Friday, December 18, 2020

THIRD WORLD USA

A Public Option Won’t Save Us. The Sick and Disabled Need Medicare-for-All

Medicare and Medicaid are rife with complicated formulas for exclusions, exceptions, and limitations. The cruelty that is imposed by the constraints of these programs cannot be overstated.


 Published on Wednesday, December 16, 2020

The most comprehensive and economically efficient solution for the abuses of the for-profit system and safety net programs is, of course, expanded Medicare-For-All.(Photo by Ronen Tivony/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The most comprehensive and economically efficient solution for the abuses 

of the for-profit system and safety net programs is, of course, expanded 

Medicare-For-All.(Photo by Ronen Tivony/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

I have multiple sclerosis. It is a painful, often debilitating, ever-progressing disability and disease with no cure. I don’t have a viable plan for what will surely be a lifetime of extensive healthcare. No one in my situation could. It would be impossible for me to maintain long term care under the for-profit insurance system. Over the last ten years, insurance deductibles have risen 111%, premiums have risen 55%, and workers’ earnings only 27%. I currently work full time to maintain my very expensive employer-based healthcare. When working full time renders me too disabled to continue working full time, I will promptly lose this healthcare.

Medicare and Medicaid are not independent sources of compassionate care, but rather parts of a larger system that condemns the sick and disabled to a life of devastating health and wealth disparities.

The Democratic party and its complicit well and abled voters have determined that the suffering of millions under our healthcare system is part of an acceptable bargain to oust Trump from office. The refrain that we would “push Biden left” on healthcare after the election has quickly pivoted to “It’s time to unify,” “Let’s not dampen enthusiasm,” and “Why are you so angry?” The well and abled have abdicated responsibility to protect the sick and disabled from the brutality of a for-profit healthcare system, while demanding that we vote for a candidate who wants to continue it.

Around 26% of Americans have a disability, 60% of us have a chronic illness, and 100% of us are bound to age if illness or trauma doesn’t kill us first.  The pledge that Joe Biden’s “public option” would provide the medically needy with a healthcare safety net is based on the premise that our safety net programs operate with a degree of benevolence that is separate from the for-profit system. But like our existing safety net programs, Medicare and Medicaid, a public option is far from a panacea for the sick and disabled. Medicare and Medicaid are not independent sources of compassionate care, but rather parts of a larger system that condemns the sick and disabled to a life of devastating health and wealth disparities.

This myth of a benevolent safety net presumes that Medicare provides comprehensive care for age and disability. Yet to be eligible with a disease like MS, I would first need to qualify for social security disability. To qualify for social security disability, I would be required to earn less than $1,260 per month and have “significant limitations in performing basic work” for at least a year. After proving my disability through poverty and a documented history of attempting to do work that causes me too much discomfort to complete, I would have to wait five more months to receive the average $1,258 per month SSDI benefit. Then I would have to wait an additional 24 months to qualify for Medicare. Three-and-half years of waiting for treatment for MS would cause a lifetime of irreversible damage. And this is the best-case scenario. Americans with disabilities are often denied full disability status and have to fight for years to be approved, further delaying Medicare eligibility and essential healthcare. 

Once enrolled, people with progressive diseases like MS have historically been denied therapeutic services for failing to demonstrate “restorative potential” under Medicare definitions. This is an absurd standard, considering that someone with a progressive disease needs consistent therapy just to tread water. A 2013 court settled in favor of protecting people like me from this unjust denial of services, but like so many regulations around disease and disability, it is difficult to enforce. Those who are already exhausted from illness, and are often low-income as a result, rarely have the resources to fight for these services.

Unbelievably, Medicare does not cover any long-term custodial care costs. If my disease and disability required placement in a nursing home, the expense would be my responsibility. Here in Pennsylvania, that’s a staggering average of $9,977 per month for a semi-private room. This would certainly be prohibitive for someone who has to survive on a monthly SSDI payment of $1,258.

