By November 22nd 5th Circuit Will Rule On Whether Minority Groups Still Have Health Care - And 'Denial of Care' Rule

The news ( Church & State,  November, p. 6)  that emergency and other medical services may not be available for a number of minority groups in this country did not come as a total surprise.

As an earlier Denver Post piece observed (Sept. 5, p. 6A) )  the prime culprit is the Trump administration's recent imposition of "religious freedom"  edicts embodied in its 'Denial Of Care Rule' for medical providers. Below an excerpt from the piece:



 As I noted in an earlier (Aug. 1) post:

An ambulance driver could refuse to transport a woman with an ectopic pregnancy

- A receptionist could turn an interfaith couple away seeking fertility treatment

- A nurse could withdraw information about HIV treatment

- A paramedic could refuse to help a woman who's fallen in her home because she's Jewish


Each of the above scenarios is possible under the Trump Administration's new 'Denial Of Care Rule', public health advocates warn.   Other potential denials not listed in the piece but fully consistent with a denial policy include:

- A young woman suffering from endometriosis denied artificial contraception meds which could rectify and ameliorate her condition.

- A prostate cancer patient -  say who's an atheist or homeless (or both) - could be deprived of hormone therapies (e.g. via meds, drugs like Lupron, Casodex - which are expensive) and be forced to undergo orchiectomy instead. (Full physical castration).


  According to Americans' United President and CEO Rachel Laser quoted in the August issue of  Church & State,:

"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."

Adding:

"It is clear that women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities are the intended targets, but it doesn't stop there. The rule is so broad that everyone - including sick children, pregnant women and senior citizens - is at risk."


So no surprise the Trumpie maggots would also extend this specious "religious freedom" balderdash to emergency services as well.  The clock is running and whether we enter a nightmare scenario for millions of patients and caregivers will hinge on a ruling by federal judges - which may go into effect on November 22nd.  

As noted in the most recent (Nov.)  issue of Church & State,  "This invites virtually any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, orderlies, and receptionists to deny care to any patient on the basis of the worker's religious or moral beliefs."

The Trumpie scum try to pretend this degenerate rule offers "religious freedom" - but it is a freedom purchased at the expense of others' suffering and denial of access to healthcare- including emergency care that might be life saving.  As the article goes on:

"Anyone can be denied care, even if life-threatening circumstances, because of who they are or what medical care they are seeking: women, LGBTQ people, patients with AIDS or HIV and religious minorities such as atheists".

Let me go on to point out that the threat of loss of funding for non -compliance extends to the health facilities themselves.  Hence, "facilities could feel forced to stop providing certain services like reproductive and LGBTQ-focused care- which is the ultimate goal of Trump and his base of religious extremists".

Why do this? Because they are vermin:  human cockroaches without an ounce of compassion,  genuine moral insight or respect for the nation's Constitution. Indeed, only such a pack of human hyena hybrids would use their religion as a cudgel to "debilitate health systems across the country leaving millions without access to critical health care."

DO they care if these millions of immigrant kids atheists, women or LGBTQ people perish from their untreated conditions?  Well, no, because they are little better than rats and roaches devoid of actual moral centers.  They would have to be to aggressively deny care to millions,  putting them and the larger society at risk, say of an unanticipated outbreak - perhaps of a more virulent  flu strain, or an antibiotic resistant STD.  This is, fortunately, why an alliance of plaintiffs are ready to press and challenge this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. After all, many medical professionals themselves point to the core ethical edict guiding their profession: "First do no harm".

But that edict cannot be followed if critical medical care, say for an AIDS,  flu or dengue fever patient, is denied.

As observed by Naseema Shafi, chief executive officer of Whitman-Walker clinic, quoted in the article:

"The Denial of Care message that healthcare providers cold be legally entitled to refuse or restrict care, based on their personal religious or moral beliefs, flies in the face of the standards and ethics of every health care profession, and would sow confusion and undermine the entire healthcare system."

And that is putting it mildly.  I suspect it could lead to a partial collapse of the health care system because I estimate over 45 million citizens would be affected, many of whom (e.g. seniors, women) already have insurance.  This possibility arose months ago in a WSJ piece,  'Court Signals Peril For Health Law', WSJ,  p. A4, July 10) wherein we learned:
"This is a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage and have deep political implications next year." 

The final verdict will depend on the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans.  It has expressed  "skepticism' that the ACA is constitutional - which will almost certainly send the case before them to the Supreme Court.   In many respects this ought to claim as much attention as the coming impeachment public hearings, given the potential impact on millions.

But will it?  We will have to wait and see if Americans' attention range can extend that far. Already some pundits (MSNBC, Stephanie Ruhle show this a.m.)   insist it may be too much of an 'ask' for most to grasp the case concerning Trump's attempted extortion of the Ukrainian president , Volodymyr Zelensky.   If this is so it means the Reepo rats may be able to get enough of the public to buy into their  specious arguments, i.e. that Trump committed no impeachable offense.  If they can achieve that they may also be able to convince enough people that eviscerating their health care on the basis of  satisfying others'  'religious freedom' is totally constitutional.

That is how far we've possibly descended  into the abyss thanks to three years exposed to the Trump toxic meme (tweet)  factory.

If Trump Gets Another 4 Years: Look For Religious Control Of Your Health Care

Many of the delirious and drowning in denial will insist it can't happen.  But if Trump is re-elected we could see a  Reich wing, religiously- dictated health care system.  Impossible, you say? Not if he can then tilt the Supreme Court even further Right, via a 6-3 or even 7-2 majority.  Then look for a miscast "religious liberty" on steroids.  Try to conceive, my friends, of the Court bending over even further backwards to allow and enable disdain of patients, say beyond providing artificial contraception. (Which is already happening now with push back the ACA rules).   See e.g.

'Little Sisters of the Poor' Need an Education In ... - Brane Space

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/11/little-sisters-of-poor-need-education.html


What would a fully religious health system, implemented with the help of extremist Catholics and Trump's Religious Right allies and fanatics look like? According to the recent article 'Bad Medicine" appearing in Church & State (July-August, p. 9):

- An ambulance driver could refuse to transport a woman with an ectopic pregnancy

- A receptionist could turn an interfaith couple away seeking fertility treatment

- A nurse could withdraw information about HIV treatment

- A paramedic could refuse to help a woman who's fallen in her home because she's Jewish


Each of the above scenarios is possible under the Trump Administration's new 'Denial Of Care Rule', public health advocates warn.   Other potential denials not listed in the piece but fully consistent with a denial policy include:

- A young woman suffering from endometriosis denied artificial contraception meds which could rectify and ameliorate her condition.

