In an appearance on conservative radio Thursday, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner pointed to props and costumed-protesters at his office as examples of rhetoric that should be toned down in the wake of  Wednesday’s shooting near Washington DC.

In an apparent reference to die-ins and other demonstrations staged in front of Gardner’s office to illustrate the point that GOP Obamacare replacement would actually result in deaths of people who lose health insurance, Gardner linked Alexandria shooting to “people showing up with coffins in offices around the country” and “people showing up dressed as the Grim Reaper with ― you know, in my office.”

Gardner’s office did not return a call seeking comment.

Since Trump’s victory in November, activist groups have staged die-ins in front of Gardner’s office. One May 9 “die in,”  organized by Protect Our Care Colorado, Denver OFA, and Front Range MoveOn, was promoted on Facebook this way:

“Bring your signs and noisemakers and wear slings, back braces, and other visual reminders that Trumpcare will seriously injure our country’s health care system! Feel free to dress in black and bring posters written like gravestones that list the reason you died: (i.e., RIP: Lack of Maternity Care, RIP: Coverage Denied, RIP: High Premiums, RIP: Cancer, Denied Coverage).”

Other Denver-based activist groups, including Indivisible Denver, have staged die-ins and funerals at the State Capitol to oppose the repeal of Obamacare and other Trump initiatives.

Indivisible Denver leader Eric Shumake responded to my colleague Madeleine Schmidt with the following comment:

Indivisible Denver condemns any act of violence in the strongest possible terms. Our activity is 100% peaceful. Gardner’s claims to the contrary are the same divisive tactic he attempted in falsely claiming there are paid protesters. There are no paid protesters and there are no violent members of Indivisible Denver. Senator Gardner, however, continues to support a President who has openly called for public violence many times on record. Gardner would do well to look in the mirror and feel some degree of shame, but we suspect he will not.It’s a fact that, along with the loss of health insurance resulting from the repeal of Obamacare, would come deaths. Experts differ on the scope and the trade-offs involved, but it’s objectively a legitimate point being made protesters with props and costumes, which are clearly aimed at grabbing attention. And for good reason, activists say.

On the radio, Gardner didn’t address deaths that would be caused by the potential Obamacare repeal.

“You’ve got people in coffins showing up to the offices,” Gardner told KCOL’s morning host Jimmy Lakey Thursday. “It’s almost as if they’ve allowed politics to become some sort of religion, and anyone who disagrees with them is a challenge to their faith. That is not a good situation for the discourse of this country.”

Asked by KNUS 710-AM’s Krista Kafer whether the “nasty political rhetoric the cause of this type of violence,” Gardner said, “We’ve got more to learn.” He went on to say,

You know, The Hill is reporting that FBI officials told The Hill that the shooting appeared to have been planned and, on the surface, appeared politically motivated. And you know, that the rhetoric, the discourse, is elevated to a point where, you know, left, right—you know, both sides have to stop this rhetoric. I mean, when you have people showing up dressed as the Grim Reaper with ― you know, in my office, ― when we have people showing up with coffins in offices around the country, when you have people holding up the head of the president ― decapitated head of the president, when you ― you know, when you have people who are, you know, accusing other people of killing people.

In 2009, Tea Party activists dressed as the Grim Reaper to denounce Obamacare and the liberal agenda.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 7 hours ago.

Senate Republicans are hurling themselves toward passing an incredibly unpopular set of health care reforms that even they don’t understand, haven’t seen and likely won’t see until just before it hits the floor.

This rightly has raised the hackles not only of Senate Democrats and the media, but anyone who values transparency in government or is anxious about about the consequences of reordering the American health care system and taking away health coverage from millions of people. 

But as important as the legislation’s details will turn out out to be, there’s a simple, fundamental, incontrovertible fact about whatever the Senate health care reform bill winds up looking like: The purpose of this bill is to dramatically scale back the safety net so wealthy people and health care companies can get a massive tax cut.

It’s the biggest open secret about the secret Senate health care bill.

That’s true of the House-passed version of the American Health Care Act, which the Congressional Budget Office projects would lead to 23 million fewer people being uninsured over the next decade, severely weaken protections for people with pre-existing conditions and put health coverage out of reach for older, sicker and poorer people who won’t be able to afford insurance or, in some cases, to even access it at any price. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his handpicked cohort of backroom negotiators are advancing a measure that will look pretty much like the House legislation and do pretty much the same thing. McConnell wants a vote before July 4, and he’ll probably get it if something doesn’t alter the trajectory.

There’s been a lot of talk about the Senate “moderates” balking at the most regressive parts of the House bill and halfheartedly complaining about McConnell’s opaque process as though they’re powerless to influence it. But if the past behavior of so-called moderates can inform predictions about what they’ll do this time, the smart money’s on them giving in when push comes to shove.  

Yes, the details are important, especially to anyone anxious about how this bill would affect their lives. But it’s not as though the Senate is proposing to increase assistance for people who don’t have the money to buy health insurance, or to provide targeted help for those whose premiums have risen beyond their means under the Affordable Care Act.

There’s no way McConnell unveils a bill that fixes what’s wrong with the health care system, a scenario that might prompt Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to join him in a duet of “I Got You Babe” on the Senate floor. There’s no way this ends with a new law that ensures people have access to decent, affordable health insurance and a safety net to catch them during hard times.

Whatever else the bill might be, it’s still an effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act because Republicans don’t believe rich people and corporations should have to pay so that poor, middle-income or sick people can go to the doctor.

The Affordable Care Act is an assertion of the opposite, that society has a collective responsibility for, and derives a mutual benefit from, promoting access to health care and providing the mechanism and the money to do so. The law hasn’t done everything it set out to do, and didn’t even attempt to achieve truly universal health care, but it still extended health coverage to about 20 million previously uninsured people and drove down to a historic low the share of the population without health coverage. 

Whenever senators finish their secret dealmaking and the public has a bill to review ― if not stop it before Congress and President Donald Trump rush to make it law and have another party in the Rose Garden ― there’s not going to be much difference from the unloved House-passed bill no one seems to like. That includes Trump, who reportedly told senators he believes it to be “mean.”

The question isn’t whether GOP senators choose to preserve gains in coverage, but just how much of it they’re willing to take away.

We aren’t be talking about senators from states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act fighting to save it, but about how many years they want to wait before the Medicaid expansion disappears.

The senators aren’t going to retain the guarantee of coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, because they’ll relax other insurance regulations in a way making that moot. A promise that insurers have to offer coverage to, for example, a cancer patient is worthless if the insurance doesn’t have to cover cancer treatments or if there are annual and lifetime limits to an insurance policy’s benefits.

There may be Republican senators who aren’t ready to commit in public to supporting the health care bill, citing the opacity of McConnell’s process. But the rest of us already have enough information to make up our minds about it.
Politics hurt too much? Sign up for HuffPost Hill, a humorous evening roundup featuring scoops
from HuffPost’s reporting team and juicy miscellanea from around the web.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

CHICAGO (AP) — A new study finds only 1 in 4 teens and young adults with opioid addiction receive recommended treatment medication despite having good health insurance. Study author Dr. Scott Hadland says doctors need to become more comfortable treating addiction with medications that are recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Reported by SeattlePI.com 9 hours ago.

Health-insurance rates in Washington’s individual market would increase an average of 22 percent based on filings under review by state officials. Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler blamed part of the increase on uncertainty about Obamacare’s future. Reported by Seattle Times 8 hours ago.

As of July 2017, Aeroflow Breastpumps will be the exclusive provider of breast pumps for Molina members.

Asheville, NC (PRWEB) June 19, 2017

Aeroflow Breastpumps announced their partnership with Molina Healthcare of South Carolina, a health care company that offers health insurance plans to families and individuals who qualify for government-sponsored programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Aeroflow Breastpumps will be the sole provider of breast pumps for Molina members effective July 2017.

“We are delighted to partner with Molina Healthcare of South Carolina to provide new mothers with breast pumps,” said Amanda Baethke, Strategic Partnerships Manager at Aeroflow. “Our passion lies in supporting growing families during their breastfeeding journey and we are overjoyed at the prospect of helping Molina support healthy babies and mothers.”

To further assist breastfeeding mothers, Molina offers car seats to ensure the baby’s safety when discharged from the hospital. The plan also provides resources and education to help mothers utilize all the benefits covered by their insurance. Molina Healthcare of South Carolina’s Pregnancy Rewards program identifies pregnant women to encourage them to complete important preventive exams and screenings to achieve improved health outcomes for both the mothers and their new babies.

