Congress Let Children Lose Their Health Insurance – Where’s The Outrage?

CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program) – also called S-CHIP – is a program that helped provide insurance for children in middle-class families that can’t afford health insurance.  According to the US Government, “[t]he Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) is a partnership between the federal and state governments that provides low-cost health coverage to children in families that earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid. In some states, CHIP covers pregnant women. Each state offers CHIP coverage, and works closely with its state Medicaid program. CHIP benefits are different in each state. But all states provide comprehensive coverage, like routine check-ups, immunizations, doctor visits, and prescriptions” (https://www.benefits.gov/benefits/benefit-details/607).

This program has existed since 1997 and, while the program is authorized through 2019, the funding ran out on September 30, 2017.  According to Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-chip-reauthorization-childrens-health-insurance-2017-9) Senators Orrin Hatch (R) and Ron Wyden (D) had a bill to fund the program for 5 years, but it was not moved forward.  Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say that they think it will and should be re-authorized, but it still hasn’t been done.  And it is projected that “[t]en states, primarily in the western United States, are projected to run out of CHIP funds in the next two months, according to CCF [Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University] and the Kaiser Family Foundation” (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/congress-moves-toward-funding-childrens-health-insurance-program.html).

I have read and seen coverage of what lawmakers are saying about the CHIP program, but haven’t found anything coming from the White House.  Furthermore, “[a]s a Georgia state legislator, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price voted twice, in 2007 and 2008, against expanding CHIP in his state to cover millions more kids” (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-childrens-health-20170515-story.html).  Also, I have read that the President’s health care plans were proposing cutting up to 20% of the CHIP budget.

President Trump claimed he wanted to cover everyone and give them better and cheaper health insurance.  Yet, the CHIP program has expired and almost a month later nothing has been done to fix it, even as states are moving closer and closer to running out of money for the program.

Why this matters to me and should to you to:

I don’t have kids.  I don’t have nieces and nephews.  I have no personal, familial investment in children’s health care.  And yet, it matters to me.  I don’t want to add children to the list of those who die or live with poor health because of a lack of, or inadequate, health care.  People die if they can’t afford to treat medical issues until it is too late.  Children are some of the most vulnerable amongst us, and it is our duty as a functional society to see that everyone receives adequate care.  I am worried about overpopulation as exacerbating climate change, but I don’t think we should be letting people die to solve the problem.  Ghandi said, “The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/877037).  There are issues with Ghandi, but on this he was right.  I don’t know how we can view ourselves as a minimally decent society, let alone a great society, if we allow children to suffer and die because of a lack of health insurance.

General Kelly Is Part of the Administration That Is Helping To Destroy What He Thinks Should Be Sacred

On 10/19/17 General John Kelly, President Trump’s second Chief of Staff, went to the podium in the White House Briefing Room and attempted to defend his boss’ call to a gold star widow.  The first comments I heard about the speech were all about Kelly’s description of what happens to our troops’ bodies when they are killed overseas and about when his own son died.  I have to agree that those were poignant and powerful comments.  However, it is the rest of what Kelly said that has stayed in the news, and rightfully so.

Lawrence O’Donnell on his MSNBC show “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell” had an amazing response.  The entire first segment of his show was about Kelly’s response and touched on the phrase Kelly used – empty barrel – and its racist history in Boston, where both O’Donnell and Kelly grew up.  I had never heard the expression before and did not know its racist connotations for someone from that area.  I cannot come close to O’Donnell in that or other parts of his refutation of Kelly.  I highly recommend watching it – (see it here – http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/lawrence-stunned-by-john-kelly-s-attack-on-rep-wilson-1077490243772 or on YouTube).

I believe it was also on that show where Ana Marie Cox, blogger and columnist – recently for The New York Times Magazine, commented that holding women sacred would be a step backward.  Indeed, it seems to me that Kelly is interested in having things the way they were, or the way he and so many others seem to think they were, back in the 50s.

Kelly spoke about things he thinks used to be sacred when he was growing up (he was born in 1950) that he thinks aren’t anymore.  He listed women, the “dignity of life,” religion, and Gold Star families.  Given who he works for, I find it remarkable that he can claim to want any of those things to be considered sacred.