- A prostate cancer patient -  say who's an atheist or homeless (or both) - could be deprived of hormone therapies (e.g. via meds, drugs like Lupron, Casodex - which are expensive) and be forced to undergo orchiectomy instead. (Full physical castration).


  According to Americans' United President and CEO Rachel Laser quoted in the piece:

"This is the Trump administration's most dangerous attempt yet to weaponize religious freedom, and we won't stand for it."

Well, I certainly hope not!  BUT if Trump somehow sneaks in again - using the Electoral college- there will be very little anyone can do if he stacks the Supreme Court to issue even more draconian rulings.

So we are clear on the rule's provisions, it "invites any health care worker - including doctors, nurses, paramedics, administrators and even clerical staff- to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral belies."

Adding:

"The vaguely worded rule sets no limits on what constitutes a religious or moral refusal, even in life and death situations".

So technically, such medical staff - if they knew I was an atheist - could deny me life -saving care.  Say if the only hospital I was able to get to was a Catholic one.   Well, what if such a hospital were to thumb its nose at the Trumpie imperialists and deliver care anyway? Well then under the law's provisions, they could lose federal funding.

As Ms. Laser puts it (ibid.):

"It is clear that women, LGBTQ people and religious minorities are the intended targets, but it doesn't stop there. The rule is so broad that everyone - including sick children, pregnant women and senior citizens - is at risk."

Particularly abhorrent is the "conscience rights" aspect of this misbegotten rule.  I.e. if a religious medical provider's "conscience" is upset by the prospect of treating a Jew or atheist, or LGBTQ person, he can rightfully avoid doing so.  As articulated by Lorri L. Jean, CEO of the Los Angeles   LGBT Rights Center (ibid.):

"This so-called conscience rights rule is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to codify discrimination against LGBT people, among others.  It eliminates critical health care protections and puts millions of lives at risk.  Moreover it is a clear violation of civil rights laws.:"

Well, we already know what the Supreme Court did to the Voting Rights Act, don't we? So again, if the Court is stacked even further by Trump that response provides little in the way of comfort. What we do know is that if this outrageous rule is implemented - and again, I'd expect a very good chance if Trump gets re-elected- then it will exacerbate health care access for a wide swatch of citizens, from young women seeking abortions, to LGBTQ folks, to those living with HIV.

Again, people would be wise not to dismiss the consequences, given a number of real life incidents have already been reported.  These would be given full license should the rule become law. For example. (p. 11):

-  A transgender woman who needed an ultrasound for a cancer screening but was denied by a technician who also openly mocked her.

-   A man who called emergency services when he feared he was having a heart attack but the EMS team then refused to transport him and belittled him on learning he was gay.

These are bound to increase exponentially if Trump's Denial Rule" is made the law of the land. Worse, the remnants of Obamacare could be gone at the same time, (E.g. 'Court Signals Peril For Health Law', WSJ,  p. A4, July 10) wherein we learn:

"This is a case that could cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage and have deep political implications next year." 

This is traced to the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans expressing "skepticism' that the ACA is constitutional - which will almost certainly send the case before them to the Supreme Court. Are you confident that the ACA will be upheld with Brett Kavanagh and his sidekick Neil Gorsuch on the Court? I'm not!

Don't wish to see it? Then we have to ensure the reprehensible human rat :

doesn't get a second term!

Dems, you better damned well not blow it!  Voters, you better not either!

The Wall Street Journal's Misplaced Malarkey On The Senate "Health Care Advance"

These days words and meanings are everything, and are often deployed with special aplomb to distort and divert inquiring minds from truth. I've already - in previous posts  - noted many historical examples, such as the substitution of the vanilla term "scandal" for actual, multi-layered conspiracies such as Watergate and Iran -Contra. The effect being to divert the historically purposive mind from political conspiracy to well, something "scandalous" - like the Clinton- Monica Lewinsky nonsense. Thus are events riven with historical and political gravitas reduced to gossip-style, forgettable one offs.

Similar word twisting perversion occurred with using the term "death taxes" for estate taxes, the better to spare the wealthy from having to pay their fair share in a democratic, supposedly fair society.  Now, the latest addition to this sordid verbal jui jitsu involves the terms used for the atrocity known as the Senate health care bill which demolishes Obamacare and has cynically been named the  'Better Care Reconciliation Act. of 2017.'

The Wall Street Journal added to this perversion in its editorial yesterday ('The Senate Health Care Advance') by first using the term "Senate" when only the Reepo contingent pushed it through, and second, calling it "health care" when in it is all about tax cuts, and third, using the word "advance" when it is in fact a major regression for 75 million fellow citizens.

There are other aspects of the WSJ editorial I also want to call into question and criticize from a historical, economic and political perspective. Why? Because getting at the true nature of this misbegotten piece of "legislation" requires doing so, at least to the same degree as when I take care to classify solar flares by their x-ray output.   Hence, I cannot in good faith conflate an X-1 flare with an X-9 event, like the WSJ does with its ACA and Medicaid "facts".  But WSJ editorials are not known for being factual but circulating  Rupert Murdock propaganda.

For example:

"The legislation replaces Obamacare's subsidies with tax credits for people who buy insurance on the individual market"

The use of "tax credits" betrays the true intent of this bill as a tax plan, as opposed to a health care bill. Tax credits are the standard conservo solution to genuine fiscal holes, but are really useless gestures. After all, they do absolutely nothing for people in  serious medical distress, say to be able to afford actual, meaningful tresatments. They are little better than a useless dollop or dressing, and as one mother of an autistic child put it in a TIME essay last year, would barely cover $1200 of her $30,000 yearly needs.  But they do create the illusion of offering something, I mean look at the term "credit",  after all.  But in terms of health care which I already noted increases inexorably, it is subsidies that pay the freight, not "tax credits!"!