“Molina is excited for the opportunity to partner with Aeroflow Breastpumps and further serve local parents in our community,” said Thomas Lindquist, President of Molina Healthcare of South Carolina. “Aeroflow shares our mission of providing quality care to those in need and improving the overall wellbeing of our members and their children.”

Aeroflow Breastpumps will provide nursing mothers with a Tomy Quiet Expressions or Motif breast pump, which can be ordered by phone or online through the Aeroflow Breastpumps website. The breast pump will be delivered to Molina members at no charge. The Aeroflow Breastpumps team will also attend local baby showers and maternity related events hosted by Molina to answer questions and network with new moms to support them throughout their breastfeeding journey.

About Aeroflow Breastpumps
Aeroflow Breastpumps, a subsidiary of Aeroflow Healthcare, is a Durable Medical Equipment (DME) provider specializing in helping pregnant and nursing women qualify for their breast pump through their insurance and the Affordable Care Act. To learn more about Aeroflow Breastpumps and getting a breast pump through insurance, visit https://aeroflowbreastpumps.com.

About Molina Healthcare of South Carolina
Since 2013, Molina Healthcare of South Carolina has been providing government-funded care for low-income individuals. From the beginning and through today, their mission has been to bring high-quality and cost-effective health care to kids, adults, seniors, families and people with disabilities. As of March 2017, the company serves approximately 111,000 members through Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid (Dual) health programs across South Carolina. Molina’s state Provider Network includes 2,695 primary care physicians, 8,425 specialist physicians and 97 hospitals. Visit molinahealthcare.com to learn more. Reported by PRWeb 2 hours ago.

John Thune is the most handsome man in the U.S. Senate. Square jawed, gleaming smile, cowboy tan, the 6’4” South Dakota Republican’s rugged good looks are antipodal to the mien of majority leader Mitch McConnell, whom Jon Stewart has definitively established is Yertle the Turtle’s doppelgänger. If the human brain’s positive bias toward attractive people didn’t cue me to infer that Thune is a great guy, a real straight shooter, I’d be as outraged by the assault on Americans’ health that Thune and his co-conspirators are currently waging, and by the subversion of American democracy they’re using to ram it through, as I am when its public face is McConnell’s.

Thune is a member of the all-white, all-male “gang of 13” staunchly conservative Republicans whom McConnell tasked two months ago with secretly writing a new GOP health bill in the Senate.

Because a parliamentary tactic will embed this Affordable Care Act (ACA) repeal — and alleged replacement — into a budget reconciliation bill, it’s exempt from being filibustered by Democrats. That means the bill will need only 50 of the 52 Republican senators, along with Vice President Mike Pence’s tie-breaking vote, in order to pass, instead of the 60 votes it takes to shut down a filibuster, which would require at least eight Democrats to defect.

Because the House also must pass the bill with only Republican votes, it needs to be mean enough to win over the House’s far right Freedom Caucus, “mean” being President Donald Trump’s new description of the formerly “beautiful” House health bill he fêted in the Rose Garden in May. That’s why the American Health Care Act (AHCA) that McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan want Trump’s signature on before July 4 likely will deprive 23 million Americans of health insurance; end Obamacare’s minimum benefits, like mental health services and maternity care; deny coverage for pre-existing conditions; permit lifetime benefit caps; cut $800 billion from Medicare and turn it into block grants to states, effectively killing the program — oh, and give the top 0.1 percent of households an average tax cut of nearly $200,000.

I say “likely,” since the actual content of the bill has been shrouded in secrecy. Because a majority of Americans oppose those changes to a law that a majority of Americans support, McConnell knows that his only chance to pass it before the public catches on and rises up is a total blackout of information as they write the bill, which is what’s happening now, and once they reveal it, a blitzkrieg without committee hearings or time for town halls, hurtling toward a final vote within a matter of hours.

This is not normal. It’s not how a bill affecting one-fifth of our economy is supposed to be considered. McConnell’s plan is to make it seem normal, which is why they’re deploying the credibility of John Thune’s chiseled cheekbones: to sell a coup d’état as if it were a Schoolhouse Rock! civics lesson.

The day after a gunman opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice, prompting calls to for a return to civil discourse in our politics, Thune was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe saying we all must do our part to achieve the unity that this moment requires. Speaking of unity, journalist Mike Barnicle piped up, what about the health care bill being written in secret? “Nobody knows what’s in this bill,” Barnicle said. As a starter, he asked, in the spirit of reaching across the aisle, of bipartisanship and openness, “How about … telling us what’s in this bill?”

Thune’s answer made me marvel that a man with such good hair could deceive so baldly.

There’s really no bill to share, he said. What’s going on now is just discussions, just policy options. It will be openly shared when it’s reduced to legislative language, he said, as though that’s just how the lawmaking process works.

It’s not. Drafts of bills are routinely made public long before legislative language is locked in. They’re distributed as outlines, memos, letters, emails, talking points, PowerPoints, lists, charts, conference calls, cut-and-pastes, works in progress, principles, summaries, overviews, abstracts. They’re the basis for innumerable meetings with constituents, stakeholders, interest groups, media, members of both parties, think tanks, analysts and experts. That’s American democracy in action. What’s happening now is not.

Besides, Thune added, there’s been so much discussion of health care over the past decade, “it’s like any of us are unfamiliar with what the issues are.” We’ve already discussed them.

The ACA was the subject of hundreds of committee hearings and markups, hundreds of hours of congressional debate, hundreds of town halls and public forums and two years of news coverage. But that discussion was about expanding Medicare, not eliminating it; about increasing benefits, not cutting them; about providing health insurance to millions, not giving tax cuts to millionaires. If the media were to give the AHCA’s issues the kind of scrutiny and airtime it gave Obamacare, Republicans would now be running from it like a dumpster fire.

To be sure, John Thune would make one handsome fireman. But I doubt even he could convince his colleagues in Congress to bunk in a burning building.

[This is a crosspost of my column in the Jewish Journal, where you can reach me if you’d like at martyk@jewishjournal.com]

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

As Democrats continue their efforts to 'Resist 45,' which apparently includes throwing their unwavering support behind Obamacare, we get yet another sign of just how broken the healthcare exchanges around the country are.  According to the Associated Press, *New Mexico Health Connections will seek an 80% increase in premiums for the 2018 plan year:*



All four health insurance providers on New Mexico's state-run exchange have submitted rate proposals for the coming year, despite uncertainty about key federal subsidies.

 

*New Mexico Health Connections CEO Martin Hickey said Thursday his cooperative is proposing a nearly 80 percent premium increase for individuals.* The proposal may be lowered in July.

 

Health Widler of the Office of the Superintendent of Insurance says detailed descriptions of proposed rate increases will be made public later this month.



Of course, as we pointed out last month (see "Two Simple Charts Explain The Devastating Consequences Of Obamacare"), New Mexico's Obamacare premiums had already increased nearly 100% between 2013 and 2017.  Therefore, *adding an incremental 80% to the 2017 rates would imply an over 250% increase in just 5 years.*

 

That said, as The Hill notes this morning, Republicans still face an uphill battle in their repeal efforts with only a narrow 2-person majority in the Senate and certain lawmakers, like Rand Paul, unlikely to support any proposal put forward.



*Senators only have two weeks left in the work period before the Fourth of July recess,* which leaders have eyed as a target for holding a vote on a bill. But there are still significant policy hurdles that remain.

 

*GOP leaders insist the divide between moderate Republicans and conservatives is surmountable.* They've been talking about repealing ObamaCare for seven years, and publicly say they can see the finish line.

 

There will be more meetings in the coming week, but the discussions have been behind closed doors so far, leading to grumbling from Democrats, as well as some Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and outside groups about transparency.

 

Some senators say time is not on their side as they try to win votes, and they believe Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could simply decide it's time to move and force a vote.

 

*But the disagreements aren't minor. Senators are still debating how quickly to phase out federal funds for Medicaid expansion and how deeply to cut the program, and lawmakers say they have still not seen legislative text of a bill.*



All of which means that even if you don't like your Obamacare, you just might have to keep it. Reported by Zero Hedge 6 hours ago.

Has he really been that bad for LGBTQ people? Let's retrace our steps.

Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Colorado in 2016. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

Last summer, Donald Trump promised "to protect our LGBTQ citizens."