The alternative to Medicare is an underfunded, unevenly administered, state-allocated Medicaid program. In Pennsylvania, there are currently 14,647 people waiting for a Medicaid disability waiver to receive services. Pennsylvanians can expect to wait seven years to receive services to navigate communities that are otherwise inaccessible. People with multiple disabilities can receive a waiver and services for only one category of disability. There are no bridge programs to fill these gaps.

A restriction of $16,971 on annual income and a $2,000 cap on assets obligate Medicaid medical assistance recipients to remain very poor in order to receive their healthcare. If I needed skilled nursing care but did not have upwards of $5,000 a month to pay for it, I’d have to “spend down my assets” to qualify for Medicaid approved facilities. This would prevent me from receiving care at home with my family and could prevent me from being placed in a facility anywhere near my home and family. This could also deprive me of the appropriate care for my needs; the care that is necessary to sustain my health and my life.

Medicare and Medicaid are rife with complicated formulas for exclusions, exceptions, and limitations like these. The cruelty that is imposed by the constraints of these programs cannot be overstated.

The inefficiency and inhumanity of Medicare and Medicaid are a by-product of the insatiable appetite of for-profit healthcare. Those who can afford private supplemental Medicare plans receive a higher level of care while the rest of us live out our years rationing medicine and care not included in basic coverage. Intentionally opaque financial agreements between pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical companies determine which drugs are available to Medicaid patients and which they must go without. At every level, our healthcare system has been co-opted by private interests competing for “business”. Medicare and Medicaid, like a potential public option, are merely part of the tiered system of commodified healthcare. The survival of commodified healthcare is dependent on making the most profit with the least overhead; an entire system based on denying vulnerable people the care they need after payment has been made. Its structure requires that the people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid (and a public option) are considered only insofar as they impact profitability. They are on the bottom tier of a Machiavellian cost-benefit analysis, rather than human beings with human needs.

The media is replete with messaging from the for-profit healthcare industry. This messaging affirms the myth of scarcity and feeds the hysteria that those with good health and healthcare must hoard it in the name of "choice." We are inundated with narratives of submissive but happy people living with disease and disability, who are grateful for a life with limitations that the well and abled would never tolerate. As a member of the sick and disabled community, it is horrifying to understand that most Americans have normalized the violence that comes from making a profit off of disease and disability.

The most comprehensive and economically efficient solution for the abuses of the for-profit system and safety net programs is, of course, expanded Medicare-For-All. This has been well documented by any number of high-profile studies (including a study by Yale epidemiologists which determined that Medicare-for-All would save 68,000 lives and $450 billion annually and the most recent CBO analysis that says Medicare-for-All would save $650 billion annually), and by the example that every other industrialized nation on Earth has provided. But meaningful healthcare legislation will require that allies in the well, abled community demand full support and accessibility for all of us. The injustices that the sick and disabled suffer cannot be reconciled with our current shallow politics of decency. To refuse to take responsibility for the pain and marginalization that these programs inflict is a collective and cruel act of ableism.

I have spent the last 7 months trying to regain my strength and mobility after a seriously displaced fracture in my fibula due to neurological weakness. Multiple sclerosis has complicated a difficult recovery. I am at a higher risk for COVID-19, so I have been few places aside from doctor’s appointments and physical therapy since the pandemic began. I’ve had little support from my community and, not surprisingly, from my for-profit health insurance. I’ve accumulated a fair amount of medical debt and a greater amount of pain and stress. I’m grateful for the support and resources that the chronic illness and disability community provides.

The pandemic state has imposed limitations on resources for the well and abled that the sick and disabled are accustomed to. The well and abled could learn a lot about self-sufficiency from the sick and disabled community. But the self-sufficiency and resourcefulness of the sick and disabled are evidence of our strength despite the lack of needed support from the broader community. It is an atrocity that the well and abled haven't demanded the same level of humanity for the sick and disabled that they demand for themselves. The sick and disabled can’t wait for the specter of incrementalism. Casting a vote for the lesser of two evils and doing nothing more is not an act of decency; it is an act of violence. In this moment when everyone understands life with limitations, our well and abled allies must demand an equitable, accessible nation where everyone is cared for.  Our well and abled allies must demand Medicare-For-All.