And subsidies would more than be the solution if this country pared back its defense spending to half the GDP proportion, say to what it was before 9/11.  After all, a nation that outspends the next 13 together in defense can't possibly be "on the ropes"! Only a moron would believe so.  Hence, as former defense analyst Chuck Spinney once put it, let's cut the defense share of GDP  back to 2.4 % to 2.2 %. THEN we can make room for providing subsidies via the original ACA which, let us be clear, was the reincarnation of an original REPUBLICAN health care law (also known as "Romney Care")

"Medicaid was originally meant for poor women, children and the disabled - which Obamacare opened to able-bodied, working age adults above the poverty level".

This takes no account whatsoever that health care access (and needs) must expand as a population increases and economic legislation alters over time.  Point of fact, the population of the U.S. was about half what it is today at the time (1965) Medicaid came onstream. In addition, the poverty level has barely changed since then, remaining far too  statistically "lowballed" for the very purpose of limiting access to benefits.

Now add in the economic forces of globalization - globalized labor markets (and destruction of the U.S. manufacturing sector), and mass corporate downsizing in the 90s, and the case can be made that the original intended beneficiary base of Medicaid was simply way too meager, too small, by 2000. To put it another way, most lower middle and working class citizens - even with jobs - were in essentially the same economic position as "poor women and children" in the late 1960s.  Of course, it is in the Journal's best propaganda and spin interests not to process this.

To fix ideas,  consider the Denver Post article ('4 in 5 Adults Face Poverty At Some Point In Lives', July 29, 2013).   According to the article:

"Although ethnic and racial minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show.

Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in government data, engulfing more than 76% of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge to be published next year in the Oxford University Press."

The Post article further notes that "measured across all races" the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79% or nearly 4 in 5. Pardon me, but this indicates a nation of rising inequality and the degradation of most citizens in terms of their economic welfare. Above all, it shows the need for vastly expanded medical benefits given the deplorable economic inequality ensures most can't afford the health care they need- so must depend on a decent federal government to provide it.  An "entitlement"? Perhaps, but how else will our people get the medical treatments they need and deserve?

"The Senate waits four years instead of three but pegs the (block) grants to inflation with no adjuster."

As former Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitts observed last night ('Last Word') this translates on average to a state cut of 25 percent per individual beneficiary.  This portends serious losses of benefits for most of a state's population especially given no adjuster. But again, this exposes this sham law for what it is, a tax cut plan for the rich as opposed to providing for the most medically disabled and adversely affected among us. Unless states trapped in a zero sum budget scenario compensate - say by taking funds from roads or preschool-  thousands of state citizens will be left to scramble.  The very Darwinian nature of the Repuke bill is here exposed, pitting one segment of citizen interests (and citizens) against all others. In other words, a return to the law of the jungle but in economic warfare form.

"The Senate includes about $100 billion for a stability fund .....and could be used by creative Governors to support insurance markets in states like Maine and Alaska"

In other  words, the Reep Senate bill creates a slush fund that can be used to bribe state Governors (especially in high premium states)  to cooperate with the for -profit sharks to set up costlier protection rackets - passed off as health insurance. (See William Rivers Pitt's sterling analogy at the end of yesterday's  post.) By use of creative accounting the state Governors can then make it appear health exchanges are really working - as they would be under a properly redone ACA- when they're only on temporary support from the limited slush fund. When the slush fund is exhausted the premiums across the board will shoot through the literal roof.

"The Senate wouldn't allow states to apply to relax the community ratings regulation which limits how much premiums can vary among individuals with different health risks."

In other words, if instead of being a  70 y/o Medicare beneficiary with prostate cancer, I was ten years younger and lived in a high premium state (e.g. AK) , insurers could charge me up to five times more in premiums (say $5,000 a month instead of $1,000) precisely because my health risk would be recognized as greater from being diagnosed with prostate cancer. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the end result of this sort of draconian solution would necessarily see fewer men going in for PSA tests, for the very reason they would wish to escape a possible negative diagnosis with adverse consequences to their insurance premiums.  By the same token we'd likely see fewer people going in for colonoscopies as well as skin exams (which I also recently had - with one suspicious mole removed for biopsy).

"Importantly, the Senate bill also repeals all of Obamacare's tax hikes .....including the 3.8 percent surtax on investment income."

Left unsaid is that it was precisely these tax hikes that helped pay for the individual subsidies for the low income citizens with unmet health care needs.  What the Reeps have done is to basically cut out the tax hikes and gut the subsidies, replacing them with "tax credits". So, whereas before a citizen might have had $20,000 to cover the costs of a prostate cancer treatment he will now be lucky to get a chump change $500 tax credit.  This would barely be enough to cover his pain meds and basic tests, far less any kind of real treatment (say focal cryotherapy) Again, all of this exposes the Senate bill as an outright sham, a tax cut bill NOT a health care bill.  For reference  a person with a $1 million annual income would gain $54,000 each year in tax cuts. Almost enough to buy a new Lexus.

The Journal even confirms this tax cut imperative when the editorial states:

"Some Senators pushed to keep the surtax to avoid the tax cuts for the rich label and spend the revenue on something else."

Too late now, assholes, you're busted! We all know this is a damned tax cuts for the rich   Trojan horse being rolled out like a new health plan.  Only a certified halfwit would believe otherwise.

"It's not too much to say that this is a defining moment for whether the GOP can ever reform runaway entitlements. If Republicans, the next stop is single payer."

Then by all means let us hope they fail and miserably!

To summarize, these are the facts not processed in the WSJ's editorial:

1) There are vastly more poor citizens than rich in the U.S. of A.

2) The medical needs of an expanding population with few resources, income to begin with will always grow exponentially in relation to economic budgets for which yearly predictability is sought.

3) At the same time the costs of those medical needs must always expand, never decrease because medical inflation always exceeds other forms.

4) Therefore, by dint of (1)-  (3) it is budget allocations for genuine health care which must always be given priority in a nation that seeks genuine national security. After all, a sick population can never be a secure one, nor - by extension - can the nation they inhabit.

5) Tax cuts even disguised in a health care bill (so called) can never work and have  been proven not to work. They only increase deficits by cutting revenue and make a country less able to come to terms with its long term liabilities. To use economist Paul Krugman's term, they are a "zombie idea" because the Repukes keep bringing them back even after their efficacy has been disproven.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/73691/it-s-time-for-medicare-for-all

TrumpCare Flops - Will The "Fuhrer's" Tax Code Effort Be Next?

"The Democrats are to blame for Trumpcare going down! The Democrats are to blame! BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!"