The assurance — seemingly the first time LGBTQ rights were acknowledged by a nominee at a Republican National Convention — came as a sigh of relief to some LGBTQ people and allies hoping for continued progress on queer rights, even in the event that Trump would win the election: Could lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans finally have a Republican ally in the White House?

*To find out if Trump's promise held up, let's recap the first five months of his presidency as it pertains to LGBTQ rights:*

*1. Trump rescinded federal bathroom protections for transgender students.*

Photo by Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images.

With Trump's approval, the Justice and Education Departments rejected guidelines suggested under President Barack Obama that allowed trans students across the country to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender.

The reversal gives state and local officials more sway in forcing kids to use the bathroom that aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth — a move that puts them even more at risk of violence.

*2. Trump stopped data collection on LGBTQ seniors, making it difficult to know if and how certain programs affect them.*

Photo by Isaac Lawrence/AFP/Getty Images.

The Trump administration pulled questions relating to sexual orientation and gender identity from an annual survey given to seniors by the Department of Health and Human Services.

The data collection is crucial in pinpointing where and how federal dollars should be spent on programs benefiting older Americans, NBC News reported, and could negatively affect services like transportation, caregiver support, and home-delivery meals for LGBTQ seniors.

*3. Trump has surrounded himself with blatantly homophobic and transphobic officials with huge influence over policy.*

Trump with Mike Pence. Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images.

Bringing years of abhorrent views on LGBTQ people and their rights to Washington, Trump's cabinet truly does showcase a remarkable collection of bigotry, Michelangelo Signorile reported in The Boston Globe.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos' family foundation has donated millions of dollars toward groups solely focused on slashing LGBTQ rights. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price called Obama's transgender-inclusive policies "absurd." Attorney General Jeff Sessions has an "alarming record on LGBTQ equality," according to the Human Rights Campaign, and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson once compared sex between people of the same gender to bestiality and pedophilia.

While he was governor of Indiana, Vice President Mike Pence signed a bill into law allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ patrons based on religious beliefs and supported conversion therapy — a form of child abuse — for LGBTQ children.

Unsurprisingly, none of these people have showed signs of changing their beliefs on LGBTQ rights since taking office.

*4. Trump's messaging and America-first fiscal priorities are emboldening anti-LGBTQ movements around the world.*

Photo by Kirll Kudrjavtsev/AFP/Getty Images.

The "Trump Effect," as The Daily Beast coined it, is empowering hate groups worldwide — not only in regions like the Caribbean and Latin America, but in even the most LGBTQ-friendly countries, like the Netherlands and the U.K., according to OutRight International.

What's more, whatever budget passes through a GOP House and is signed by the president will likely slash tens of millions of dollars in funding for programs that prevent HIV transmission and protect LGBTQ people from persecution overseas.

*5. Trump has done nothing to stop — or even condemn — the mass arrests and murders of gay, bisexual, and transgender men in Chechnya. *

Photo by John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images.

Since April, at least 100 LGBTQ men have been arrested, tortured, and even killed by law enforcement — all while the Chechen government refuses to acknowledge LGBTQ people even exist there.

Many world leaders have spoken out against the atrocities. Not Trump.

*6. Trump signed an executive order allowing for more leniency in letting churches get political.*

Trump visits a Las Vegas church in October 2016. Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

In early May, Trump signed an executive order that eased guidelines prohibiting churches from being politically active, Reuters reported. With the move, pastors and religious figures can more freely endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status — a move that could result in more anti-LGBTQ political rhetoric being spewed from the pulpit.

And the order doesn't stop there.

*7. Trump has allowed certain religious organizations to discriminate when it comes to health care provisions for LGBTQ employees.*

Photo by Thomas Samson/AFP/Getty Images.

Under the same executive order, religious groups can now more easily deny health insurance to employees when the care conflicts with their beliefs. A Christian charity group, for example, could legally refuse to cover certain drugs related to HIV prevention or the costs associated with gender confirmation surgery for a trans person.

That is, Rabbi Denise L. Eger wrote for NewNextNow, "private health decisions between an individual and their medical team will be affected by the religious views of their employer."

*8. Trump is fighting for health care reform that would force thousands of HIV-positive people off their care.*

Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

LGBTQ Americans (particularly gay and bisexual men of color and trans women) have been disproportionately affected by the AIDS epidemic, which is why moves by the GOP to overhaul the Affordable Care Act is setting off alarm bells for advocates everywhere.

Behind closed doors, Republicans are drafting a health care bill that will likely reverse the bulk of key Obamacare provisions. Earlier legislative efforts suggest the bill, if passed, could decimate our progress on defeating HIV/AIDS by dismantling the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion and making certain HIV drugs inaccessible to those who need them most.

Trump's complete disregard for prioritizing a national strategy on the issue is one big reason why a number of experts just resigned from the White House's HIV/AIDS advisory panel.

"As advocates for people living with HIV, we have dedicated our lives to combating this disease and no longer feel we can do so effectively within the confines of an advisory body to a president who simply does not care," the experts penned for Newsweek on June 16.

*9. Trump's education department is scaling back civil rights investigations, hurting kids who are transgender in the process.*

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Photo by Manel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

The Washington Post reported on June 17 that the Department of Education is dropping a consequential discrimination case involving a trans student in Ohio who was harassed by teachers and students and barred from using the bathroom that corresponds with her gender.

Because Trump rescinded federal guidelines protecting trans students in February (see #1 on this list), the department reversed its decision to deem the school's actions as discriminatory, officials said.

It may be just one case — but it's indicative of an even more worrying big picture. The move is part of a larger shift away from enforcing civil rights laws through the department, and that change in attitude and policy is one the Ohio student's advocates are calling "dangerous" for LGBTQ students nationwide.

*10. Trump is quietly removing mentions of LGBTQ people and their rights on federal webpages.*

The Obama White House's LGBTQ page has been replaced with this generic page.

Just as Trump was inaugurated into office, several White House pages on various issues temporarily disappeared as the new administration took over — not an uncommon hiccup during a presidential transition. Obama's page dedicated to LGBTQ matters, however, still hasn't been replaced.

On June 15, the Department of Commerce removed sexual orientation and gender identity from a list of protected groups in its equal employment opportunity statement, BuzzFeed News noticed. (After the report published —and the department faced swift backlash — the list was updated to include LGBTQ protections once again.)

Federal websites lay out what the president and his administration's priorities are. Erasing them from government websites is a clear sign that the challenges faced by LGBTQ people aren't of immediate concern for Trump and his administration.

*11. Trump's proposed travel ban barred LGBTQ refugees from entering the U.S., putting them more at risk of violence.*

A transgender refugee from Honduras who is temporarily staying in Mexico hopes to make it to the U.S. eventually. Photo by Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images.

Trump's executive order on immigration served as a blanket ban on refugees coming from a handful of Muslim-majority countries. Among those fleeing their homelands for safety and security, though, are LGBTQ people escaping persecution based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Take Ramtin Zigorat. He's a 27-year-old LGBTQ activist and refugee stranded in Turkey after being sentenced to death in Iran for being gay. The UNHCR had granted him admission to the U.S., but that was put on hold after Trump's travel ban. He's one of many.

"Maybe they will kill me tomorrow," he told CNN back in March. "You always live with this fear."

*12. Trump decided against including questions related to sexual orientation or gender identity on the 2020 census.*

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

Questions on those matters have never been on the census. But a proposal to include them in the 2020 survey was rejected by the Census Bureau, leaving LGBTQ people invisible, yet again, in one of the most crucial collections of federal data we have.

If data doesn't exist on a marginalized population, it becomes impossibly more difficult to service their specific needs.

*13. Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch — a right-leaning justice with a questionable track record on LGBTQ rights — to the Supreme Court.*

Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images.

Arguably one of the most lasting impacts Trump will have on civil rights is his picks for the Supreme Court — which is why his decision to nominate right-leaning Gorsuch has LGBTQ advocates on edge.

"For a conservative, he may stake out some admirably unorthodox positions on the bench," wrote Slate's Mark Joseph Stern after noting Gorsuch's bigoted stances on transgender equality and gay marriage. "But an embrace of LGBTQ rights will not be one of them."

*So, to get back to the initial question: Do lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans finally have a Republican ally in the White House?  *

The evidence speaks for itself. Reported by Upworthy 4 hours ago.

AvMed executed a sale and lease-back of its Dadeland offices with Keystone Property Group. The health insurance company sold the two office buildings at Dadeland Towers South, totaling 228,136 square feet at 9400 and 9500 South Dadeland Boulevard, plus a 246,319-square-foot parking garage for $36 million to Keystone Property Group, of Pennsylvania. Avison Young’s John K. Crotty and Michael T. Fay represented the buyer in the deal, while Berger Singerman attorney Barry D. Lapides also worked with… Reported by bizjournals 3 hours ago.

