Category: What’s Up!

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into law, the Affordable Care Act, referred to by many as ObamaCare, putting in place comprehensive reforms that improve access to affordable health coverage for everyone and protect consumers from abusive insurance company practices.  For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes they will see under ObamaCare are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar they spend on health care.  If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law.  For the uninsured or those who don’t get their coverage through work, a key component of ObamaCare takes effect on October 1, 2013, when the new Health Insurance Marketplace opens for business, allowing millions of Americans to comparison shop for a variety of quality, affordable plans that best meet their health care needs.

For much too long, many Americans paid the price for policies that handed free rein to insurance companies.  ObamaCAre gives hard-working families the security they deserve.  Because of ObamaCare, 3.1 million more young adults have health insurance on their parent’s plan, three million seniors have received a 50 percent discount on their prescription drugs, and millions of Americans now have access to no-cost preventive services to help them stay healthy.  Abusive insurance practices are becoming a thing of the past.  Additionally, ObamaCare helps small businesses with the cost of providing health insurance for their employees and helps doctors and other health providers care for their patients more effectively.

The goal of ObamaCare is to provide affordable health insurance for all US citizens and to reduce the growth in health care spending.  It does not replace private insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid as some wants us to believe.  ObamaCare, among other things, gives 47 million women access to preventative health services and makes it illegal to charge women different rates than men.  In addition, it gives seniors access to cheaper drugs, free preventive care, reforms Medicare Advantage, and closes the Medicare Part D donut hole.  The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) agrees, costs won’t rise because of ObamaCare.  If anything, the improvements to the system will decrease the average cost of health care for seniors.

Despite the many benefits of ObamaCare, the radical right including many House and Senate Republicans, continue to mass orchestrated lies and fabrications about this most important legislation.  House and some Senate Republicans are launching a fresh attack on ObamaCare claiming that the Internal Revenue Service cannot be trusted to implement it.  They claim that the agency is unable to fairly oversee provisions of ObamaCare for which it is responsible, such as providing tax credits for the new insurance marketplaces. “As if Americans didn’t have enough reason to fear the IRS, we now know that it is in no position to implement the 47 new powers and authority given to it under the healthcare law,” House Ways and Means Chairman Republican Dave Camp said in recent hearing.  “In fact, it is likely that Americans will be at even greater risk of having their identity stolen or private taxpayer information leaked as result of the law, “Camp said.  “The law is becoming increasingly unfair, unworkable and untenable,” he added.

Danny Werfel, the acting head of the IRS, informed Camp and other lawmakers at this same hearing that officials are taking every precaution to make sure that individuals’ personal information is protected when the agency works to confirm that people qualify for the new healthcare tax credits.  “There are all kinds of safeguards and procedures that we put in place when we share taxpayer information outside of the IRS,” Werfel said.

IRS already shares information about taxpayers with other federal agencies to confirm information for programs such as Medicaid, Werfel said.  Though they are not perfect, Werfel said, those protections have “historically proven effective…in mitigating the risk of any taxpayer information being used or accessed for unauthorized purposes.”

Democrats rejected the Republican complaints saying that the information the IRS shares will be purely to tell whether or not applicants for assistance qualify for tax credits, not personal medical data.  “They won’t have anything about anybody’s ingrown toenails in this report,” Democrat Jim McDermott said.  He added that Republicans were engaging in “a desperate, 11th hour attempt to stop a law that will help Americans.”

Republicans also attacked the Obama Administration for delaying a provision of ObamaCare that would require businesses with 50 or more full-time workers to provide healthcare.  “Is it fair that businesses–big businesses–are off the hook while the average taxpayer is going to be required to buy federally defined acceptable coverage through the individual mandate?” Camp asked.  Werfel responded that the decision was made to accommodate business concerns.  “The employers and the business community reached out, indicated a need for more time, and there was a balancing decision made that we should provide them that more time,” he said.

Why is it that the Republican Members of Congress are so against government sponsored healthcare for all Americans, yet every one of them has government sponsored healthcare, a benefit for all Federal workers?  Republicans have never offered an alternative health plan.  With their consistent unprecedented attacks on ObamaCare, voting to repeal its provisions 40 times in the House, are they implying that 31 million Americans should not be given the same access to quality health care as they enjoy? 

