun law.  People can still get wound up by the NRA's fear-mongering.  The NRA and other right-wing funding sparked the voter turnout of gun rights advocates and destroyed any chance that the Colorado legislators would be able to keep their seats. 

The gross misinterpretation of the Second Amendment given by SCOTUS (what part of "well-regulated militia" did they not understand?) is part of the problem.  Maybe that out of date amendment, written at a time when you had to re-powder and reload your musket with each shot, really should be repealed or, at the very least, modified.   Stricter licensing - at least as stringent as we do for driving licenses - may be one way to modify it so that it serves the common good.  The Second Amendment, as currently interpreted is part of the problem but the gun lobby and its deep pockets are the main issues here.

We know the elements of reducing deaths caused by gun violence - better mental health monitoring, universal background checks, strict licensing procedures, strong enforcement of gun laws, prohibition against high capacity weapons and magazines, gun safety education.  But these will never happen as long as the gun lobby's fear-mongering goes on.  Mike Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is making a valiant effort to counteract the right-wing noise but I'm afraid that they are no match for the NRA.  It is always easier to stir up irrational fears and people hear what they want to hear.  Case in point - FOX News gives right-wingers what they want to hear so they tune in to hear the latest right-wing bias.  So, here's a message for the NRA -  shut the f**k up for the foreseeable future.  Stop your fear-mongering, erroneous Second Amendment waving, and blatant lies.  Maybe we can stop the gun madness that's afflicting the nation.

Some Updates on Previous Posts
Voter Suppression -  [Think Progress] The Texas Voter ID law, a common voter suppression law that disproportionately targets students, low-income voters and people of color, went into effect Monday as early voting begins for next month's election.  Because of its requirement that valid ID must include your current name, married women will also be affected if their ID has not been updated.  It's estimated that 2 to 3 percent of voters are disenfranchised by voter suppression laws in the various states.

Medicaid Expansion - The expansion of state Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act is an important part of the program since it extends help to those unable to afford it.  Thanks to the SCOTUS ruling, though, this expansion is voluntary and many Republican-controlled states are not offering this important piece of the social safety net to its residents. Republican Governor John Kasich of Ohio wanted to buck the trend.  He backed the Medicaid expansion and turned to the Ohio Controlling Board for approval after the GOP-controlled state legislature balked on the issue. But, as the Huffington Post and the Columbus Dispatch reported, "A group of [six] Republican lawmakers has filed a lawsuit over the Ohio Controlling Board's decision to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act."  This lawsuit is being filed in spite of the $400 million the state would save as a result of the expansion because of Federal assistance.  The savings were to be used as a four percent state income tax cut. 

A Good Day

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act, specifically the individual mandate upon which the program rests, by a vote of 5 to 4. They issued their decision this morning.  As summarized by Mike Sachs at the Huffington Post: "The controlling opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power."  Roberts' vote totally surprised me...my money had been on an overturn of the individual mandate and potential gutting of the law.  (At least I called Justice Kennedy's vote correctly in the last post; he voted with the right-wing justices.)

As the President said in his comments today: this is a victory "for people all over this country".  An overturn of this crucial legislation would have been devastating.  We would not have a reasonable chance at extending medical coverage for Americans for another generation.  In her remarks after the ruling, Nancy Pelosi paid tribute to Ted Kennedy who worked tirelessly during his life to bring universal health care to this country - promoting the concept of health care as a right, not a privilege.  Although she didn't mention herself, the smiling former Speaker Pelosi had been instrumental in holding Democrats together and getting the legislation through the House in 2010.

By a 7-2 vote, the Court struck down the provision of the Health Care Reform Act that would have kicked states out of the Medicaid program if they did not subscribe to the extension of Medicaid provided by the law.  States stand to gain enormously from the legislation - the Federal government provides at least 90% of the funding for Medicaid and significant net savings accrue to the states since they will no longer have to cover medical expenses for the currently uninsured.  In fact, the only reason for states to deny the extended Medicaid coverage to the people of their state is simple mean-spirited ideology.  Unlikely and unreasonable as it seems, some states may opt out.  The legislators in these states will be supported by people who really don't understand the economics or the benefits, by miscellaneous business groups who prefer not to spend on health care, by people who would protect tax breaks for the rich at the expense of services for the less well off and, let's face it, by those bigots who don't want a black President to appear powerful and those who still believe in the racist stereotypes of welfare recipients. 

The post-ruling sour grapes and promises to repeal health care reform from Republicans made them seem as ridiculous on health care as they've been on privatization of Social Security and ending Medicare as we know it.  Of course, this Supreme Court decision may be for nought if the Republicans take control of the White House and Senate in the November elections.  In spite of today's good news, the race between Romney and Obama remains tight.  Every vote will count this November.  With Romney pledging to repeal health care reform, you have some idea of what's at stake.

So what made Chief Justice Roberts side with the four moderate and liberal justices on the court?   David Cole's post in The Nation may have gotten it right: "In part, the outcome reflects the fact that the truly radical position in this dispute was that of the challengers. Even very conservative lower court judges...had concluded that the law was valid ....But in addition, I cannot but think that at the back of Roberts’s mind was the Court’s institutional standing. Had the law been struck down on 'party lines,' the Court’s reputation would be seriously undermined....Today’s result, which upholds the actions of the democratically elected branches on a major piece of social welfare legislation that affects us all against a challenge that was always a real long shot, driven more by politics than legal principle, may help repair the Court’s tarnished image."

So that was this morning.  This afternoon, I enjoyed watching Italy defeat Germany in a Eurocup 2012 semi-final.  They move on to the finals which will be played Sunday.  Yes, it was a very good day.