On Tuesday June 20th, Georgians will vote in one of the most closely watched special elections in history. The choice is not just between two individuals – it is between two fundamentally different policy approaches that will have major impacts on Americans’ lives.

Young people need quality public education. Recent college grads want to land well-paying jobs while not burdened with crushing student debt. Parents need to be able to care for their newborns or sick children without fear of losing wages or their jobs. Jobs with wages that allow individuals to support themselves and family are critical to the state’s and district’s economy. Access to affordable health care is a pressing concern for all.

These are the needs of Georgians, and especially of single women, people of color and Millennials. One would think politicians would be wise to actively address these needs by supporting policies like the Paycheck Fairness Act, or raising the minimum wage, or securing paid sick and family medical leave protections for women who are pregnant and often their family’s primary care giver.

Instead, Republicans in Congress have proposed health care, budget and tax plans that would have devastating impacts on everyone. Their plans would decimate public education and make it harder to pay back staggering student loans. Under the American Health Care Act, millions of Medicaid recipients – the majority of them women – would lose their coverage. The GOP plan would eliminate maternity and newborn care; zero out funding for all of Planned Parenthood services; and end protections for pre-existing conditions, meaning women could face discrimination for “conditions” such as pregnancy and Caesarean sections. The current budget proposal contains cuts to food stamps, job training, and other programs that would have a greater effect on single women who are more likely to receive lower wages or be unemployed, and more likely to live close to the poverty level.

Only one of these paths aligns with the needs of most Americans, and in Georgia’s 6th district, voters have an opportunity to take their state and country in a direction that addresses their real life needs.

Women, and in particular single women, can choose to exert their influence and tip the scales in favor of the policies they need. We’re living in a moment when women are claiming their power: from the Women’s March that activated millions of women around the country, to the intense energy and increasing numbers of women committing to run for office, women are demanding public policies that reflect their lives.

But in 2016, even though single women had the numerical edge in terms of eligible voters, too many weren’t registered and did not vote at the levels of married women. Right now, half of the women in America are either divorced, widowed, separated or never been married and their numbers are growing. Between 2004 and 2016, the percentage of unmarried women in the population grew by two percentage points. One in four is a mother with a child under 18. And single women are more likely to be unemployed, live in poverty, make minimum wage or less, and have no health insurance, savings or retirement plans.

Right now, close to a third of eligible unmarried women aren’t registered to vote, and more than one in ten of the single women who were registered to vote didn’t go to the polls in 2016. Single women are a potent political force, but only if they translate this potential into action at the ballot box. 

These patterns apply to Georgia’s 6th district. In Georgia, over 638,000 unmarried women are not registered to vote. African Americans, Latinos and other minorities have much at stake as well and much potential to change the outcome if they vote in force. While 83 percent of white voters turned out for the November 2016 election, only 71.8 percent of African Americans participated. If Americans want a government that represents their views and speaks to their lives, they cannot sit on the sidelines any longer.

Making a difference means single women, minorities and Millennials have to register, turn out and realize their power to block punitive policies. By voting, they can advocate for laws that lift the lives of all Americans and help our nation deliver on our democratic values of majority rule.  On June 20th, they have a chance to send a message in the fight for a better future for all Americans.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 4 hours ago.

U.S. Democrats took to the Senate floor on Monday to throw a spotlight on behind-the-scenes efforts by the Republican majority to repeal former President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, known as Obamacare.

In a series of floor motions, inquiries and lengthy speeches, Democrats criticized the closed-door meetings that Republicans have been holding to craft a replacement for Obamacare, formally known as the Affordable Care Act. They called for open committee hearings and more time to consider the bill before a Senate vote, which Republicans say could come in the next two weeks, although a draft bill has yet to emerge publicly.

Lacking the votes to derail or change the Republican process, the maneuvers by the Democratic minority seemed more aimed at highlighting Republican efforts on a controversial issue. Polls have said that a majority of Americans disapprove of the Obamacare replacement that has passed the House of Representatives and that Senate Republicans are now considering.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that the closed-door Republican meetings on healthcare amounted to “the most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen.”

“Republicans are writing their healthcare bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,” Schumer charged. The resulting legislation would likely throw millions out of health insurance, he said, while granting “a big fat tax break for the wealthiest among us.”

Senators are not obligated to hold meetings in the open, but Democrats pointed out that there were lengthy committee meetings and many days of floor debate on Obamacare before it passed in 2010.

Several Democrats moved for the healthcare legislation to be referred to Senate committees for hearings, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused.

McConnell said all Republican senators have been involved to some degree in healthcare meetings and that Democrats would have a chance to amend the legislation they produce, once it is brought to the Senate floor.

“We’re going to have a meeting on the Senate floor, all hundred of us, with an unlimited amendment process,” McConnell said. “So there will be no failure of opportunity.”

Senate Republican leaders would like a vote on healthcare legislation in July, before the July 4 recess if possible. But Republicans have struggled to coalesce around a bill, with moderates and conservatives pushing in different directions.

Senate Republicans also face pressure from the right. In the House, conservatives have written to McConnell to express concern about reports that say the Senate may water down the House bill.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 1 day ago.

HAVANA ― Making good on his deal with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Florida), President Donald Trump announced Friday that he plans to roll back some of the steps Barack Obama took to normalize relations between the United States and Cuba.

In 2015, Obama weakened restrictions on Americans traveling to Cuba and eliminated some of the economic prohibitions between the two countries. He removed Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and loosened the export of U.S. internet hardware and telecommunications. He also set up increased cooperation in intelligence-gathering, drug interdiction, scientific research and environmental protection.

Obama made it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba. Nearly everyone can now visit Cuba without applying for a specific license. U.S. airlines can fly there directly with cheaper fares; only general licenses are required for most travel to Cuba.

In his presidential policy guidance on Cuba, Trump reinstituted some restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba and U.S. business relations with the island. He did not touch Obama’s loosened limits on Cuban-American travel and remittances to Cuba, however, because that would anger a significant voter base in Florida.

Trump also left in place the U.S. embassy in Havana and the Cuban embassy in Washington, DC, that Obama established. And Trump did not end direct flights to Cuba by U.S. airlines.

*Trump’s Restrictions Will Hurt Americans and Cubans Alike*

On June 1, Engage Cuba released a report concluding that a reversal of Obama’s Cuba policies could cost the U.S. economy $6.6 billion and affect nearly 13,000 jobs during Trump’s first term. Obama’s 2015 policies have led to significant economic growth and job creation throughout Cuba. So much for the dealmaker-in-chief’s commitment to creating jobs.

René Esquivel, who sang with the Buena Vista Social Club, is a bellhop at the Havana Libre hotel. Esquivel told me he couldn’t believe Trump would jeopardize the U.S. economy to the tune of $6 billion.

Darian Hernandez Rojas, a Cuban law student at the University of Artemisa, concurs. “I thought that since Trump is a businessman, he would not step back from the progress of the Obama administration, that he would seize the Cuban market.” In an interview, he added, “The initiative that Obama and [Cuban president] Raul Castro took on December 17, 2014, was a breakthrough. But to make a deep transformation, two years is not enough time. The new hotels and stores are not meant for the Cuban people; they are meant for tourists. But it helps the economy and that should help the Cuban people to develop. It doesn’t happen overnight.”

Cuban law professor Gabriela Torres Romulo, who teaches at University of Holguín, informed me that increased currency from tourism helps Cubans because there is more money in the country for social programs, such as education, health, culture, sports and scientific research.

Cubans who run private restaurants called “paladares” and Airbnbs will be hurt by Trump’s crackdown. “In short, many Cubans believe that the Trump administration’s new policy will hurt those it is ostensibly meant to help: the average Cuban who has struggled under the weight of a battered economy for decades,” according to the New York Times.

“Since 2015, American companies have undertaken significant efforts in identifying opportunities and cultivating appropriate connections in Cuba. Many are now well positioned to take advantage of continued relaxations in restrictions and further market openings,” according to Louis A. Dejoie, chairman of the International Law Practice Group at McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC. “To reverse course at this point would only benefit our foreign competitors, none of whom are under the same restraints. If the Trump Administration truly wants to put Americans first, the choice seems clear.”