Let's admit that if I deliberately give you a 44-stone advantage  playing 'GO',  the onus is on you to win, i.e. surround my men so they've no place to move and do so pretty quickly. No excuses! Given this sort of handicap, if you still lose, then you are the one to blame.  Even with a massive piece (and position) advantage you were not competent enough to marshal your forces to best advantage and instead let victory slip through your fingers.

In like manner, if your political party enjoys a 44-seat advantage in the House of Representatives, the largest in modern history, then the onus is on your party to get its desired piece of legislation passed. It is emphatically NOT on my party to lend you its numbers or support, especially if your legislation is designed to repeal my party's original bill.   If you blame my party because your party failed - though they enjoyed a 44-seat advantage- then you are either an idiot, psychotic, stoned drug addict  or drunk.

But such was the case yesterday after Trump's (aka "Der Fuhrer's")  much ballyhooed "health care" (repeal and replace) of Obamacare came crashing down. After seven long years of vowing to kill Obamacare, and months of Trump's yapping on the campaign trail he'd do it (making it one of his main promises), e.g.

"On my first day in office I am going to ask congress to send me a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. Immediately!"

The supposed vote had to be mercy -killed before it could even commence. Why? Because a quick, informal tally showed it as much as 34 votes short.   No, there were no Dem votes for it, but why should there have been?  As Rep. Joe Kennedy put it last night, to Chris Hayes on MSNBC: "The message from hundreds of thousands of Americans was 'don't do something stupid and vote on a bad bill."  Adding: "Doctors hated this bill, patients hated this bill, nurses hated this bill, hospitals hated this bill and seniors hated this bill, It was a bad piece of legislation"

And, indeed, had any Dems been stupid enough to vote for this misshapen mutation (which killed 10 health care requirements) they'd have paid dearly at the polls in the 2018 midterms.  So anyone with more than air between the ears certainly couldn't have expected them to cooperate to pass an odious bill that hurt far more than it helped. (Actually the only ones it helped were the hyper wealthy because it was actually a tax cut bill to deliver $330b in cuts on the backs of those whose ACA benefits, Medicaid were cut). Further, no sane person could expect Democratic  cooperation to kill a bill they had sacrificed to get through seven years ago! Hell, get real!  But then remember, Trump - now playing the blame game - isn't sane, but a psychotic. So he would say anything to get the monkey of loss off his back.  While President Harry Truman was the first to say "The buck stops here", Trump has now revised that to: "The buck stops with those guys there, not me!"

But what would one expect of a two-bit real estate weasel who built his "empire" on cons, bankruptcies and suspect money from Russian oligarchs.

Add in Sean Spicer's false bravado and optimism that a vote would be held, not to mention Trump's absurd  "ultimatum"  to get the Tea Baggers (Freedom Caucus) on board, and you had all the makings of a grade B drama about to unfold.  Adding to the suspense, an emergency meeting of the House Republican Caucus was called shortly before the scheduled vote. As it was announced, the House went to recess, with Democrats shouting in a taunting manner, “Vote, vote, vote”, daring Republicans to bring the bill up.  Democrats had reason to needle these Reepo miscreants as it was mainly their people - at assorted town hall meetings- who brought the shame on the Repukes as they recounted how their loved ones would be adversely affected by repeal. Did the Repukes care? Hell no!

In a short meeting that ensued, Paul Ryan announced that the bill was being pulled from the floor in a terse statement to members. What ought not have been surprising, as I noted in the previous post, is that the 'pukes ended up playing whackamole tryin to appease the Tea Baggers by adding more and more refuse to their bill. (Namely eliminating ten cornerstones of sound health care, including everything from hospitalizations, ER visits, and maternity care to prescription drugs and mental health services. )

So no wonder a losing wicket emerged with any moderates in swing districts wary of supporting the legislation, which included major cuts to Medicaid. The original bill  was estimated by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to lead to 24 million fewer Americans having health insurance over the next 10 years, and the final mutated, tortured product was even worse. So why in hell would any Dem help provide cover for these termites by adding a 'yea' vote?

The real blame for the loss, if one could be singled out, had to be the 24-odd member Freedom Caucus.  So committed were they to ideological principle and purity that they absolutely refused the opportunity to send the ACA into the annals of history, even after Paul Ryan removed all ten health requirements they asked for. They didn't want a bloody half loaf, by golly, it had to be the whole enchilada or nothing at all. The WSJ Editorial yesterday (p. A14, 'The Freedom From Reality Caucus')  put it this way:

"By insisting on the impossible over the achievable, these self-styled guardians of conservative purity could become the worst friends conservative ideas and free markets have had in decades."

Meanwhile Trump, who bragged endlessly about his ability to make this happen and his deal making, couldn't budge one single Tea Bagger. Not one. This left him bellyaching over issues of "loyalty" in the wake.  SO much for the art of the deal, but as one pundit put it last night:

"This bill isn't some abstraction. It's the entire health insurance market for a nation of 330 million people. You can't just negotiate it like you're doing a development deal in Atlantic City."

But see, with Trump the Reepos had a turkey who (unlike Obama with the ACA) didn't even keep up with the changing content of the bill or what those changes meant for individual congressional districts and their reps. One Goopr Rep even complained to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker:

"We're astonished how in over his head Trump is. He seems to neither get the politics or the policy of this."

But what would one expect of an ignorant, arrogant, psychotic asshole? Especially one with delusions of grandeur and authoritarian narcissism issues that rival those of his Onkel Adolf.

As far as Trump was concerned it was as if he was just dealing with so many below par properties to be fobbed off on gullible suckers.  Trouble was the would be victims weren't gullible, and by the end of the recent recess most of the Reepos knew it. At least those who had the balls to attend their town halls, as opposed to hiding or inventing the lamebrain excuse those gathered were "paid protesters".

Trump's other egregious claim in washing his hands of the bill, is that he would "just let Obamacare explode". Of course, he's on some kind of drug or else losing even more gray matter. There is no "explosion" as the CBO noted in its report. But, there is a danger of erosion of benefits given the Reepos did manage to nix the mandate which paid for the benefits most people value the most, such as for pre-existing conditions and keeping adult kids on parents' plans.