Fueled by Congressional Republican lies, myths and fabrications as well as those from the radical right including Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox and Friends and others, in between calling for the President’s impeachment, angry white Americans have expressed their outrage over ObamaCare at recent Republican Town Hall meetings.  It is unfortunate that these citizens have been fed so many lies and myths about ObamaCare that they have apparently overlooked how this law will benefit them and their families.  We can all have our own opinions but not our own facts.

Here are a few of the right-wing lies and myths about ObamaCare and the facts:

·         ObamaCare will use tax dollars to fund abortions.  Fact:  ObamaCare maintains the status quo of no federal funding for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the women is endangered.  A federal judge recently wrote, “the express language of the [Affordable Care Act] does not provide for taxpayer funded abortion.  That is a fact and it is clear on its face.”

·         ObamaCare will increase the cost of prescription drugs for seniors.  Fact:  More than 5.1 million people on Medicare have saved over $3.1 billion on prescription drugs, including a one-time $250 rebate check to seniors who fell into the prescription coverage gap or “donut hole” in 2010, and a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs worth an average of $604 per person in 2011.

·         ObamaCare will lead to a government takeover of health care.  Fact:  One independent group actually called this myth the “lie of the year.”  ObamaCare puts people, not health insurance companies or government, in charge of health care.  The new law strengthens the existing employer-based health insurance market while making the market fair for consumers by implementing landmark consumer protections.  Families and individuals that don’t have access to affordable coverage can receive tax credits to help them purchase coverage in the private health insurance market.  There is no government-sponsored, public or “single payer” plan in the law. 

·         ObamaCare will increase the cost of health care.  Fact:  The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this legislation have said that every possible mechanism to reduce health care costs is being pursued.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years.  And a family of four would save as much as $2,300 on their premiums in 2014 compared to what they would have paid without reform.

·         Businesses will suffer under health care reform.  Fact:  ObamaCare lowers cost for American businesses–especially small businesses–who are struggling to remain profitable and competitive under the status quo.  The independent CBO confirmed that the bill would lower health insurance premiums for the same insurance plan by up to 4 percent for small businesses and 3 percent for large businesses, and estimates indicate that reform could save businesses $2,000 per person in health costs.

·         ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  Fact:  On June 28, 2012, the U. S. Supreme Court held that ObamaCare is constitutional. 

CONTINUED IN PART II

In an impromptu moment at the White House Press Briefing on July 19, 2013, the President weighed-in on the Zimmerman verdict and acknowledged the racial divide.  “The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws,” he said. “And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.”  

Following the President’s comments, Fox News commentators and other right-wing radicals uniformly raised the question, should the African American community be focusing on “black on black crime” instead of on Zimmerman? This same group who made the claim that President Obama injected race in the discussion of the Trayvon Martin killing are the same ones that are now making the claim that the media is ignoring the issue of “black on black” crime. Although 94% of black victims were killed by Black offenders, 86% of white victims were killed by White offenders.  As a general rule, offenders commit crimes within their own neighborhoods.  It is interesting to note that males born in 2001 have the following chance of spending time in prison at some point in his life: 32% Black; 17% Hispanic; and only 6% White.  There should not be such disparity in an affluent nation as America. 

Although the Right Wing component of the conservative base blamed President Obama and some liberal organizations with injecting race into the Zimmerman discussion, the racism rhetoric was actually stoked by conservative media especially Fox News.  You may recall that Fox News commentators and their allies predicted, among other things, that there would be riots following the Zimmerman decision.  Of course, the talk of violence originated long before the verdict with some conservative commentators who said riots should be blamed on liberals who distorted facts to make Zimmerman look guilty. “Media’s dishonest motives in Trayvon Martin case could end in riots,” read one headline on Glenn Beck’s website.