Maggie Mills

Maggie Mills is an artist and assistant professor of art at Cedar Crest College.

Under Pressure From Climate Activists, World's Largest Insurance Market to Ditch Coal, Tar Sands, and Arctic Projects

"An Insure Our Future welcomed the step but also said that "Lloyd's 2030 deadline is not justified by climate science and the urgent need for action."


Published on
 by
Climate campaigners gathered outside the global headquarters of Lloyd's of London on September 1, 2020. (Photo: Insure Our Future Global/Twitter)

Climate campaigners gathered outside the global headquarters of Lloyd's 

of London on September 1, 2020. (Photo: Insure Our Future Global/Twitter)

Caving to pressure from climate action campaigners, Lloyd's of London, the world's largest insurance market, announced Wednesday that it will no longer cover coal-fired power plants and mines, tar sands, or Arctic energy exploration activities from January 2022 onward, with plans to fully phase out such businesses by 2030.

"Lloyd's needs to prohibits all members of its market from renewing insurance for the Adani Carmichael coal mine, the Trans Mountain tar sand pipeline extension, and other such climate-wrecking projects when they come up for renewal in 2021, not in 2030."
—Flora Rebello Arduini, SumOfUs

Framing the move as "a reversal of its traditional hands-off approach to climate change strategy," Reuters explained that "Lloyd's acts as regulator for around 100 syndicate members, and leaves decisions on underwriting and investment strategy to them."

While welcoming the announcement—along with Llyod's Environmental, Social, and Governance Report 2020—campaigners urged the market to ditch the fossil fuel industry on a more accelerated timeline, given warnings from scientists and world leaders about the necessity of an ambitious and urgent transition to a sustainable economy.

"We welcome Lloyd's new policy of no longer providing new insurance cover for coal-fired power plants, thermal coal mines, oil sands, and new Arctic energy exploration as a step in the right direction," said Lindsay Keenan, European coordinator for Insure Our Future, in a statement. "However, the policy should take effect now, not 2022."

"Additionally, the target date for Lloyd's to phase out existing policies should be January 2021 for companies still developing new coal and tar sand projects," she said. "Lloyd's 2030 deadline is not justified by climate science and the urgent need for action. We will continue to hold Lloyd's accountable until it has met these recommendations."

The new policies came after the Insure Our Future campaign released its fourth annual scorecard on the insurance industry, dirty energy, and the climate emergency—which called out Lloyd's for underwriting and investing in fossil fuels, particularly coal.

Lloyd's chairman Bruce Carnegie-Brown told The Guardian that "we want to align ourselves with the U.N. sustainability development goals and the principles in the Paris [climate] agreement," but also defending the 2030 choice.

"We want to try to support our customers in the transition and we don't want to create cliff edges for them," he said. "Oil is too fundamental an energy supply source for the world today and it would be impossible to get out of that without creating real dislocation to our customers. It's an issue of calibration over time."

Flora Rebello Arduini, senior campaigner consultant for SumOfUs, disagreed.

"Lloyd's needs to prohibits all members of its market from renewing insurance for the Adani Carmichael coal mine, the Trans Mountain tar sand pipeline extension, and other such climate-wrecking projects when they come up for renewal in 2021, not in 2030," she said in a statement.

"The time to act is now," she added. "Lloyd's must set binding market-wide policies that make clear to all stakeholders what can and cannot be done under Lloyd's brand name and credit rating."

Adam McGibbon, U.K. campaigner for Market Forces, said that Lloyd's new report "sends a message to its syndicates that taking on new thermal coal risks, such as the Adani Carmichael coal project, is not supported," while U.S.-based campaigners suggested the policies boost pressure on companies across the Atlantic.

As Elana Sulakshana, energy finance campaigner at Rainforest Action Network, put it: "Lloyd's is sending a message to the U.S. insurance industry that it cannot continue its unchecked support for climate-wrecking projects under the Lloyd's name."