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than a dozen women, has repeatedly denigrated women who don’t meet his standards for what their physical beauty should be, and boasted about getting away with sexual assault and then claiming it was only locker talk.

Trump didn’t even get the name of 2^nd Corinthians correct (saying “two Corinthians”) when claiming it was one of his favorite Bible verses.  I haven’t been in a church for a religious service since I was confirmed, except for a few funerals and one Sunday when a foreign exchange student staying with us while I was in High School wanted to go, and even I knew it was incorrect when I heard him say it.

Working for Trump and referring to the dignity of anything seems very hypocritical to me.  Trump seems to revel in being undignified and dragging everyone else around him down in the gutter too.

As far as Gold Star families, this is what the speech was supposed to be about.  Kelly noted that Gold Star families were sacred but said that “I think that left in the convention over the summer” (https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-kelly-implies-america-doesnt-respect-sacred-women-anymore-in-press-briefing).  What came to my mind when I first heard that comment were Trump’s attacks on the Khan family (if you haven’t seen it Google Khizr Kahn – his DNC convention speech was worth watching as well as much of what followed from the Khan family in response to Trump’s attacks on them).  However, I heard someone suggest that it was Mr. Khan’s speech and not Trump’s reaction to it that Kelly was probably referring to.  However, at this point Trump has attacked the Khan family and is now claiming that a Congresswoman is lying about what he said on his phone call to a Gold Star family.  Kelly didn’t refute what the Congresswoman said, he just attacked her (what was that about women being sacred?).  The Congresswoman’s account has been confirmed by the dead soldier’s family.  Trump reportedly told the 6-month pregnant widow that her husband “knew what he was signing up for.”  Soldiers don’t sign up to die.  They know that might happen in the defense of their country, but they don’t sign up to die.  Causing more pain to a Gold Star widow and family is hardly holding them sacred.

Why this matters to me and should to you too:

Trump has repeatedly thrown out norms and gloried in doing so.  Some of those norms involve our troops, Gold Star families, and POWs.  Trump is the Commander in Chief of our military and I can’t see how he can do that part of being President effectively if he can be so wrong in his handling of issues around the military.  Will he care about getting back POWs since he doesn’t think they are war heroes (although Senator John McCain being a war hero was about how he conducted himself as a POW and not the fact that he was one – something Trump doesn’t get or understand)?  He apparently thinks soldiers sign up to die.  Can he see the military as people he is responsible to if he thinks that is what they “signed up for”?  Given the situation with North Korea, and what could happen with Iran if we truly and completely back out of the nuclear deal, do we really trust Trump with the military of the United States, not to mention our nuclear arsenal?  It is said that there are people [the Chief of Staff and Secretary of Defense – according to Gabe Sherman in Vanity Fair] who have discussed what to do if Trump tries to use the nuclear football (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/donald-trump-is-unraveling-white-house-advisers).  Is this really who we should have and trust as Commander in Chief of our military?

Evan Siegfried 10/01/17

On 10/01/17 on AM Joy there was a discussion about President Donald Trump and Puerto Rico. Evan Siegfried, Republican Strategist, author of the book GOP GPS, and political commentator who appears on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, gave an answer that was more like a monolog/soliloquy, which I think needs to be shared. I was originally going to use it in one of my posts. However, I think it deserves to stand on its own, and I want to share it with you.
“Yes, they are a little bit scared of blowback from the base, gut let’s look at what’s going on here. What is happening in Puerto Rico and with the President’s disgusting Tweet attacking the mayor of San Juan yesterday, it’s a symptom of a larger overall problem. The President is isolated, impotent, and has an overblown sense of grievance and this is extending to everything. He feels he needs to be getting credit for things he shouldn’t be getting credit for, because he has very few accomplishments. He’s becoming isolated in that Congressional Republicans largely ignore him and just don’t even talk about him or honor his requests from the White House. He has no real legislative track record. He has only executive orders to show for what he’s done as a President and he’s got a further divided nation. At the same time, when we look at what he was saying yesterday, it sounds like a Valley girl, ‘Oh my God, they’re ingrates. I mean, why don’t they appreciate me? There’s just this conspiracy.’ We have a high school girl as President of the United States essentially, who’s trying to make it about him and his ego as opposed to the fact that 55% of people in Puerto Rico don’t have drinkable water, 90% don’t have cell service, and only 5% have electric power. The White House did drop the ball in the second week on Puerto Rico and the optics are very bad and deservedly so, but it’s now all about how people don’t appreciate the very great things that are going on there.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/gop-strategist-compares-trump-to-an-emotional-teenager-we-have-a-high-school-girl-as-president/ – Evan Siegfried begins at ~3:08 on the video, but the whole thing deserves to be listened to, because the speaker before him is good, too (another Republican).

