Category Archives: Republicans

ACA Declared Unconstitutional: Now What?


In another example of how cruel and inhumane the radical Conservative/Libertarian Republican Party has been regarding health care, a Federal judge in Texas late Friday, struck down the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional.

The judge, Reed O’Connor, appointed by George W. Bush, struck down the law on the grounds that its mandates requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it, as reported yesterday in the New York Times.

According to the Times article, the ruling was over a lawsuit filed earlier this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. States led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will not have immediate effect.

However, the Times reports, it will make its way to the Supreme Court, where the survival of the law and the health of millions of Americans will be in doubt.
Judge O’Connor said, the Times quoted, that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.” In addition, the judge said, “the individual mandate is unconstitutional” and that the remaining provisions of the ACA are invalid.

The main issue, pointed out in the Times piece, was whether the law’s mandate still compelled people to buy coverage after Congress zeroed out the penalty as part of the tax overhaul this year.

20 states, led by Texas, argued that with the penalty zeroed out, the mandate had become unconstitutional, and that the rest of the law could not be severed from it, the Times wrote.

The Justice Department under former Attorney General Sessions, declined not to defend just the individual mandate, but the pre-existing conditions provision as well.

A spokesman for California attorney general Xavier Becerra said that California, and other defendant states, would challenge the ruling with an appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

Becerra’s statement, reported by the Times, said the following, “ Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, on America’s faithful progress towards affordable health care for all Americans…The ACA has already survived more than 70 unsuccessful repeal attempts and withstood scrutiny in the Supreme Court.”

The chief plaintiff in the case, Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, applauded the decision, and was quoted in the Times in a statement, “Today’s ruling enjoining Obamacare halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system.”

Meaning that the American “health care system” can only be a private insurance-based system that allows companies to profit off some people’s health, or lack thereof. He is upholding the “right” of insurance companies, drug companies, medical device manufacturers, and others to profit at our expense and to play with the lives of millions of Americans who will lose what coverage the ACA gave them.

This also means, that any attempt to enact Medicare for All/single payer health care will result, at some future date, to a judge or court striking it down as unconstitutional.

Simply put, Conservative jurisprudence believes that the Constitution enshrines free-market health care.

The Times added that Paxton also said, “Our lawsuit seeks to effectively repeal Obamacare, which will give President Trump and Congress the opportunity to replace the ‘failed’ [quotes added] social experiment with a plan that ensures Texans and all Americans will again have greater choice (to be ripped off and overcharged) about what health coverage they need and who will be their doctor.”

In other words, Mr. Paxton wants the American health care system to stay where it is, so long as companies can make money from it.

Here are a few takeaways from the rest of the Times’ article:

• If the judge’s decision stands, about 17 million Americans will lose their health insurance, according to the Urban Institute. This includes millions who gained coverage through Medicaid expansion, and millions more who receive subsidized private insurance through the ACA marketplaces.
• Insurers will also no longer have to cover young adults up to age 26 under their parents’ plans
• Annual and lifetime limits on coverage will again be permitted
• And there will be no cap on out-of-pocket costs
• Also gone will be the law’s popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions

This last takeaway was front and center of the Democrats midterm campaigns, and while most Republicans insisted that they did not want to withdraw those protections, the article reported that most were silent after the ruling.

Without those protections, insurers could deny coverage to such people or charge them more; they could also return to charging them based on age, gender or profession, according to the Times.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, the Times noted, estimated that 53 million adults from 18 to 64 — 27 percent of that population would be rejected for coverage under practices in effect before the ACA.

Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation wrote on Twitter, “If this Texas decision on the ACA is upheld, it would throw the individual insurance market and the whole health care system into complete chaos…But the case still has a long legal road to travel before that’s an immediate threat,” the Times quoted.

Democrats attacked the decision as absurd. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that when the party took control of the House next month, it would “move swiftly to formally intervene in the appeals process to uphold the lifesaving protections for people with pre-existing conditions and reject Republicans’ effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act.”

Healthcare Dive.com, in reporting Friday about the decision, wrote that a decision had been waiting in the wings since September, when the Justice Department asked Judge O’Connor to wait until the individual market’s open enrollment period ended, which was also a convenient time for Republicans running in the midterms.