When I informed Alejandro, a 26-six-year-old Cuban taxi driver, about Trump’s changes, he said, “Things got better for Cuba; now they will get worse.”

Last year, the U.S. and Cuba signed a bilateral agreement to respond to oil spills and hazardous pollution in the Straits of Florida and the Gulf of Mexico.

Since Obama’s détente with Cuban President Raul Castro, U.S. airlines, hotel chains and cruise ship lines have started doing business in Cuba. Agricultural producers in Kansas and Louisiana have exported tons of goods to Cuba. And Cuban people have obtained access to the internet.

According to a Pew Research Center poll, 75 percent of people in the U.S. support the policies Obama instituted. Those changes have created jobs and income for the U.S. economy. Last year, more than 60,000 Americans visited Cuba, an increase of 34 percent over 2015. U.S. airlines and cruise lines now travel directly to Cuban cities. “Airbnb also now lists hundreds of privately owned houses where open-minded Americans can stay and interact with locals, and last week it said its connections have helped place $40 million in the pockets of Cuban owners of private bed-and-breakfasts,” Christopher Sabatini wrote in a New York Times op-ed.

Since 2015, individual Americans have been able design their own trips under “people-to-people” educational exchanges that no longer need to be organized by a U.S. organization. Under Trump’s new rules, Americans must qualify under one of 12 permitted travel categories. The Trump administration will also tighten enforcement of travel under the authorized categories.

These categories include professional research or attendance at professional meetings relating to the traveler’s profession, professional background or area of expertise; educational, religious, humanitarian, journalistic, athletic or artistic activities; visiting a relative in Cuba; support for the Cuban people; business visits for exchanges of information, telecommunications and Internet hardware and software, and exportation of agricultural products and building materials; foundations, research or educational institutions interested in international relations collecting information about Cuba; and official U.S. government business, including visits to Cuba by foreign diplomatic staff residing in the United States.

Trump’s order prohibits American travelers and businesses from participating in financial transactions with entities owned or largely controlled by the Grupo de Administración Empresarial SA (GAESA), a holding company run by the Cuban military, which poses no threat to U.S. security. Now Americans will be barred from spending money in state-run hotels or restaurants connected with GAESA.

“This is a new way to enforce the old embargo,” John S. Kavulich, president of US-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, told Politico. He says about 60 percent of the Cuban economy and 80 percent of Cuba’s tourism economy are controlled by GAESA.

The new rules will not apply to travelers who have booked trips or to business deals already concluded with the military. But Americans will be barred from staying at new properties such as the Gran Hotel Manzana, which is managed by Kempinski Hotels but owned by Gaviota, a Cuban military-run company.

Trump wrote that his policy “will be guided by key U.S. national and security interests and solidarity with the Cuban people.” His changes, however, have nothing to do with national security and will only hurt the Cuban people.

“We must ensure that U.S. funds are not channeled to a regime that has failed to meet the most basic requirements of a free and just society,” Trump’s directive says.

*Trump’s Human Rights Hypocrisy*

Trump’s rollbacks of Obama’s policies are ostensibly aimed at improving human rights in Cuba, which is curious in light of Trump’s treatment of “human rights considerations as an impediment to trade and partnerships that create jobs in the United States,” Julie Hirschfeld Davis wrote in the New York Times.

Indeed, “given [the Trump administration’s] complete lack of concern for human rights around the world, it would be a tragic irony if [they use] that to justify policies that harm the Cuban people and restrict the freedom of Americans to travel and do business where they please,” Benjamin Rhodes, former deputy national security adviser to Obama who negotiated the 2014 deal with Raul Castro, told the Times.

For example, Trump is enamored of Saudi Arabia. Critics of the Saudi government and clerics have been tortured, beheaded, crucified and lashed. Even lawyers who question government policy are imprisoned. In spite of its egregious human rights violations, Trump sold a record $110 billion in arms to the monarchy.

The Cuban government reacted to Trump’s new policy by citing the U.S. double standard on human rights, stating, “The U.S. is in no condition to lecture us.” They called out the U.S. for its police killings of African-Americans, 23 million people without health insurance, pay inequity, marginalization of immigrants and refugees, torture at Guantánamo, and extrajudicial executions and killing of civilians with drones.

In fact, Cuba has surpassed the United States in its guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights, which constitutes a category of human rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Cubans enjoy universal health care, free education, equal pay rates and paid maternity leave.

Unlike in the United States, health care is considered a human right in Cuba. Universal health care is free to all. Cuba has the highest ratio of doctors to patients in the world at 6.7 per 1,000 people. The 2014 infant mortality rate was 4.2 per 1,000 live births ― one of the lowest in the world.

In Cuba, free education is a universal right up to and including higher education. Cuban law guarantees the right to voluntarily form and join trade unions. Unions have the right to stop work they consider dangerous and the right to participate in company management. Women make up the majority of Cuban judges, attorneys, lawyers, scientists, technical workers, public health workers and professionals.

As of 2018, the date of the next general election in Cuba, there will be a limit of no more than two five-year terms for all senior elected positions, including the president. Anyone can be nominated to be a candidate.

*Trump and Rubio: The Quid Pro Quo*

But Trump’s cutbacks really constitute a thank you to some Cuban-American lawmakers for their support of his policies, including repealing Obamacare and shielding the president from consequences for his malfeasance.

Notably, Rubio’s questioning of former FBI director James Comey during the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing was designed to undercut Comey’s testimony that implicated Trump in wrongdoing. “I am confident the president will keep his commitment on Cuba policy,” Rubio declared after the hearing. Trump’s rollbacks of some of Obama’s Cuba policies were developed during several meetings between the president and Rubio.

In addition, Trump thinks the Cuban-American vote in Florida was key to his election victory, although many have disputed its significance. In 2015, Trump had supported Obama’s overtures to Cuba, telling The Daily Caller, “I think it’s fine. I think it’s fine, but we should have made a better deal. The concept of opening with Cuba ― 50 years is enough ― the concept of opening with Cuba is fine. I think we should have made a stronger deal.”

*The 57-Year-Old U.S. Economic Blockade of Cuba Remains*

Obama was unable to lift the longstanding U.S. economic blockade of Cuba because Congress passed the Helms-Burton Act in 1996, which codified the blockade so that only Congress could revoke it. Díaz-Balart’s brother, Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart, was instrumental in securing Bill Clinton’s signature on the Act.

The U.S. embargo of Cuba, now a blockade, was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower during the Cold War in response to a 1960 memo written by a senior State Department official. The memo proposed “a line of action that makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the [Castro] government.” That purpose was never realized.

Nevertheless, USA Today reports, “Supporters of Trump’s changes said they are designed to hurt Cuba’s communist government economically, and encourage people to rise up against the regime that has been in power since 1959.” Don’t hold your breath.

The U.S. blockade has hurt the Cuban people. They are unable to obtain equipment to test pregnant women for birth defects and medicines for children with liver disease. Cubans are also denied access to life-saving medical equipment, such as kidney dialysis machines, and antibiotics.

And Cubans have trouble getting new software. Liober Rodrigues Guerra, a 29-year-old educational video games designer, told Resumen Latinoamericano, “it is difficult to keep updated with the latest software we need for work. When we try to download these updates, our access is denied with a message that says it is not available because we come from, ‘a region under an embargo.’”

Moreover, the blockade also hurts people in the US. Cuba has developed pioneering medicines to treat and prevent lung cancer and diabetic amputations. Because of the blockade, however, we in the United States cannot take advantage of them.

Esquivel joked that when Obama was president, he used to call Esquivel every day and tell him to “take care of my people.” But when Trump became president, Esquivel quipped, Trump called him every day and told him to be on the lookout for Americans who come to Cuba against the blockade, gather their particulars, and send them to Trump so he could arrest them. Trump has no feeling for what it means to be human, Esquivel added.

There is a long history of friendship between the Cuban and American people that neither Trump nor anyone else can destroy, according to Esquivel. He suggested that one of the most significant cultural/historical exchanges between the two peoples would be for the U.S. to help Cubans repair the vintage U.S. cars some still drive. It’s not an economic issue, Esquivel said, but would be an important cultural interchange between the two countries.

Writing in The Nation, Cuba expert Peter Kornbluh cites a recent study concluding that the U.S. travel industry stands to lose $3.5 billion and more than 10,000 jobs as a result of increased travel restrictions. Kornbluh notes:

Trump is threatening to undermine years of concerted effort ― inside and outside of government ― to establish a civil, peaceful coexistence with an island neighbor after more than a half century of intervention, embargoes, and assassination plots. At stake is a model of responsible U.S. foreign policy ― to be emulated, not repudiated.