"Building on today's momentum, we will continue pressuring the U.S. insurance industry to match and exceed Lloyd's policies across their entire fossil fuel underwriting and investment portfolios," Sulakshana vowed.

AIG, Liberty Mutual, and other U.S. insurers that operate Lloyd's syndicates will be forced to abide by the new rules for their underwriting.

"The writing is on the wall—coal is becoming increasingly uninsurable," said David Arkush, climate program director at Public Citizen. "Lloyd's announcement makes AIG's and Travelers' refusal to even consider dumping coal even more inexcusable. These companies can talk all they want about sustainability, but until they change their underwriting policies, that talk is meaningless."

As the outgoing Trump administration works to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to fossil fuel extraction, the Gwich'in Steering Committee is urging Lloyd's and insurers to join with dozens of financial institutions, including major U.S. and Canadian banks, in restricting support for Arctic drilling projects.

Lloyd's announcement is "a step in the right direction" but "not enough," said Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee. " As Indigenous Peoples, we are living in ground zero of climate change while fighting to protect our sacred lands and our ways of life. People need to understand that the land, the water, and the animals are what makes us who we are."

"Our human rights have been violated not just by our government but by corporations and people that are not educated on Indigenous issues," she added. "We urge Lloyd's to join AXA and Swiss Re to exclude themselves from any Arctic Refuge energy development or exploration immediately and show the world that they respect the rights of Indigenous peoples whose lives will forever change if drilling is to occur."

Thursday, December 17, 2020

 


Guantánamo Defense Attorney Implores Biden to Stop Cycle of Impunity by Holding Trump Accountable for His Crimes

"The only way to demonstrate that America believes in the rule of law, and to achieve eventual unity, is to hold people accountable," argues Alka Pradhan. "Otherwise, a 'more perfect union' will forever be out of reach."


Published on
 by
Prisoners seen here hooded and shackled at the U.S. Navy prison in the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. (Photo: U.S. Navy/Flickr Creative Commons)

Hooded and shackled detainees at the since-shuttered Camp X-Ray, located 

at the U.S Navy base at Guatanámo Bay, Cuba. (Photo: U.S. Navy/Getty Images)

The Biden administration should avoid perpetuating the culture of impunity at the apex of U.S. leadership that undoubtedly emboldened President Donald Trump to commit human rights crimes both at home and abroad, argues one Guantánamo Bay defense attorney in an op-ed published Thursday by Business Insider

"Take it from someone who knows the corrosive effect of impunity. I represent tortured detainees at Guantánamo Bay, where the US government has perpetrated human rights violations shrouded from public view for nearly 19 years."
—Alka Pradhan, Guantánamo defense lawyer
 

Alka Pradhan, human rights counsel at the Military Commissions Defense Organization at Guantánamo Bay, writes that failure to hold government officials accountable for their criminal policies and actions seriously harms U.S. national security and foreign relations. 

For example, writes Pradhan, "during the Bush administration, our use of torture wrecked our national security by weakening international alliances, degrading military operations, and even contributing to troop deaths (pdf)."

"When he took office in 2009, [Former President Barack] Obama almost immediately declared he was ending the United States' torture program," she notes. "Yet the Obama administration refused to hold anyone from the Bush administration accountable, insisting that 'we're going to look forward, not backward.'"

Not only did Obama break a campaign promise by failing to prosecute any of the Bush administration officials who planned, authorized, and implemented the global CIA and military torture regime, his administration actively shielded them from ever having to face justice for their crimes. Obama's refusal to prosecute officials he knew committed torture-related crimes is itself a war crime under the Convention Against Torture.