Healthcare Dive.com also stated that the decision would be appealed to the conservative Fifth Circuit, and possibly to the Supreme Court, where advocates worry that it will be struck down.
Providers such as the American Hospital Association (AHA) and American Medical Association (AMA) urged a stay until a higher court could take it up.

One state not a part of the defendants was Maryland, according to Healthcare Dive.com. Maryland’s Democratic Attorney General, Brian Frosh, brought its own case seeking a reaffirmation of the ACA’s constitutionality.

Attorney General Frosh argued that Maryland residents who became insured under the ACA would be harmed if the law was unconstitutional or eliminated. About 150,000 people in Maryland gained insurance through the ACA marketplace in 2018, and more than 300,000 are insured through the state’s expanded Medicaid program.

The Maryland case is still ongoing.

So now what?

In the short-term, nothing will change, as mentioned in the two articles above. However, in the long-term, there will be serious consequences, just as Larry Levitt said on Twitter Friday.

But more importantly than chaos in the insurance market and health care system, millions of Americans will once again be at the mercy of insurance companies, be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, including pregnancy, cancer, and a whole host of illnesses, be denied life-saving drugs, or rejected for surgeries, etc.

And among those millions, many will die needlessly because of the greed of the insurance companies and the actions of a Cowboy judge.

What does this mean?

Allow me to put on a different hat here and offer an opinion as to what may transpire in the future, since none of us are clairvoyant. As someone who studied both American history and American government and politics, in my opinion, we will not see universal health care in this country unless and until, to use a medical metaphor, this Conservative/Economic Libertarian virus is eradicated from the American political system, or at least is brought under control.

I do not say this lightly, nor am I being flippant here. Let’s face facts. The Republican Party stands in the way of the adoption of rational, universal health care for all Americans because they are the defenders of a rapacious, greedy Capitalist health care system that demands that investors, shareholders, insurers, manufacturers, and service providers and consultants, be allowed to profit by the health and welfare of the American people.

However, as also reported in the New York Times on Sunday, the ACA could be hard to knock down, despite the judge’s ruling, according to legal scholars quoted in the article.

Yet as Ezra Klein writes in Vox.com, Republicans have refocused Democrats on building what they failed to build in 2010: a universal health care system simple enough and popular enough that it is safe from constant political and legal assault. And that means some version of Medicare-for-all. Democrats are promising swift action once they take over the House in a few weeks, so we wait and see how that will turn out.

But on the other hand, as I have pointed out in previous posts, both those penned by myself, and those that I reposted from other sources, the medical-industrial complex is pushing back hard against any move to alter this broken system.

Two recent posts, Healthcare Lobbying Group Double-Crossing Democratic Voters and Establishment looks to crush liberals on Medicare for All – POLITICO highlights the attempt by the health care industry to keep the status quo, or at least to convince Democratic politicians who might be opposed to full single payer health care, to offer alternatives that will allow the insurance companies to profit from providing coverage to only those who are not sick, which is called adverse selection.

There are some people in this country who argue that what we need is not less competition in health care, but more. However, this misses the point. Whether or not there is more or less competition is not the reason why our health care system is broken. The reason why it is broken is because there is competition in the first place. No other Western country has this problem, and they all have some form of universal, single payer health care.

So, the prognosis for the future of universal health care is cloudy, if not downright gloomy. Advocates for single payer, improved Medicare for All must take a sober hard look at reality and formulate a strategy to meet this new and regrettable challenge. And they must do so with a clear eye and mind on the realities of the political landscape, and not be lulled into thinking that just because polls indicate approval by voters, that enacting Medicare for All will be easy or accomplished quickly. We have enemies, and one of them is Reed O’Connor.

Additional Reading:

Judge Rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million
Obamacare ruling delivers new shock to health system

 

Advertisements

This election is about your pre-existing medical condition – Managed Care Matters

Fellow blogger, Joe Paduda, summed up what is at stake for millions of Americans, your humble blogger included, if the GOP holds onto the House and Senate after the Midterm election thirteen days from today.