Most people in the US, including 6 in 10 Republicans, favor expanded travel and trade with Cuba. A new Morning Consult national poll found 65 percent of U.S. voters support Obama’s Cuba policy. Sixty-four percent of Republicans support relaxed travel and trade restrictions. And 61 percent of U.S. voters favor a total end to the blockade.

A Florida International University biannual poll published in September 2016 found that 63 percent of Cuban-Americans in Miami-Dade County, historically the center of opposition to engagement with Cuba, support lifting the blockade.

Esquivel said Cubans love Americans. But of everyone he has encountered from the United States in the course of his employment, not one supports Trump’s policies.

In order to establish complete normalization of relations, Cuba would require lifting the blockade and returning Guantánamo to Cuba. Trump’s new order is a step backward, not forward.

The future of real progress toward normalization of US-Cuba relations, which will help people in both countries, lies with Congress. Several bills have been introduced in the legislature to challenge the blockade. The Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act (S.1287) would guarantee Americans the right to travel to Cuba. The bill already has 55 co-sponsors, including nine Republicans.

Legislators respond to public pressure. Calls, letters, emails and demonstrations aimed at improving the United States’ Cuba policy can be most effective. Contact your congress members and demand that they vote to lift travel restrictions on Cuba and end the U.S. blockade.

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Her books include The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration, and Abuse; Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law and Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. Follow her on Twitter.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 5 hours ago.

Competition economics authority brings wide-ranging expertise in healthcare markets and regulation

San Francisco, California (PRWEB) June 20, 2017

Cornerstone Research, a leading provider of economic and financial consulting and expert testimony, announced today that Robert J. Town of the University of Texas, Austin, has affiliated with the firm. Town is the James L. and Nancy Powell Centennial Professor of American Economic Principles.

Town has advised the Bureau of Economics at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission on several mergers involving hospitals and physician practices. He testified on competitive effects and cost efficiencies in In the Matter of ProMedica Health System Inc. He also has consulted to the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice on several airline mergers.

“Bob brings tremendous versatility—government experience, academic acuity, and business knowledge—to a range of matters involving health economics, mergers, and industrial organization,” Cornerstone Research President and CEO Michael E. Burton said. “He is a skilled analyst and communicator, and we are delighted to have such a recognized authority join our superb network of competition experts.”

Town speaks regularly to legal and academic audiences on healthcare mergers and marketplaces, medical product regulation, and healthcare reform impacts. A former DOJ staff economist, his research has appeared in many peer-reviewed journals. He also cofounded an online tool that helps consumers to select health insurance plans, and serves on the Board of Directors of the Health Care Cost Institute.

About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years. The firm has 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington.

http://www.cornerstone.com
Twitter: @Cornerstone_Res Reported by PRWeb 16 hours ago.

Democrats across the country have been closely watching the special election for Georgia’s 6th Congressional District, where victory is within reach for 30-year-old filmmaker Jon Ossoff on Tuesday.

But there is another special House election one state over on Tuesday that has received a tiny fraction of the national attention and resources garnered by the Georgia race.

In South Carolina’s heavily Republican 5th District, Democrat Archie Parnell, a 66-year-old tax attorney, battles Republican Ralph Norman, a 63-year-old former state representative, for control of the seat vacated by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

Parnell faces much steeper odds than Ossoff, which explains the contest’s relative obscurity.  

Win or lose, though, the mild-mannered Parnell has excited local Democrats, laying the seeds for future inroads in the state. It is shaping up as an interesting case study for the 50-state strategy that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has vowed to restore. 

“We want to just keep building for the future and try to get a Democratic presence in this area once again,” said Susan Maxson, a 54-year-old Rock Hill resident volunteering for Parnell.

“It’s an area of haves and have-nots. We feel like a lot of the have-nots have just been passed by and overlooked,” Maxson added. “Building hope for the future is letting them know it is worth it coming out to the polls and that if we don’t get them this time, we’re getting them next time.”

And if Parnell manages to pull off a major upset, it would be a complete game-changer for the Democratic Party in the state.

“If you win one race in South Carolina it has a massive domino effect in this state. If we pick up the 5th congressional seat, the 7th and the 1st automatically come into play,” said South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Trav Robertson. “All it takes is one race ― whether it is a state legislative seat or whether it is a House district ― that changes, or starts to change, the psychology of the Democratic Party in this state, our activists, as well as the independent voters.”The largely rural 5th District, which stretches from Sumter in the south to the suburbs of Charlotte, North Carolina, in the north, has trended increasingly Republican in recent years.  

Before Mulvaney unseated veteran Democrat John Spratt in the tea party wave of 2010, the 5th District had been in Democratic hands since the end of Reconstruction. 

Mulvaney, a hard-line fiscal conservative, quickly developed strong support there, cruising to re-election in 2016 by a margin of more than 20 percentage points. Likewise, President Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by some 17 points in the district in November, according to official data collected by Daily Kos and shared with HuffPost.

However, a special election, where turnout is typically much lower is “a completely different beast,” according to Robertson.

As a result, Parnell’s fortunes hinge largely on the enthusiasm gap. Assuming a below-average percentage of Republicans will vote, Parnell has a solid chance if he can convince enough Democrats energized by Trump, health care and other concerns to show up at the polls, Robertson suggested.

Parnell showcased this base-centric approach at a June 9 NAACP candidate forum that Norman declined to attend.

“We together can send a signal to this country and to the world by not electing a Republican ― the Republican that is not here tonight, the Republican that refused to show up,” he told the crowd.

On other occasions, Parnell has struck a moderate tone in hopes of picking up just enough independent and Republican voters.

At a televised debate with Norman, Parnell touted his willingness to speak “about Democrats and Republicans needing to talk together, not shout at each other.” And he has rejected calls for single-payer health insurance, preferring to fix Obamacare, including by automatically enrolling people in health insurance plans on the exchanges.

When it comes to gun control, Parnell supports closing the “default to proceed” loophole, which permits gun sales without a background check if the FBI does not complete it within three days of the request.   


I would canvass for a ham sandwich to keep Ralph Norman out of Congress.
Michele Horne, 42
But Parnell has mostly run on kitchen-table economic issues, promising to cut taxes for “working families,” close corporate tax loopholes, and protect Social Security and Medicare.

One position that puts him firmly in the progressive wing of the party is his support for the safe importation of prescription drugs from outside the United States.

All told, Parnell’s campaign is a far cry from the platforms of the mostly extinct conservative Southern Democrats who made a point of thumbing their noses at the party on key priorities.

It is part of why Parnell has drawn so much support from left-leaning activists, notwithstanding the two decades he spent as a top executive at the Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs. His candidacy offers something of a blueprint for moderate Democrats hoping to unite competing factions of the party.

“I have the ‘Don’t blame me I voted for Bernie’ sticker on my car so I’m not a centrist at all, but you have to be able to reason through the issues. People see Archie as someone who will at least have the conversation,” said Michele Horne, a 42-year-old supporter of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid who is volunteering for the campaign.Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Norman is an ultraconservative real estate developer who said he would have voted for the House’s Obamacare repeal bill, backs raising the Social Security retirement age, and reacted to the shooting at the congressional baseball practice last week by calling for more members of Congress to carry guns. 

“A moderate Democrat winning any seat in a congressional race in South Carolina is nothing to sneeze at. I would canvass for a ham sandwich to keep Ralph Norman out of Congress,” said Horne, a co-founder of the organization #DemEnter, which is trying to move the Democratic Party to the left by getting progressives into leadership positions.

Maxson, another Sanders supporter, momentarily considered supporting Green Party candidate David Kulma, in light of Kulma’s support for single-payer health insurance and other positions that she said reminded her of what Sanders “stood for.” (A fourth candidate, Josh Thornton of the American Party, supports single-payer too.)

But Maxson, for whom affordable insurance coverage on the Obamacare exchange has been a godsend, ultimately concluded it was best to back Parnell given the realities of the two-party system.


Now the people know they can vote. They may not be able to vote in this campaign right here, but there’s one coming up in November and we can get many more registered for the next election.
Donna Bookhart, 51
Donna Bookhart, 51, also a Sanders fan, said Parnell “reminds me of a Bernie Sanders, but laid-back.”

Bookhart, who lives near Parnell campaign headquarters in Rock Hill, embodies the way the campaign is paying dividends for the Democratic Party in the state. After learning from a campaign staffer that ex-felons are allowed to vote in South Carolina, she registered an estimated 100 former felons in her neighborhood to vote.