For Those Who Doubt Climate Change

I believe not just that climate change is happening, but that it is caused, to a large degree, by human activity. There are those who deny climate change and even more who will say that the climate is changing, but that we aren’t capable of having any impact on it. I want to refute that. There are many studies that clearly demonstrate that climate change is happening and that we are causing it, but here I want to give you a few bullet points to make the point that climate change is happening and we are causing it.
• There is a hurricane headed for Ireland. While this isn’t entirely unprecedented, it is quite rare, and “[a]ccording to University of Miami hurricane expert Brian McNoldy, the last time ten consecutive storms became a hurricane was 1893” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/10/12/you-are-not-hallucinating-a-hurricane-is-headed-to-ireland/#511bf5dbf9b4).

• There are currently just under 7.6 billion people on the planet today (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/) – watching the counters tick up on this site is more than a bit unnerving to me. To make room for all of these people, we need to pave over land to make homes, work places, etc. and provide them with fresh water and food.

• According to National Geographic: “Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths half the size of England are lost each year.” Also, they project that all of the rainforests could be gone in 100 years, if we keep up the current rate of deforestation (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/).  Furthermore, “[a]ccording to the World Resources Institute, more than 80 percent of the Earth’s natural forests already have been destroyed” (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html).

If you don’t believe we can affect the climate, all you have to do is look at how we have affected the planet. Have you seen images of our planet at night from space? You can see all the lights from cities and towns. The Great Wall of China can be seen from space. If we could build a structure where “[t]he best-known and best-preserved section of the Great Wall was built in the 14th through 17th centuries A.D…” (http://www.history.com/topics/great-wall-of-china), how can we not believe that we are able to affect the planet? Yes, there are other forces at work too, but they have been here longer than we have, and the changes are definitely accelerating and many are happening now.
We rely on plants not just for oxygen, but also to absorb (“breath”) carbon dioxide and take it out of the atmosphere. Do we really not think that massive deforestation will result in more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – and that by cutting down the trees we are exacerbating the problem of what we are already dumping into the atmosphere?
Beyond that, what do you think happens to the carbon dioxide the plants have absorbed once we cut down and process (for lumber or clearing land for development) trees and other plants? I have heard that it gets released back into the atmosphere. So, deforestation is removing plants that absorb carbon dioxide and releasing, at least some of, the carbon dioxide they have absorbed back into the atmosphere.

Why this matters to me and should to you too:

I have no children.  I could go through life not caring about the future of our planet, but I love animals and want there to be birds and polar bears and elephants and all the other animals still around when I am gone. For others, you would think they would want to preserve the planet for their children or because, according to many religion (and plain common sense), we are supposed to be good stewards of the planet (and not owners who trash or demolish the place). There are those who think we may be able to just move on to another planet (maybe even Mars), but where does that leave the animals? I don’t think if we destroy the planet that we would be taking a lot of the animals along with us (for those who don’t care about animals – so much for steak).
I can see what is happening to the planet, but until the problem is admitted, nothing on the scale required for long term change in the negative direction things are going can happen. We need those in power, and those who put and keep them in power, to realize that this is something that is happening, is to some degree (and probably not a small degree) our fault, there are things we can do about it, and we need to do something about it before it is too late . . . or to slow it down, at least, if it is already too late to really save everything, like polar bears and elephants and other species which are at serious risk of extinction already. And as for the argument that it is too costly – what good is a great economy without a livable planet?