This is why, as Michael Moore warned last night, the Dems can't spend too much time gloating or in jubilation mode. They - we- have to get to work and ensure those provisions are made more secure.  This is especially given the final iteration of the AHCA that almost went for a vote last night was the most extreme form possible eliminating such things as emergency services, hospitalization, pregnancy and newborn care, rehabilitation services, lab services, prescription drugs, outpatient care, pediatric services and preventive services (e.g. colonoscopies, PSA testing etc)

Moore emphasized the nature of the bill on offer was that health insurance wouldn't have to provide the above services even for those with regular health insurance!  That is how sweeping the bill was and how devastating the repercussions would have been if passed: None of the listed service would have had to be covered by insurance companies. (All were put in to sweeten the bill for the Freedom Caucus assholes. )

Moore's solution is that we now need to push for a "Medicare for all"  type of healthcare, similar to what oldsters like me already have, as well as most citizens of the planet. But he isn't unrealistic concerning what would be needed, i.e.the Ds winning next year with veto-proof majorities. A long shot to be  sure, but after Trump's election it was also regarded as a long shot that the ACA would remain in place  after the first year.  Everyone on the R-side, and certainly Trump supporters, expected it to be repealed as per his campaign promise. (But given how his Mexican wall promise also fell down, i.e. getting the Mexicans to pay for the thing and not U.S. taxpayers, we ought not express too much surprise.)

At the very least, Dems need "to fix those parts of Obamacare that cost us votes last year."  Moore also advised the resistance now needs to shift focus from the congress critters to the for profit insurance companies.  So, we need to exert as much political pressure as possible on the money-grubbing bastards.

Trump, ignoramus that he is (apart from being a psycho) actually believes now he can pivot to tax reform and have better success. But I have news for him, he won't. As Rep. Karen Bass (CA) put it last night:

"If Trump thought this was tough wait until he comes to tax reform"

The same issues that divided Reepos with their foolish AHCA will also divide them on the tax reform - why?  Because they again will need the votes of the same Freedom Caucus extremists to get anything through. But, those extremists - as per their performance yesterday - will demand far greater cuts than Ryan will put up, and more centrist Reeps will tolerate.

The WSJ today ('GOP Focus Shifts To Tax Code Revamp', p. A5) also pointed out an overlooked little fact: the healthcare bill was to be the lead-in for the tax code revamp, i.e.:

"Repealing Obamacare would cut spending on health care subsidies and cut $1 trillion in taxes."

With their stupid AHCA bill having bitten the dust, most of the momentum is lost for the tax bill. As a policy strategist for Cornerstone Macro LP quoted in the piece notes:

"Defeat on healthcare is a blow that could make it harder to pass a more ambitious tax plan such as proposed by House Republicans."

Indeed. And because the Reepos are going to use budget reconciliation again (where only a simple majority is needed, so they don't have to depend on Dems) they will have to adhere to the reconciliation rules. Those "forbid any plan from increasing budget deficits beyond the current budget window."

So, not only will Ryan and Trump likely have to contend with the touchy twerp Tea Baggers....errr....'Freedom Caucus', but also the budget hawks. That lot that won't tolerate one more cent added  to the deficit.

If Ryan and Co. expect Dem cooperation for this next round they won't get it. Because the Dems are smart enough to know that any tax bill put out by Ryan & Co. will have "bombs" buried inside. As  Rep. Bass observed: "We must be on our guard because another way for them to come after health care is by cutting the taxes that pay for health care coverage."  In other words, she recognizes a party of rats when she sees it, and also that -  like rats- they will keep coming after the 'cheese' by new and varied avenues if a primary one is denied. Dems can't rest and neither can the resistance movement.

Rep. Bass may also have nailed the basis for the Republican anti-ACA campaign most accurately, noting it was probably "political rhetoric to gin up their base" and "this was really sad because it misled an awful lot of people".     As she further observed, many of the ACA problems in states were self-inflicted, because when given the chance for Medicaid expansion and federal subsidies, they demurred - tossing their citizens into the crapper.

Bass, like Moore, did leave room for the Reeps to "come back to the table" - and maybe even work with Dems to improve Obamacare.  BUT that has to be for an affirmative (not destructive) objective. Dems will never cooperate so long as the mission is to deny healthcare to millions and toss people off what they have, then use the money saved for tax cuts to give the upper 1 percent.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/p-m-carpenter/71804/its-official-donald-trump-is-a-loser


And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/steven-rosenfeld/71803/why-the-republicans-bizarre-and-failed-efforts-to-repeal-obamacare-is-a-major-defeat-for-trump-and

Gutting of EPA Funding Will Have Catastrophic Consequences For Most Americans

Most citizens have already heard or read that Trump said he’ll call for $54 billion in reductions to offset new spending for the Pentagon. Never mind the defense budget has doubled its share of GDP since September, 2001, moat of it on wasteful toys (like the F-35, and "Gerald Ford" aircraft carrier - a $13b monstrosity the Chinese could take out with just one Dongfeng -11 missile) so of little use in an asymmetric warfare scenario.

Now we know how disastrous the carnage will be as the first reports have emerged of the coming cuts to the EPA, as well as other positive national programs like Americorps. (Whose 80,000 education volunteers serve in hundreds of poor urban and rural communities) News reports from The Denver Post two days ago cite deep cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency that could slash the agency’s career staff to 12,000 from 15,000, largely through buyout offers and layoffs. The State Department also could be in line for a big reduction, which some estimates peg at 37 percent..  This magnitude of cutbacks is not merely disastrous, they're catastrophic. For example, the climate change protection allocation for the EPA has now been sliced by 70 percent. Incredibly, the Heartland Institute - behind many denier websites - asserted even that wasn't enough!

All this because mentally challenged Trump insists we need $54b  to "start winning wars", evidently forgetting that we brought the largest war machine ever assembled to confront peasant farmers (Viet Cong) in Vietnam and still lost!  We did so at a cost of over $260 b and 58,000 lives lost over what was really a civil war. We tried to flex our technological advantage in aircraft carriers, tanks, heavy weapons and still lost to peasants. We barged in, refusing to learn the lessons of Dien Bien Phu, where the French also were brought down and shown that military might is little use against a highly determined foe. Of course Trump, a five time draft dodger, likely never even read or processed any of that. He was too busy figuring out ways to screw people out of their money.

Meanwhile, as the Post has observed, the expectation of cuts is nerve-racking to civil servants already shaken by the arrival of several (swamp creature) Cabinet secretaries hostile to their missions, a hiring freeze and pledges by Republicans to upend job protections.  These faithful, hard working civil servants - including EPA scientists - deserve all credit for doing all they can before possibly being shown the door.