“In the African-American community where a lot of these felonies are, they do not inform them that they can vote when they get out,” said Bookhart, who is African-American. 

South Carolinians have to be registered to vote 30 days before the election, however, so many of Bookhart’s recruits will have missed the cutoff.

“Now the people know they can vote. They may not be able to vote in this campaign right here, but there’s one coming up in November and we can get many more registered for the next election,” Bookhart said.

Little if any public polling has been done in the race, but Parnell released an internal poll at the end of May suggesting that his approach has resulted in at least some success. In the survey, Parnell trailed Norman by 10 percentage points, a 6-point improvement from his deficit in March.

Political statistician Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight estimated the South Carolina district skews 10 percentage points more Republican than the country as a whole. If Parnell holds Norman to a single-digit win, Silver posited, Republicans “should be worried.”

After a day of canvassing, Horne held out hope that Parnell could do more than that, even as she chuckled that “hope is a scary emotion in politics in the South.”

“For Ossoff to win would be great, but I don’t think it would shock the hell out of everybody,” Horne said. “For South Carolina’s 5th to go to a Democrat, Nate Silver ― bless his heart ― he wouldn’t know what to do.”

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 11 hours ago.

Senate Republicans apparently have decided the way to improve that “mean” House bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act is to make it even meaner, at least over the long run.

The chamber’s GOP leaders have sent their repeal legislation to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for evaluation, with plans to hold a vote on the bill late next week. Although negotiations are ongoing, they have come up with a proposed compromise for one of the most complicated issues, Medicaid funding, according to reporting by Peter Sullivan of The Hill and Caitlin Owens of Axios ― and later confirmed to HuffPost by a health care strategist familiar with the proposal.

The details remain fuzzy, and may be in flux. In normal times, it would make sense wait until confirmation of those details or, better still, a chance to read the bill itself before drawing firm conclusions about what the proposal would do.

But Republicans are doing their best to keep legislative text a secret for as long as possible. On Monday night, as Democrats held a marathon debate to protest GOP tactics, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wouldn’t even promise 10 hours of public deliberation before holding a vote.

So it’s now or never when it comes to thinking through what this provision would do. And this provision would likely mean bigger cuts to Medicaid over time, although they would not hit as quickly as the cuts in the House version of repeal, which Senate Republicans have used as their template. 

Cutting Medicaid Is A Major Goal Of GOP Repeal Efforts

Medicaid has become an issue in this debate because the Affordable Care Act made extra funding available to states that expanded eligibility for their programs, so that anybody in households with income below or just above the federally defined poverty line can qualify. Many millions of people have gotten insurance as a result of that expansion, and initial research suggests that, predictably, they are more financially secure and have better access to health care as a result.

Republicans want to roll back that expansion, as part of their effort to wipe away as much of “Obamacare” as they can. But the GOP effort wouldn’t stop there. Republicans also want to realize their long-held dream of ending Medicaid as an entitlement ― in other words, ending the federal government’s open-ended agreement to fund the program at whatever it takes to cover the people who qualify for it, no matter how much their care costs and no matter how many become eligible.

Instead, Republicans reportedly would give states a choice ― accepting a “block grant” that allots them fixed sums of money each year or moving to a system of “per capita caps” that would allot fixed sums per person, but at a predetermined inflation rate that would likely grow more slowly than the actual cost of care. Either way, the scheme would likely reduce Medicaid funding over the long term.

The appeal of these proposals, to Republicans, is that they would mean smaller government and less federal spending. Not coincidentally, it would also mean an opportunity to cut taxes for the wealthiest echelon of Americans who now pay more in order to finance the Affordable Care Act’s expansions of health insurance.

But both propositions ― rolling back the expansion and cutting Medicaid funds going forward ― would lead to cutbacks in who or what the program covers. And that’s made it controversial even among some Republican lawmakers. It’s a big reason the CBO reported that the House bill deprive more than 20 million people of health insurance.

Among the GOP senators expressing the most concern about their party’s bill are those from states that expanded their Medicaid programs (not all did). These state are particularly dependent on Medicaid money, both to prop up local health care institutions and, in some cases, to provide a critical tool for fighting opioid addiction. These lawmakers include the one political analysts rank as the most vulnerable Republican senator in the 2018 elections ― Dean Heller of Nevada ― as well as Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rob Portman from Ohio.

It Sounds Like Smaller Cuts At First, Bigger Cuts Later

It appears the GOP leadership has changed the bill in response to those senators, although the ultimate effect would be to introduce cuts more slowly while imposing larger ones over time.

Specifically, the proposal sent to the CBO would phase out the Medicare expansion more slowly than House bill. And initially, it would allow states to secure larger federal contributions to Medicaid than the House plan.


After 2025, instead of adjusting Medicaid by the CPI for health care, it would use the normal CPI, which grows far slower. See the gap? pic.twitter.com/Kc7LQJUAsY

— Jordan Weissmann (@JHWeissmann) June 19, 2017

The combined effects of these changes would delay the impact of the Medicaid cuts, postponing the date at which people actually lose their insurance or services. But the cuts would still take place ― and, more importantly, they would accelerate. The federal contribution to state Medicaid programs would fall more quickly starting in 2025, most likely creating an ever larger gap between what states need to maintain their programs and what the federal government provided. 

It’s impossible to be sure without final text and thorough analysis, the kind that ― thanks to McConnell’s rush ― is unlikely to happen until right before the Senate vote, if it happens at all. But the probable outcome of setting a higher starting point for the spending levels and a lower growth rate would be smaller cuts in the beginning, bigger cuts afterwards, a quick appraisal from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said Monday.

“We don’t quite know how this would work but ... it’s almost certain that any benefit for states would be more than swamped by the application of the lower [inflation] growth rate starting in 2025,” Edwin Park, the center’s vice president for health policy, told HuffPost. 

Republicans have frequently said that rolling back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid would strengthen the program’s ability to pursue its historic mission of helping poor children, pregnant women, the elderly and the disabled. But the long-term cuts to the program would jeopardize coverage for precisely those groups and, were something like this reported proposal to become law, the effects would be even harsher.

Forcing Republicans to explain how they reconcile that apparent contradiction would be a worthy enterprise, if only there were time to do it.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.

Health insurance giant Anthem announced late Monday that it has submitted proposed 2018 plans to the state, easing fears that it might back out of Colorado's health insurance exchange and leave residents of several counties without an insurance choice. Reported by Denver Post 8 hours ago.

A man who serves as a bodyguard for a notorious white nationalist has been hospitalized after being stabbed nine times by two assailants following a pro-Trump rally. The Los Angeles Times reports that Antonio Foreman, the bodyguard for white nationalist internet personality Tim “@BakedAlaska... Reported by Raw Story 7 hours ago.

Back in March, the Trump administration attempted to call the bluff of the House Freedom Caucus by setting a vote on an Obamacare repeal bill before Speaker Paul Ryan had the votes all lined up.  As we reported then (see "In Stinging Defeat, House Republicans Abandon Obamacare Repeal Effort"), the strategy to prioritize speed didn't work out so well as the bill ultimately had to be pulled at the last minute due to lack of support from Conservatives.



President Trump just called me. Still on phone.
"We just pulled it," he tells me.

— Robert Costa (@costareports) March 24, 2017



 

Now, it appears that a very similar process could be playing out in the Senate.  As the Wall Street Journal points out this morning, Senate Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, *seem increasingly likely to force an Obamacare repeal vote before they go on their July 4th recess.*



GOP aides and others familiar with the negotiations said they anticipate the Senate bill’s text will be released later this week. The CBO is expected to release its estimate of the Senate bill’s impact on the federal budget and insurance coverage early next week, and a vote could potentially be held next Thursday, before lawmakers scatter.

 

*“I expect us to vote on it next week,”* Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.) said Monday evening of the health bill.* “I believe the majority leader when he says he’s going to take it up.”*



Meanwhile, Reuters has noted that a Senate bill is expected to be released this Thursday.

Although the language of the Senate bill has not been disclosed publicly, one option being considered *envisions nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over a 10 year period.*  Meanwhile, at least 4 Republican senators have expressed concerns with any bill that would drastically cut their state's medicaid programs, including Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Cory Gardner (Colorado), and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).



Under an option being strongly considered, the bill would exact steeper financial cuts to Medicaid than under the House-passed legislation, the people said, a move likely to draw criticism from a number of Republican governors who want to preserve Medicaid open-entitlement funding and the ACA’s expansion of the program.