At the bottom of Joe’s post is a link to a Blue Cross/Blue Shield website. Scroll down to the part labeled “Medical Condition Rejection List.” It covers every conceivable illness and condition that human beings may suffer from, and included on that list is peritoneal dialysis, which I am undergoing, and hemodialysis also.

If the Republicans get their way, the only people who will have health insurance are perfect specimens, and we all know that there is no such thing as a perfectly healthy human being. We are all born with, or have the potential to get, some form of illness or disease at some time in our lives. It’s in our genes.

Unless of course, you are Superman/Superwoman.

Here is Joe’s post:

Will you be able to afford health insurance, and will that insurance cover your pre-existing medical conditions? For most, that’s the biggest issue in the upcoming election. Congressional Republicans are planning to pass legislation that allows insurers to: a) stop … Continue reading This election is about your pre-existing medical condition

Source: This election is about your pre-existing medical condition – Managed Care Matters

Single Payer A Bargain

Another shout out to Don McCanne for the following.

On Friday, the Nation published an article by Steffie Woolhandler, David Himmelstein, and Adam Gaffney.

You may recall these folks from my book review, “Health Care Under the Knife,” and it’s conclusion, “Some Final Thoughts on ‘Health Care Under the Knife.'”

Rather than regurgitate it for you, I am letting you read it in its entirety. But before I do, let me bring to your attention, an issue that is flying under the radar and has serious consequences for the country, our rights, and for the future of health care and other social programs.

Those lovable brothers from the Midwest, Charles and David Koch, are funding a group called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council. One of the goals of ALEC is to call an Article V (of the Constitution, for those of you not familiar with the document) that allows for the creation of a convention in the event the government gets too much power.

I recommend you read up on it because it will radically alter our system of government for the benefit of the corporations and wealthy. Say goodbye to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and direct election of Senators, to name a few goals.

That brings me to a quote I must let you read from a man who has no clue what he is talking about, and is emblematic of the dysfunction of his party. That man is former Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn, himself a physician who said the following regarding a convention and why he and others feel it is necessary.

“We’re in a battle for the future of our country…We’re either going to become a socialist, Marxist country like western Europe, or we’re going to be free. As far as me and my family and my guns, I’m going to be free.”

In case you missed that, let me repeat it:

“We’re in a battle for the future of our country…We’re either going to become a socialist, Marxist country like western Europe, or we’re going to be free. As far as me and my family and my guns, I’m going to be free.” Violent, ain’t he?

Pray tell, what country in western Europe is Marxist? Last I heard, none. Folks, these guys not only want to take away health care, they are still fighting the Cold War and godless, Marxist Communism.  No, what they are really about is defending a system, both economic and health care-wise, that cannot be sustained.

Here is the article in full:

Last week, Charles Blahous at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center at George Mason University published a study suggesting that Bernie Sanders’s single-payer health-care plan would break the bank. But almost immediately, various observers—including Sanders himself—noted that according to Blahous’s own estimates, single payer would actually save Americans more than $2 trillion over a decade. Blahous doubled down on his argument in The Wall Street Journal, and on Tuesday, The Washington Post’s fact-checker accused Democrats of seizing “on one cherry-picked fact” in Blahous’s report to make it seem like a bargain.
The Post is wrong to call this a “cherry-picked fact”—it’s a central finding of the analysis—but it is probably right that single-payer supporters shouldn’t make too much of Blahous’s findings. After all, his analysis is riddled with errors that actually inflate the cost of single payer for taxpayers.
First, Blahous grossly underestimates the main source of savings from single payer: administrative efficiency. Health economist Austin Frakt aptly demonstrated the “bewildering complexity of health care financing in the United States” in The New York Times last month, citing evidence that billing costs primary-care doctors $100,000 apiece and consumes 25 percent of emergency-room revenues; that billing and administration accounts for one-quarter of US hospital expenditures, twice the level in single-payer nations; and that nearly one-third of all US health spending is eaten up by bureaucracy.
Overall, as two of us documented recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine, a single-payer system could cut administration by $500 billion annually, and redirect that money to care. Blahous, in contrast, credits single payer with a measly fraction of that—or $70 billion—in administrative savings.
Our profit-driven multi-payer system is the source for this outlandish administrative sprawl. Doctors and hospitals have to negotiate contracts and fight over bills with hundreds of insurance plans with differing payment rates, rules, and requirements. Simplifying the payment system would free up far more money than Blahous estimates to expand and improve coverage.
Next, Blahous lowballs the potential for savings on prescription drugs. He assumes that a single-payer system couldn’t use its negotiating clout to push down drug prices, ignoring the fact that European nations and the US Veterans Affairs system achieve roughly 50 percent discounts relative to the US private sector. (Single payer’s only drug savings, he argues, will come from shifting 15 percent of brand-name prescriptions to generics.) Hence Blahous foresees only $61 billion in drug savings in 2022, even though tough price negotiations would likely achieve threefold higher savings.
Third, Blahous underestimates how much the government is already spending on health care. For instance, he omits the $724 billion that federal agencies are expected to pay for employees’ health benefits over the 10 years covered by his analysis, which would simply be redirected to Medicare for All. He also leaves out the massive savings to state and local governments, which would save nearly $3.6 trillion on employee benefits and another $5.3 trillion on Medicaid and other health programs. Hence, much of the “new money” needed to fund Sanders’s reform is already being collected as taxes.
Yes, there will need to be some new taxes—albeit much less than Blahous estimates. But those new taxes would just replace—not add to—current spending on premiums, co-pays, and deductibles. Additionally, at least some of the new taxes would be virtually invisible. For instance, the $10 trillion that employers would otherwise pay for premiums could instead be collected as payroll taxes. Similarly, Medicare for All would relieve households of the $7.7 trillion they’d pay for premiums and $6.3 trillion in out-of-pocket costs under the current system.
It’s easy to get lost in the weeds here. But at the end of the day, even according to Blahous’s errant projections, Medicare for All would save the average American about $6,000 over a decade. Single payer, in other words, shifts how we pay for health care, but it doesn’t actually increase overall costs—even while providing first-dollar comprehensive coverage to everyone in the nation. The Post’s fact-checker is wrong: Single-payer supporters can and should trumpet this important fact.
Of course, the most important benefits of single payer are altogether invisible in economic analyses like the one performed by Blahous. No matter what injury or illness we faced, we would be forever freed from one great worry: the cost of our care. It’s hard to put a price tag on that kind of freedom. Yet, paradoxically, even the slanted analysis of a libertarian economist provides evidence that it would be fiscally responsible.

Health Care, Immigration, and the Supreme Court

This week America underwent a shock of such magnitude that many believe that this is the end of the experiment begun in 1776, and the United States lost its standing as the “Shining City on a Hill.”

We have witnessed the cruelty of the Trump regime towards innocent children snatched from the arms of their parents, simply because their parents want to escape the violence and oppression of the drug gangs rampant in their home countries.

These parents want not only to secure for their children a life free from being recruited into these gangs, they also want to provide their children with a better life.

And most of them did so according to US immigration law. They presented themselves at legitimate border crossings, and were summarily arrested, had their children separated from them, the children, some as young as a few months old, put in cages, or transferred across the country, and placed in facilities where no press or Congressional observers are allowed to see for themselves, except on special guided tours where they cannot speak to the children.
Recently, a judge in California ordered the regime to re-unite the children with their parents and effectively ended the zero-tolerance policy.

Tomorrow, at 11 am, I, and many others around the nation will take part in a march to protest this cruel and un-American action. The march I will be attending will be held in West Palm Beach and will cross the Intracoastal Waterway by way of a bridge connecting the mainland with Palm Beach island. The march will terminate at Mar-a-Lago, the former home of Marjorie Merriweather Post, heiress to the Post cereal fortune, and that is now owned by the Orangutan.

Why am I writing this, and what does it have to do with health care? And what does the Supreme Court have to do with these other issues?

That is what this post will attempt to address.

To begin with, the immigration issue will have a profound effect on the health care system, as the older Americans get, the more home health and nurses’ aides they are going to need.

Preventing these unfortunate men, women and children, fleeing violence and drug gangs, and civil war and corruption at home, will mean that in the future there will be fewer workers to take these and many other jobs in health care and other industries.