While none of the Bush torturers ever faced the "reckoning" Obama promised, his administration did prosecute and imprison whistleblowers John Kiriakou and Chelsea Manning for revealing U.S. torture. As Pradhan notes:

Gina Haspel, who destroyed torture evidence at one of the CIA's black sites, is now director of the CIA. Steven Bybee, who authored Justice Department memoranda permitting the use of torture on detainees, is now a 9th Circuit judge who ruled in favor of government immunity for torture. John Yoo, who infamously championed the president's absolute power to crush the genitals of a child and now teaches at Berkeley Law, recently reappeared to apply his theory of absolute power to President Trump.

All of this, asserts Pradhan, has exacerbated a climate of impunity in which "the Trump administration has flouted the law on a nearly daily basis." She writes:

The administration has created detention camps on the border, initiated illegal family separations that may never be rectified, and allowed police officers to kill Black Americans without consequence or censure. Most recently, the president created a false narrative regarding the election that led to threats of violence against elected officials.

"While these most recent events are shocking, they are also the direct consequences of the lack of government accountability committed under the guise of 'national security' that has been running rampant for decades," writes Pradhan. 

While Pradhan does not mention specific examples here, President Gerald Ford's 1974 pardoning of his immediate predecessor, the Watergate criminal and former President Richard Nixon, as well as former President George H.W. Bush's pardons of several convicted Iran-Contra felons, illustrate her point.  

"When a 'nation of laws' refuses to apply those laws to people in power, the law dissolves into a matter of opinion... Nearly 20 years after 9/11, half the country still approves of torture—one of the most serious international crimes."
—Pradhan

Pradhan says the incoming Biden administration "will have a chance to account for past and present crimes and they need to take it. That means a long and detailed look backwards at how America has evaded responsibility in the name of 'national security.'" 

However, Biden has given no indication that he intends to hold Trump or any members of his administration accountable for their crimes and other misdeeds. To the contrary—and in strikingly similar language to Obama and Ford—Biden transition team insiders recently claimed that the president-elect has said that he "just wants to move on." And as Pradhan notes, "Biden is even considering the nomination of Mike Morell, a torture apologist, to the CIA."

"It seems that the country has learned no lessons," she laments. 

"Take it from someone who knows the corrosive effect of impunity," writes Pradhan. "I represent tortured detainees at Guantánamo Bay, where the U.S. government has perpetrated human rights violations shrouded from public view for nearly 19 years."

Pradhan warns:

When a "nation of laws" refuses to apply those laws to people in power, the law dissolves into a matter of opinion. Our leaders try to avoid assigning accountability so assiduously that they twist themselves into knots trying to create suitable euphemisms for heinous acts. That's how we got "enhanced interrogation" instead of torture; "racially tinged" instead of "racist"; and "border security" out of illegally separating families and traumatizing their children...

Nearly 20 years after 9/11, half the country still approves of torture—one of the most serious international crimes. The illegal indefinite detention of brown-skinned men at Guantánamo Bay barely elicits a shrug from most members of Congress, despite the continued condemnation of our allies. This culture of impunity has never been so dangerous.

"The only way to demonstrate that America believes in the rule of law, and to achieve eventual unity, is to hold people accountable," concludes Pradhan, "whether by investigations, truth commissions, or prosecutions. Otherwise, a 'more perfect union' will forever be out of reach."

The Endless War to Preserve American Primacy

Unable to achieve victory abroad, the United States has been battered by an accumulation of crises at home. The two are related.


 Published on

by
Demonstrators march during an anti-war protest October 25, 2003 in Washington, DC. Thousands of demonstrators called for the end of U.S. military action in Iraq and to bring the troops home. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Demonstrators march during an anti-war protest October 25, 2003 in Washington, DC. 

Thousands of demonstrators called for the end of U.S. military action in Iraq 

and to bring the troops home. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

For nearly two decades now, the United States has been waging a war to preserve American primacy. That’s not the official name, of course, but that describes the war’s actual, if unacknowledged, purpose. Much depends on how the incoming Biden administration appraises thewar’s prospects. The fate of his presidency may well turn on Biden’s willingness to expedite the war’s long overdue termination.