One human resources manager in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Pacific Northwest region who spoke on the condition of anonymity (because he was not authorized to speak publicly) said:

"The mission is important, but now it’s just maintaining our jobs. We’re in a holding pattern, and all we get is dribs and drabs and no specifics.  The uncertainty is starting to get mentally draining for people.”

Most federal employees affected are waiting to see whether the news really is as bad as they fear and if so, whether Congress will come to the rescue. Don't hold your breath! For now, they're reading the tea leaves on cable television as they pore over the recommendations of the conservative Heritage Foundation. This is the extremist think tank which the Bannon-led Trumpites are leaning on for guidance. Heritage’s list contains several agencies targeted not just for downsizing but elimination, including one that provides financial assistance to rural businesses, the International Trade Administration, and the Legal Services Corporation.

EPA scientists' biggest concern now is the impact of Trump's executive order targeting the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule, finalized in 2015, that revised  the Clean Water Act to extend federal protection to small and seasonal waterways. These are critical for water supplies in water-scarce regions of the West..  In particular, implementation of Trump's E.O. will not only drain water resources for fracking, but also pollute our remaining water stores with fracked chemicals  - most of them carcinogens, including benzene, xylene, toluene etc.

Trump, demented asshole that he is said the rule has “run amok” and called it “a disaster.” His order is titled “Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism and Economic Growth”  which could be translated to read: "Reversing water quality for all citizens so they get more diseases and can't afford to pay for treatment 'cause we're taking away their ACA".

His E.O. directs EPA administrator Scott Pruitt to review the rule for consistency with goals of economic growth and regulatory certainty and to rescind or revise the rule. EPA officials have said the rule will have the greatest impact in states such as Colorado where protection for small and seasonal water previously was uncertain. In Colorado, 68 percent of streams are seasonal.

Trump's E.O. that enables dumping of coal waster into rivers, will also have terrible health consequences. One need only be reminded of the 2014 Elk River (West Virginia)  chemical spill -  of  the coal cleaner  methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM).)  which caused enormous problems and a massive cleanup effort.

This time there will be no cleanup efforts because Trump doesn't give a crap. So all the millions who stand to be affected ought to brace for the many cancers now ready to be unleashed upon them, including of the pancreas, liver, kidneys, stomach, testes, breast and prostate. According to one of the West Virginia families affected in 2014, they were  informed their water was "so contaminated it was only fit for flushing toilets." 

Alas, when all those cancers, skin diseases, gastro intestinal reactions and others break out, people will no longer have the ACA to help carry the costs of their infirmities. As people will learn to their heartbreak when the GOP presents its "repeal and replace" for the ACA based on tax credits and health savings accounts - soon to be announced.

The Trump bunch, like the Bushies before them, do not grasp the extent to which the quality of the environment - including our water, air and soil, impacts our health.

Grab some consolation as you behold our newly Trump-revamped military. And when you do get that cryptosporidium or cancer of the pancreas, remember the real price you yours have paid for that "advance".

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/george-lakoff/71462/the-public-s-viewpoint-regulations-are-protections

Continuation: How Repukes Plan To Eviscerate Obamacare

New HHS head Tom Price, another architect for the destruction of the ACA.

Another sadistic aspect of the Republican proposal scraps the income-based Obamacare subsidies that help families buy affordable insurance. Instead, Ryan wants to offer a flat subsidy that would be the same whether families earn $500,000 or $50,000. Residents of Minnesota, for example,  would get the same support as residents of Alaska, where premiums on average are three times as high. The subsidies would vary by age to give older people more support, but the Republicans have not said how much more.

Anyone see any similarities to Ryan's "premium support" or voucher plan for Medicare? If so, good for you! You recognize limited "block" allocations for medical funding, similar to the Ryan Medicare vouchers, which may not even cover one fourth of medical costs for even a relatively healthy senior or working class citizen.

And note that last week, the Department of Health and Human Services under Price proposed regulatory changes to the law, one of which allows insurers to reduce benefits and force people to pay higher deductibles on future policies. And to the point concerning the cessation of the individual mandate I noted earlier,  the Internal Revenue Service will no longer require people to answer a question on their tax returns about whether they had insurance the previous year. The question remains on the form, but filers can chose not to answer it.

Under Obamacare, people must buy insurance or pay a penalty enforced by the I.R.S. By backing off, the I.R.S. will encourage people to forgo insurance and take a chance that it will not seek more information or penalize them. When fewer people, especially the young and healthy, buy insurance, overall costs go up, because the people who do sign up tend to need more medical care.

The GOP in its plans has processed this, and therefore opted to do a "replace" using a plan with a double -edged sword. One edge allows pre-existing conditions to be covered but only if the person has been on such a plan for no less than 18 months of continuous coverage. The other edge places the sickest (as well as those with serious pre-existing conditions) in high risk pools. This means they can be charged up to double the cost of those with no serious ailments.

As a matter of record, in the recent past it was found that in more than 30 states that had such high risk pools net losses added up to more than $1.2 billion. That was in 2011, the height of such pools before the ACA took effect. Most of these pools also had lifetime and annual limits on coverage. So, if you got breast or prostate cancer, for example, your coverage might be capped at $25,000 a year whereas you needed at least $50,000 for full tests (e,g. followup biopsies) treatments.  In addition, waiting periods were imposed of up to a year to get even this limited plan.

This is where we are headed with the GOP's "repeal and replace" and why so much rage has been stirred at town hall meetings, which assorted numskulls have blamed on  astroturf" activisim with protestors being "paid". (The recent FAUX News claim is "$1500 a week", prompting Esquire contributor Charlie Pierce to joke, 'Hey, sign me up! I'm available!")

Will Trump voters be as outraged as Dems currently on the ACA, but who stand to be displaced? They should be! And now is the time to strike when their Reepo vipers... errrr reps.... are still on recess so they can be ambushed at town halls and asked what's up. All citizens who stand to be victimized by their chicanery  can reach their representatives and senators and give it to them. Alas, too many lawmakers have cowardly canceled town halls to avoid angry constituents. Never mind, pissed off voters - just by showing up to sn empty hall-  can still send a strong message that Americans want legislation that improves health care and makes it more affordable for everyone, not the opposite. Just stand outside the empty hall with your placards aimed at the vermin cowards, and scream  - and let the optics deteriorate as local TV cameras roll.