In addition, the so-called “travel ban”, is really a cynical attempt to impose a Muslim ban without calling it one. The Supreme Court weighed in on this move this week, ignoring the racist comments made by the Orangutan, and gave him wide latitude to ban anyone he does not like.

This will have the chilling effect of preventing both medical students and physicians from coming to the US, not only from the countries on the list, but all other Muslim nations. The medical travel industry, also may feel some effect, as providers and facilitators from Gulf states, and other nations in the region, may be prevented from attending conferences and speaking engagements, and Americans who go to the UAE may be given greater scrutiny upon return to the US.

As a grandson of immigrants, this un-constitutional, un-American, and inhumane action by this regime is very disturbing and sickened me when I heard the cries of those children. But, according to recent polling on the issue, 58% of Republicans approved of the separation of children from their parents, while 92% of Democrats disapproved. The CNN poll results are here:

On top of the immigration debacle, and the “travel ban”, there was a third and more devastating blow to American democracy and to the Republic this week. The retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a swing vote on many issues brought before the Court, portends that the Court will be radically altered once a replacement is chosen and confirmed by the Senate.

But unlike the Merritt Garland nomination, Mitch McConnell is vowing to confirm whatever nominee the Orangutan appoints, and the regime promises to appoint a strict Conservative justice. Several commentators have indicated that abortion, LGBTQ rights, and maybe even health care, could be overturned if one more current justice, most probably Ruth Bader Ginsberg, retires or like Scalia, dies in the next two years. She is 85.

Overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal once again, will force women to seek back alley abortions, and will severely impact their health and lives. Also, it is possible that birth control and access to it, may be denied to women, and that will have serious impacts on health care in the future. Some believe that Roe is settled law, but don’t count on them being right. The Religious Right is waiting for the day that women are forced to carry to term pregnancies they don’t want, and then have any neo-natal or post-natal care taken away, so that they and their babies suffer needlessly.

A strict Conservative on the bench also threatens gay marriage and LGBTQ rights, as it was Justice Kennedy who broke with the Conservatives and said that gay people had a constitutional right to marry. It may mean that more cases like the recent Colorado case may be decided in the plaintiff’s favor, albeit without the bias the state Commission showed to religion.

Lastly, health care could face enormous challenges ahead if the makeup of the Court swings radically to the right. The current Court ruled that the ACA was Constitutional, but since the coup of 2016, the GOP has steadily destroyed the law and a radical Supreme Court just might put the last nail in the coffin and deny millions of Americans health care. There is also a health care bill in Congress that will remove many diseases and pre-existing conditions from coverage.

This is especially disturbing to yours truly, as I have one of those pre-existing conditions: ESRD. Right now, I have Medicare only, but who knows what a radical Court may do to that and the other health care programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, etc.

In college, I was taught that the Court generally swings from liberal to conservative, but in my lifetime, it has gone from liberal to conservative, to radically conservative, so that now we may be headed for a judicial, corporate dictatorship where the people have little or no rights, and Corporate and religious interests have all the rights.

The following quote sums up our predicament:

“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Sinclair Lewis

So, what do we do?

Well, the march tomorrow morning is a start. I have been critical of those groups opposed to this regime sitting on their kiesters and doing nothing except marching once a year in January for two straight years in the Women’s Marches. This crisis is bigger than just one demographic group. This fight is for the soul of the nation and for the Republic as a democratic republic. A journalist heard this morning on MSNBC said she went to Minnesota recently when the Orangutan was there, and she said that the cab driver told her that he is a Republican, is against the Orangutan, and cannot speak to friends about him because they believe him 100% and think he is a god.

Great! Now we have a Caucasian version of Kim Jong Un.

We have to work together, because in the words of Pastor Niemoeller:

First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

The Founding Fathers knew something like this would happen, but never thought that the Electoral College, created to prevent this, would actually make it a reality. We are living in scary times.

Have a good weekend everyone, and if I don’t write before Wednesday, have a safe and happy Fourth…it may be our last.