During the heady days following the collapse of communism, American political elites had delighted in preening about the singular status of the United States as sole superpower and indispensable nation. That the United States was history’s locomotive, with the rest of humankind dutifully trailing behind in the caboose, was taken as given. During the 1990s, the way ahead appeared clear.

When the terrorist attacks of 9/11 blew a hole in claims of American primacy, President George W. Bush immediately opted for war as the means to revive them. Pursued ever since in various venues and employing varied approaches, the subsequent military effort has met with little success.

As early as 2009, when President Barack Obama inherited the war to preserve American primacy, it had become apparent that the United States lacked the wherewithal to fulfill Bush’s ambitious Freedom Agenda, which he described as “the spread of freedom as the great alternative to the terrorists’ ideology of hatred.” But calling off the war and thereby abandoning the conceit of America as sole superpower required more political courage than Obama was able to muster. So the war dragged on.

In 2016, denouncing the entire effort as misguided helped Donald Trump win the presidency. Yet far from terminating the war once in office, Trump merely rendered it inexplicable. Trump had promised to put “America First.” Instead, his erratic behavior gave the world “America the Capricious.” All but rudderless, the war proceeded of its own accord.

Just weeks from now, President-elect Joe Biden will become the fourth engineer to put his hand on the throttle with expectations of getting history back on track. From the day he takes office, Biden will confront a host of pressing challenges. Let me suggest that ending the war to preserve American primacy should figure as a priority.

Reduced to its essentials, the choice at hand is stark: Either restore some overarching sense of purpose to continuing US military efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other active theaters of war throughout the Middle East and Africa; or admit failure and bring the troops home.

There is today no chance that the war to preserve American primacy will achieve any of the myriad objectives offered up since 2001 to justify its perpetuation.

To put it another way: Either persuade Americans that the war to preserve American primacy is enhancing the nation’s standing on the global stage and should continue; or cut our losses and concede that the United States is no longer the engine of history.

Initial signs suggest that Biden will finesse the issue. While promising to “end the forever wars, which have cost the United States untold blood and treasure,” he will instead redefine the mission. Relying on air strikes, special operations troops, and American advisers working with local forces, he will continue the fight against Al Qaeda and ISIS, with strategy thereby taking a back seat to political expediency.

In effect, Biden will probably pursue a policy of evasion, unwilling to reckon with what two decades’ worth of military failures, frustrations, and apparent successes that turn out to be illusory actually signify. Yet while evasion may delay, it cannot avert such a reckoning. In the end, the truth will out. The only question is how much more Americans will be obliged to pay.

The truth is that far from shoring up American primacy, the war to preserve American primacyhas accelerated American decline. Unable to achieve victory abroad, despite the prodigious expenditure of resources, the United States has been battered by an accumulation of crises at home. The two are related.

As the war has dragged on, preexisting divisions within American society have deepened. Endemic racism, economic inequality, political dysfunction, the alienation that has emerged as a signature of late modernity: None of these qualify as recent phenomena. Yet as long as fantasies of the United States serving as history’s designated agent persist, so too do illusions that the muscular assertion of American global leadership will ultimately put things rights.

There is today no chance that the war to preserve American primacy will achieve any of the myriad objectives offered up since 2001 to justify its perpetuation. Acknowledging that fact is a prerequisite to repairing all that is broken in our country. The sooner the work of repair begins the better.

When it comes to initiating wars, post-Cold War American leaders have displayed remarkable audacity, throwing prudence out the window. When it comes to ending wars, however, caution kicks in. Ending them “responsibly” becomes a rationale for inaction.

Yet ours is a moment that calls for audacity in terminating wars that are both needless and futile, and for boldness in repairing the damage that the United States has endured in recent years. Whether Joe Biden possesses the requisite audacity and boldness to chart a new course remains to be seen.

 

 

 

Andrew Bacevich

Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University,  is the author of "America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History" (2017). He is also editor of the book, "The Short American Century" (2012), and author of several others, including:  "Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country" (2014, American Empire Project); "Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War" (2011),  "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" (2013), "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism" (2009, American Empire Project), and "The Long War: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since World War II" (2009).