No more time for nicey nice, folks, it's time for political combat - given lives and futures are now on the line.  I'm also glad to see that even the usually Spock-like, 'no drama' scientific community is finally getting riled up for more emotional protests, displays - given what Mr. Dump has in store for them, with cuts.

See also: http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/71265/paul-ryan-has-a-plan-to-take-away-insurance-from-tens-of-millions-of-people

How The Repukes Plan To Eviscerate Obamacare

As I wrote in my post from December, 2nd, the way forward to the  demolition of the Affordable Care Act was cleared by the  appointment of Tom Price (R, GA) to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Now, with his nomination secured, the Repukes have their "replace and repeal" deal all but drafted - needing only the legislative cooperation between Paul Ryan's anti- Obamacare gang on the Hill and the Trumpites. 

We also know Price, along with Paul Ryan,  wants to replace Medicare with a "voucher" system where each person gets a small amount per year ($10k is often cited) to buy whatever insurance possible - and to cover all medical incidents, emergencies. If I'd been reduced to such a yearly voucher I'd have had to file for bankruptcy since getting cancer treatment 4 years ago and having gall bladder surgery (which came to $28,000 ) this year.

Meanwhile, many experts as well as independent groups,  have warned of the economic fallout if a $3 trillion total market (involving insurance companies and total stock capitalizations) were to suddenly be eviscerated with no genuine support for the 20 million on the ACA. Already Trump, using an "executive action",  has wiped out the enforcement aspect for the individual mandate. This was by no longer requiring the IRS to monitor or impose annual penalties for those who eschew health insurance.  Without that mandate, certainly enforcement of it, too many will avoid getting any insurance and thus the best aspects cannot be preserved. Those included the one for pre-existing conditions (insurance companies had to accept them), and also enabling adult children to stay on their parents' plans until age 26. Now those goals are no longer feasible, minus the mandate.

We knew, given Dump's bloviations on the campaign trail,  that the ACA would be in danger. Now we know how bad it will be.   In his half-baked policy paper released on Thursday, Ryan trotted out washed-up, recycled ideas (originally proffered in his 2010 'Path to Prosperity'),   for “improving” the country’s health care system..  The problem? His plan would actually make things a thousand times worse.

 For example, Ryan's paper calls for reducing spending on Medicaid, which now provides insurance to more than 74 million poor, disabled and older people. If enacted, many millions of these vulnerable citizens would be cast out of the program. The Republican plan also forces most people who don’t get their health insurance through an employer to pay more by slashing subsidies that the A.C.A now provides. The same proposal also allows families to sock away more money in health savings accounts (HSAs).  This  may sound good in theory, but it won't really help the 4 to 5 million lower class Trump voters whose fate and future now hinges on ACA changes. The reason is that the HSAs would primarily benefit affluent people who can afford to save more.  In other words, you need to have ample disposable income to shell out of pocket for your care, and then you can make effective use of the HSAs. But if you're a Walmart or Burger King worker, that's about as pie in the sky s expecting to win your state lotto just as your health care is demolished.

Price hasn't even entered the picture but we know from his own history and statements that he has a fondness for tax credits and high deductible plans. At the same time no surprise Ryan’s blueprint for repealing and replacing Obamacare offered no estimates of how many people would lose coverage or how much premiums and deductibles would rise for middle-class and poor families. But hey, what are a few niggling missing details?  Those didn't stop the new HHS head Tom Price, - a former Ryan lieutenant in the House - from embracing the Ryan plan. According to BLOTUS Price:  “is all in on this.”

Well, God help all the Trump voters and other poor or unemployed if he is. They will now face steep costs for dealing with everything (in the coming years) from antibiotic resistance, to worm infestations of their brains, to new drinking water threats given that coal companies - thanks to a Trump "executive order" can now dump coal waste into fresh water streams at will.

This will be reminiscent of the 2014 Elk River (West Virginia)  chemical spill -  of  the coal cleaner  methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM).)  which caused enormous problems and a massive cleanup effort.

This time there will be no cleanup efforts because Trump doesn't give a crap. So all the millions who stand to be affected ought to brace for the many cancers now ready to be unleashed upon them, including of the pancreas, liver, kidneys, stomach, testes, breast and prostate. According to one of the West Virginia families affected in 2014, they were  informed their water was "so contaminated it was only fit for flushing toilets." 

Alas, when all those cancers, skin diseases, gastro intestinal reactions and others break out, people will no longer have the ACA to help carry the costs of their infirmities. Thank Mr. Dump!

The Grand Old Party wants to slash spending on Medicaid over all by giving states the option of a "block grant" or a per capita allotment. So here in Colorado, for example, that may mean allocating the state a fixed amount for next year of $100m. That then will have to suffice to cover the needs of some 125,000  citizens, mainly frail elderly, poor, unemployed or under-employed. But if those people normally need some $4,000 a year each for their medical needs, just doing the math discloses the shortfall will be nearly a factor 5 less than needed ($500m vs. $50m).

The current program pays for the health care of everyone who is eligible. During recessions, when the number of people in poverty increases, the government spends more. Without that flexibility built into Medicaid, Congress would have to vote to give states more money when health care costs rise. (Say if there is an outbreak of Avian flu).  But politically, that's in the “impossible dream” category. So most health care experts worry that, over time, states will just cover fewer people and cut benefits. Or, they may make the thresholds for care so low that few qualify: say not earning more than $300 a month - for a family of four.

(Continued)

The Keystone Abomination: Trump Will Learn It's Easier To Sign Some Exec Actions Than To Carry Them Out

"President Trump will live to regret the actions he's taken today"-
Michael Brune, Executive Director, The Sierra Club.

The misfit and stooge occupying the White House, Donald J.Trump, has naturally neglected the difficult parts of the job of chief executive to do showy, signing photo ops.

After all, it's a lot easier to just put pen to paper in front of clicking cameras to fuck people out of their Medicaid benefits, rights to clean water, or reproductive choice - than to man up and to the heavy lifting needed to get this nation back on track. But for Trump, the consummate showman, it's all about carny barking and show.

No surprise then that Trump also has signed a document clearing the way to government approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as well as for another called the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. What he will learn, however, is that millions of citizens are not prepared to just sit by and let those actually manifest - not with a planet that can ill afford any more of that crap coming out of the ground.