Mad Dog Attacks Public Transport

Tom Lynch of LynchRyan’s Workers’ Comp Insider blog, wrote an article this morning that follows on the heels of my post from yesterday about the Justice Department not defending portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

According to Tom, the GOP finally figured out how to fight the ACA, and he discusses three events beginning with February of last year in which the GOP-led Congress attacked the ACA. The three events are:

February 2017 – tax cut law that zeroed out the penalty for not having insurance.

February 2018 – getting 20 states to sue the federal government and contend that repeal of the penalty obviates the individual mandate making the entirety of the ACA unconstitutional.

And just last month, as I wrote yesterday, got the Justice Department to not defend the government in the suit.

Tom continues to say that if the 20 states win, pre-existing conditions, which the ACA protects, goes out the window. There are about 133 million Americans under the age of 65 who fall into that category. I am one of them.

Insurance companies are not happy either, Tom reports, and the trade association for the health insurance companies, America’s Health Insurance Plans, supports the provision under the ACA, and is quoted thus: “Removing those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019,” according to a statement released by AHIP.

Finally, Tom asks the question — what happens if the 20 states win their suit? His answer, the 1.25 million Americans with Type 1 diabetes are waiting for an answer.

Yet, they and others don’t really have to wait for an answer, because the answer is staring us right in the face, but we refuse to see it, or even acknowledge its presence. Instead, we keep doing the same things over and over again, thinking the free market has the answer.

That is patently not true. A real, comprehensive, universal single payer system or an improved Medicare for All system that does not force those who are ill and don’t have a lot of money to pay for parts of the coverage, either the medical portion, or the 20% not now covered by Medicare, is the answer. Anything less is just a dog chasing a bus, catching that bus, and the dog and bus getting hurt.

On the Job Injury Costs Rising

Turning back to the original subject of this blog, workers’ comp issues, two articles this week discusses two recent reports that examine the issue of workplace safety.

The first article highlights the fact that despite a drop in the number of workplace injuries, the cost of those injuries and illnesses continues to rise, according to the 2018 Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index.

According to the Safety Index, the number of most serious injuries and illnesses fell by 1.5%, yet their cost, including medical and lost-wage payments, rose by 2.9% between the 2017 and 2018 reports.

Total cost of the most disabling work-related injuries was $58.5 billion, with the 10 leading causes accounting for $51.4 billion of the total, the Index reported.

An earlier post in this blog has discussed this issue before.

The top cause of workplace injuries, according to the Index, was overexertion, costing employers $13.7 billion in 2015. Falls on the same level came after that at a cost of $11.2 billion, while falls at a lower level cost another $5.9 billion.

Finally, rounding out the top five causes, were struck by object or equipment at $5.3 billion, and other exertions or bodily reactions at nearly $4.2 billon, the Index reported.

The second article discusses a report issued by the AFL-CIO on making workplaces safer. The report outlines the state of safety and health protections for American workers, and includes state and national information on workplace fatalities, injuries, illnesses, the number and frequency of workplace inspections, penalties, funding, staffing and public employee coverage under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act). It also has information on mine safety and health.

A side note here: On Tuesday, the voters in West Virginia defeated Don Blankenship, the former Chairman and CEO of Massey Energy Company, who was convicted and spent a year in prison for his role in a mine safety disaster, who ran for the Republican nomination for US Senator. Blankenship not only ran a lackluster campaign, but engaged in calling Senate Majority Leader McConnell a few choice names, and attacked his wife and father-in-law because they are Chinese. He chose to use racist language to attack McConnell’s family,

But back to the issue at hand.

In 2016, there were 5,190 workplace deaths due to traumatic injuries, which was an increase over the 4,836 deaths reported in 2015. The rate of fatalities in 2016 also increased from 3.4 per 100,000 in 2015 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2016.

Since Congress enacted the OSH Act, more than 579,000 workers can claim that their lives have been saved. But the article states that too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness or death as a result of chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, and other preventable tragedies. Add to that, workplace violence is increasing.