 

The entire funding system for the state-federal program for low-income and disabled people would be changed to a per capita cap, which would limit federal spending to states.* That is the approach that also passed in the House bill, which would cut federal spending on Medicaid by $834 billion over 10 years.*

 

Under one proposal, the Senate bill would lower Medicaid’s spending growth to a rate set in the House bill until 2025, when it would then be more sharply curtailed, according to people familiar with the discussions. The bill would slow the growth of federal spending on Medicaid by tying its growth rate to a lower price index, a change sought by Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).



As we noted last month, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the House bill passed in May would leave *23 million fewer Americans with health coverage in 2026* versus current law and would *cut the budget deficit by $119 billion.*

Meanwhile, Wednesday is a federal filing deadline for insurance companies to decide whether they will participate in the ACA’s exchanges and the rates they want to charge.  As we've pointed out, so far the 2018 renewals have painted a rather dire outlook for the future of Obamacare as it currently stands.  Here are a couple of our recent notes:



· 2018 Obamacare Premium Estimates Are Surging Again Leaving Obama's "Legacy" On Life Support
· Obamacare "Death Spiral": Maryland Insurer Seeks 50% Premium Increase For 2018
· Obamacare Death Spiral: First 2018 Coverage Map Reveals At Least 47 Counties With No Coverage
· New Mexico Health Insurer Seeks 80% Premium Increase As Senate Ramps Up Repeal Efforts



Of course, Democrats have minimal power to block an Obamacare repeal effort but that will hardly stop Chuck Schumer from launching a fearmongering campaign to tell voters how the Republican bill will undoubtedly kill Grandpa within a matter of weeks after being passed. Democrats have also taken the Senate floor to blast the "secrecy" with which the Republican bill is being drafted with Schumer describing the Republican process as *"the most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen."* Per Reuters:



Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said that the closed-door Republican meetings on healthcare amounted to "the most glaring departure from normal legislative procedure that I have ever seen."

 

*"Republicans are writing their healthcare bill under the cover of darkness because they are ashamed of it,"* Schumer charged. The resulting legislation would likely throw millions out of health insurance, he said, while granting "a big fat tax break for the wealthiest among us."



*Which is odd, because we thought that passing Obamacare the first time around, you know "so we could see what was in it," was also a pretty shocking "departure from normal legislative procedure..."* Reported by Zero Hedge 7 hours ago.

(Reuters Health) - Even as a growing number of U.S. teens and young adults are abusing opioid drugs, only about one in four of them are getting medications to combat addiction, a new study suggests.

The proportion of Americans aged 13 to 25 diagnosed with opioid use disorders surged almost six-fold from 2001 to 2014, researchers report in JAMA Pediatrics. During that period, the average annual rate of opioid use disorder among teens and young adults climbed from 0.26 cases to 1.51 cases for every 100,000 people.

Overall, just 27 percent of these young patients diagnosed with opioid use disorder were prescribed buprenorphine and naltrexone, two medicines to treat addiction, within six months of their diagnosis.

“Medications have been shown to treat withdrawal and cravings, and reduce relapse, and are an extremely effective component of treatment for opioid use disorder,” said lead study author Dr. Scott Hadland, a pediatrician and addiction specialist at Boston Medical Center.

“Offering medications early in the life course of addiction – particularly to patients with severe addiction – is critical to prevent downstream harm from addiction,” Hadland said by email.

To assess how often addicted youth receive medication for opioid use disorders, Hadland and colleagues examined health insurance claims data for 9.7 million young people, for the years 2001 to 2014.

Overall, almost 21,000 teens and young adults in the study, or about 0.2 percent, were diagnosed with opioid use disorder. About 5,600 of these young people received medications to treat their addiction.

The majority of those who got medicine received buprenorphine, an opioid that helps reduce cravings by targeting the same places in the brain that are impacted by addictive opioids like heroin, morphine, and codeine. A minority, about 11 percent, received naltrexone, a medicine for alcohol and drug addiction.

The early years of the study coincided with the 2002 introduction of buprenorphine, and prescriptions of anti-addiction drugs for opioid use disorder in teens and young adults jumped more than 10-fold from 3 percent in 2002 to almost 32 percent in 2009. But after that, prescriptions declined even as addiction rates rose.

Younger teens, females, and black and Hispanic youth were less likely to get medication for opioid use disorder than older youth, males and white people, the study also found.

One limitation of the study is that researchers lacked data on the severity of addiction, which may have influenced whether patients received medications, the authors note. Because the study only included people with private health insurance, it’s also possible that results would look different for young people with other benefits like Medicaid or who were uninsured.

Even so, the results underscore the importance of 2016 recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics advising pediatricians to consider medication for adolescents with opioid addiction, said Brendan Saloner of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore in an accompanying editorial.

“Every patient should have access to a treatment program that provides access to these medications, whether or not they end up using them,” Saloner told Reuters Health by email.

The cost of the medication can be a barrier, Saloner noted, because even with private insurance the drugs can cost $20 to $50 a month or more. But it should always be offered, he stressed.

“There is clear evidence that just as with smoking and other addictive substances, treatment with medication may be necessary due to the neurologic changes that occur in the reward center of the brain,” said Dr. Constance Houck, a researcher at Harvard Medical School in Boston who wasn’t involved in the study.

“This may be particularly true for adolescents who are especially thrill seeking and impulsive and may be even more susceptible to addiction,” Houck said by email.

 

SOURCE: bit.ly/2rNNdm3 JAMA Pediatrics, online June 19, 2017.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website. Reported by Huffington Post 6 hours ago.

Noted agriculture scientist Dr MS Swaminathan, who headed the National Commission on Farmers, has emphasised the need for a concerted action by the Centre and states to address the problems being faced by the agriculture sector in the country. He says that a loan waiver may a temporary necessity but it can certainly not be a permanent solution. In an exclusive interview with DNA, Dr Swaminathan speaks on a number of issues. Excerpts:

-*On his recommendations*-

The main recommendations are contained in the National Policy for Farmers (NPF), which is available on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture. The main recommendation is to improve economic viability of farming and increase the net income of farmers. We need to orient farmers towards this goal. Also, we must ensure a technological transformation of rural professions, so as to attract and retain youth in farming.

-*What's fuelling the agriculture crisis?*-

The continuous crisis in agriculture is largely because of climatic and economic factors. In the area of economics, the input-output pricing, and export-import policies have not been given the attention they deserve. On the technological side, there are controversies over the use of technologies such as genetic modification of crops. We need a regulatory system which inspires public, political and professional confidence.

-*Changes since 2006*-

The major changes in the agriculture sector since 2006 relate to climatic factors leading to more severe droughts and market factors where the cost-risk and return structure of farming has not been fully taken into account.

-*Loan waivers*-

Loan waiver may be a temporary necessity to revive farming, but it should not become the sole solution to our agricultural problems. Some of the measures enumerated in the National Commission on Farmers to tackle the problem of suicides are: provide affordable health insurance and revitalise primary healthcare centres and extend the National Rural Health Mission to suicide hotspot locations on a priority basis.

-*What needs to be done*-

The structural measures relate to achieving a synergy between technology and public policy. Public policy should include adequate attention with reference to pricing, procurement and public distribution. Also, the social prestige of farmers and farming should be enhanced. At the moment, it is low as is clear from the fact that farmers' hard work is seldom recognised. It should be appreciated through recognitions such as Padma awards.

-*Centre-state cooperation*-

A concerted action by the Centre and the states is the only way forward to solve farmers' problems. Blame game will not help.

-*Food consumption trends*-

There is an increasing trend of consumption of fruits and vegetables as well as milk, eggs and other animal products. The growth rate in this sector is higher than that in the staple crops sector. This is good from the nutrition point of view. Also, this promotes integrated production systems of crop-livestock, which can enhance the income of the farmers.

ReportIndiaSanjay JogDNAMumbai

· Dr MS Swaminathan
· National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)
· National Commission on Farmers (NCF)
· farmers
· loan waiver
· Suicides
· National Rural Health Mission
· National Policy for Farmers (NPF)

Wed, 21 Jun 2017-06:50am
Date updated: 
Wednesday, 21 June 2017 - 6:50am
Article Images: 
Dr MS Swaminathan
Short URL: 
dnai.in/eHTL
Embargo: 
Syndicate: 
Hide lead image: 
Page views: 
1
From Print Edition:  Reported by DNA 4 minutes ago.