Proposed by a Canadian firm (Trans Canada), the Keystone pipeline would carry 800,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands to the Gulf Coast. Republicans and some Democrats argued that the project would create jobs and expand energy resources, while environmentalists said it would encourage a form of oil extraction that produces more gases that warm the planet than normal petroleum

As noted in an earlier blog: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-mckibbens-prediction-of-nightmare.html

Climate scientist Bill McKibben has developed models disclosing mathematical limits showing we have roughly 550 gigatons (gT) left of carbon we can deposit anthropogenically into the atmosphere before earthly Hell is unleashed. That “hell” includes the runaway greenhouse effect, to turn our planet into an endlessly burning pile of ash and refuse. Give a current 30 gT/year deposition rate - and assuming we don't add to it, don't increase its rate - that leaves us roughly 18 years- give or take a fraction, before we end up in a likely runaway greenhouse world. It's a world no one or their offspring would want to inhabit.

McKibben,  as early as 2011, noted the major contributor to push us into this hothouse hell is none other than implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline because of the concentrated carbon it will unleash over years. To remind readers, this pipeline will deliver tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to Gulf Coast refineries for export to an international market. The pipeline would have an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day and would leave a carbon footprint equivalent to building more than seven new coal-fired plants. By the time it reaches full capacity the enhanced carbon deposition will be nearly 3 gT/yr. In other words accelerating the timeline to reach the 550 gT maximum carbon load the planet can bear.

Despite misleading claims of “benefits” by TransCanada, the downsides of this ill-conceived project remain the same and include:

1)  Building a future of dirty energy,  hastening our pace toward an uninhabitable world. The fact is the Keystone XL is a massively detrimental dirty energy project that would open a major export artery for toxic tar sands oil across the U.S. for at least 50 years. In that interval, massive spills and contamination of our water supply (already threatened by fracking) will accelerate cancers and other endemic health problems.

2)  It’s an unnecessary risk. The U.S. itself doesn’t need this crap oil especially since we’ve reduced our oil consumption by nearly two billion barrels per day over the past five years. This stat will continue to improve with the growing number of electric and hybrid cars.

3) Water pollution: A planned Keystone XL pipeline would pass through Nebraska’s Sandhills region, endangering the Ogallala Aquifer, which forms the drinking water for millions as well the water source for one third of American agriculture. In other words, a massive tar sands oil spill could pollute not only the water but crops used for food consumption. During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of water are needed to separate the extracted product, bitumen, from sand, silt, and clay. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. At this rate, tar sands operations use roughly 400 million gallons of water a day. Ninety percent of this polluted water is dumped into large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds, after it’s used. These ponds are home to toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, which has worked its way into neighboring clean water supplies.


4) Higher gas and food prices: TransCanada has admitted one of its goals is to raise oil prices in 12 midwestern U.S. states thereby increasing revenue to the Canadian oil industry by $2b to $4b. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers, who’ve already spent $12.4 b on fuel (in 2009) could see expenses rise to $15b  if the pipeline goes through,  a cost which will surely be passed on to Americans as higher food prices.

5) Increased respiratory disease and cancer: The pollutants released by mining and refining tar sands will incept acid rain, smog and haze as well as other effects associated with lung disease and cancer. The solid or semi-solid waste, embedded in the toxic sludge, will unleash astronomic rates of kidney, breast, colon, pancreatic and liver cancers by the ingestion of the water soiled by the tailing ponds.

6) Climate disaster: Any future tar sands development – say via Keystone XL- will mean “game over” for the planet according to NASA climate scientist James Hanson. I already noted earlier how much extra load of carbon will be added and how it impinges the 550 gT critical threshold.

All of this ought to inspire furious opposition, the same sort as transpired when  Obama had contemplated bringing it forth. The same goes for the Dakota Access pipeline which threatens the water sources on Indian lands and has seen thousands - even Army vets- motivated to protest. That is bound to occur again, as the battle lines have formed thanks to Trump's stodgy, stumpy fingers signing these criminal orders.

Trump has also signed an order that begins to unravel Mr. Obama’s  (ACA) health care program, reversed his policies on abortion and housing and ordered a freeze of any pending regulations left behind by the outgoing administration.  The cumulative effect of these barbaric signings is not difficult to parse and will include: increased cancers from lowered clean water testing and protections, increased incidence of all forms of cancer as well as water-borne diseases like cryptosporidium, much greater medical  burden thereby imposed on citizens who will now face these diseases without medical insurance. This on top of increased frequency of abortions due to less access to birth control.  His climate depredations including signing approval for Keystone XL, will lead to a world no human will be able to inhabit within very few years.

Does Trump give a damn? Nope, only about his poll ratings or whether he really won the popular vote. His ego rules all and he cares not a whit about millions becoming ill or pregnant when they can't afford the costs. As long as he does the bidding of knaves and fools that's all that matters. This is Trump World, and welcome to it.

The Trump team, to promote these pipelines, is pushing the "new jobs" bunkum on the dumb Trumpies who believed the Donald was their deliverance. But not so fast. A 2014 State Dept. review of Keystone showed that nearly all the projected jobs (maximum 42,100 or barely enough to satisfy the needs of a town like Pueblo, CO) nearly all would fill only one position for ONE year. In other words, they'd be gone, as in vamonosed at the end of a year. Big deal, all temp jobs! A grand total of 35 permanent employees would be needed once  the pipeline commences service. This is about half the staff needed for your average mid-level department store. Yeah, the pay will be much better, but the health costs will also be a lot higher - and one wonders if that pay will cover all the pancreatic and liver cancers when they appear. Especially for people who will no longer have the ACA to lean on.

The hype that costs will go down is also bullshit. A study out of Cornell, cited by Hayes, shows that consumers in the Midwest alone could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel if the Keystone is approved.

And we haven't even covered the calamity that can follow from a massive leak that can lead to widespread water contamination.  For more about this, and what can happen see:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/25/487357502/canadian-oil-spill-threatens-drinking-water


In the wake of a potential rupture leading to a crude spill of this tar sands crap,  this is a clarion call for all out protests. These may even necessitate occupying the locations for pipeline construction to prevent enormous environmental transgressions that will undermine citizen well being. Once that water is contaminated  - as the previous link shows - it will be the devil's own job getting it back to its original potable condition.

.