Key points to consider:

  • An average of 14 workers die because of job injuries; does not include death from occupational diseases, estimated to be 50,000 – 60,000 each year
  • In 2016, nearly 3.7 million workers across all industries, plus state and local governments, had work-related injuries and illnesses; 2.9 million reported by employers in private industry
  • Due to limitations on current reporting system, true toll is estimated to be two or three times greater, or 7.4 – 11.1 million injuries and illnesses a year
  • Cost of these injuries and illnesses estimated at $250 billion to $360 billion

Key takeaways:

  • During eight years of Obama administration, a strong track record on worker safety and health was achieved. Dedicated pro-worker advocates appointed to lead job safety agencies, increase budget for job safety, stepped up enforcement and strengthened workers’ rights, landmark legislation protecting workers from silica and coal dust issued, long-overdue rules on other serious safety and health hazards, including beryllium and confined space entry in construction industry introduced
  • Opposition by business groups and Republican-led Congress thwarted action on a number of initiatives, but at end of eight years, Obama administration put in place protections, policies, and programs that made jobs safer, reduced injuries and illnesses, and saved workers’ lives

Compare that to what the current anti-worker, pro-business fascist regime in Washington is doing to not only roll back the work of the Obama administration, but to undo all the safeguards and protections workers had fought and died for over the past century.

There is even consideration of looking at the child labor laws. Instead of draining the swamp, the head of this regime has nominated a coal industry executive to head the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Folks, this gang of corporate criminals wants to make America great again by not moving forward, but by moving backward. They want to take the country back, alright — right back to the 19th century when businesses did whatever they wanted, workers had no rights, and if you got injured or ill on the job, it was too bad. Or maybe it was your fault. That was the verdict in the civil case against the two owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company, whose factory went up in flames in March 1911, and led to enactment of workers’ compensation laws and fire codes.

And the sad thing is, there are many business professionals who support and defend this regime and its leader, especially on social media sites like LinkedIn. They are not CEOs or Presidents of companies, although some maybe, albeit small ones. They do have executive titles at the managerial, supervisory or vice presidential levels. They are not informed about the struggles workers endured during the last century to gain those rights and protections. And until the labor movement, and the union leadership regains their rightful place as defenders of those rights, these actions will continue until they are gone forever.

 

ACA Gains Reversing

The Commonwealth Fund reported today that the marked gains in health insurance coverage made since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 are beginning to reverse.

This is according to new findings from the latest Commonwealth Fund ACA Tracking Survey.

According to the survey, the coverage declines are likely the result of two major factors:

1) lack of federal legislative actions to improve specific weaknesses in the ACA and

2) actions by the current administration that have exacerbated those weaknesses. These include the administration’s deep cuts in advertising and outreach during the marketplace open-enrollment periods, a shorter open enrollment period, and other actions that collectively may have left people with a general sense of confusion about the status of the law.

Here are the key findings:

*  About 4 million working-age people have lost insurance coverage since 2016
*  The uninsured rates among lower-income adults rose from 20.9 percent in 2016 to 25.7 percent in March 2018
*  The uninsured rate among working-age adults increased to 15.5 percent
*  The uninsured rate among adults in states that did not expand Medicaid rose to 21.9 percent
*  The uninsured rate increased among adults age 35 and older
*  The uninsured rate among adults who identify as Republicans is higher compared to 2016
*  The uninsured rate remains highest in southern states
*  Five percent of insured adults plan to drop insurance because of the individual mandate repeal
What are the policy implications of this reversal?
The absence of bipartisan support for federal action has seen legislative activity shifted to the states.
Broadly, the leaving of policy innovation to states will lead to a patchwork quilt of coverage and access to health care across the country. It will fuel inequity in overall health, productivity, and well-being.
Folks, as I wrote about in What’s Really Wrong With Health Care? and Obamacare: The Last Stage of Neoliberal Health Reform, until we see a change in the consciousness of both the American people, their representatives in Congress, and in Corporate America, especially within the financial industry to radically alter the direction health care is heading, the situation will only get worse.
We need to get the money and the greed and the corporations out of health care altogether. We need a single payer system that does not proletarianize physicians, does not turn health care into a commodity, does not financialize it, commercialize it, and compromise it for the benefit of a few, and to the detriment to the many.
As this is May Day, the international workers’ day, wouldn’t it be nice if we could start moving in that direction, as so many other nations have already done?