Speculation intensified when news broke that Florida police were preparing for possible unrest following the Zimmerman verdict.  These same conservative pundits highlighted dozens of tweets from average citizens threatening violence if Zimmerman was acquitted.  Reminders circulated about a handful of “this is for Trayvon” assaults by black people when the case first gained national notice.  “I fully expect organized race rioting to begin in every major city to dwarf the Rodney King and the Martin Luther King riots,” wrote former police officer Paul Huebl. “If you live in a large city be prepared to evacuate or put up a fight to win. You will need firearms, fire suppression equipment along with lots of food and water.” Televangelist Pat Robertson blamed Trayvon saying on the 700 Club that Zimmerman was right to tail the “fully-formed young African-American male” the night he was killed because other criminals had been seen “wearing these hoods.”  Another example of subtle racism.

Here are a few other folks who said there would be riots if Zimmerman were found not guilty:

Fox News’ commentator Sean Hannity, who had personal involvement in the case as the only reporter George Zimmerman would speak with, spoke at length about officials in Florida “trying to improve race relations, so that we will not have riots.” He pointed out, “the mayor here says that it should be peaceful” before concluding, “that’s what we all hope.”

Recently on CNN Monday morning, Newt Gingrich criticized anyone who saw racial implications in the Zimmerman case, but used an extremely racially charged term to describe the protestors. “I watch these protesters, none of whom read the transcript,” Gingrich said, “and all basically prepared to be a lynch mob. They wanted one verdict, and the verdict was guilty.” He then implied that protestors had “gone on to the streets and thrown things at police.”

As reported by Mother Jones, The Washington Times, a conservative publication, ran a recent online poll asking, “Will there be riots in Florida if George Zimmerman receives a not-guilty verdict by a jury of his peers?” Seventy-four percent of their readers answered yes.

Another conservative publication, Townhall, wrote, “Congratulations media, you’ve successfully turned a non-racial case into a full blown potential race riot.”  An interesting comment since there had been absolutely no violence to inspire the article.  Instead, the Townhall writer quoted from an article that described how Florida Mayors were “coordinat[ing] ‘a response plan in anticipation of the verdict.’”

Fox News Channel host Bill O’Reilly recently asked,  “Do you think bad things are going to happen if Zimmerman is acquitted?” not ruling out the “possibility” that a not guilty verdict could result in damage done to “the fabric of the nation.”  O’Reilly was quick to note that, if Zimmerman is found guilty of second degree murder or a lesser charge, the threat of violence would dissipate entirely.

“If George Zimmerman is acquitted, there will be racial animus,” O’Reilly predicted on his program.  “The only thing the American press will embrace is the specter of oppression,” he continued, implying the media’s disinterest in black-on-black crime in favor of rarer instances of white-on-black or black-on-white crime. “That is, if a white American kills a black American, or any other minority, then the story gets covered. That’s wrong, and it causes racial division,” O’Reilly said.

Following the verdict, thousands of frustrated Americans, of all races, broke out into peaceful protests around the country, with a particularly large protest in New York City. There were only a few reports of violence in California. The vast majority of demonstrations were simply peaceful shows of solidarity by concerned citizens who used the phrase, “No justice, no peace” in a much more theoretical sense than their critics implied. As a result of Zimmerman’s acquittal, African American young men and boys have been placed in a position where they can be profiled, followed and killed just because of the color of their skin. 

Will there ever be a time when African American men can stop being the scary ones and just be scared?  Probably not as long as African American males continue to be stereotyped by motivated white racists.  The last two presidential elections confirmed the fact that these are the same racists who will never accept a black or brown brother or sister in the White House and although we cannot call every disagreement an issue of racism, there is no question that blatant racism still exists.  

First Lady Michelle Obama recently delivered a speech in Chicago urging action to combat youth gun violence and comparing herself to Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year old Chicago high school student who was shot and killed in January 2013, saying that Pendleton reminded her of herself at that age.  The first man of hateful rhetoric, Rush Limbaugh, accused the First Lady of having a “chip on her shoulder” about the United States and of doing “a disservice to the country” by drawing a comparison between herself and Pendleton.  Limbaugh’s “chip on her shoulder” comment is code for accusing the First Lady of being an “angry black woman.” 

Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly said that the folks who voted for an Obama second term wanted “free stuff” and that’s what Obama would give them.  Thanks to the continued racist rhetoric by this right-wing radical fringe, an Associated Press poll released on October 27, 2012, found that a slim majority of Americans now hold a negative view of African Americans.  51% of people polled indicated an explicitly negative view of black people, compared to 48% in 2008. When tested implicitly and controlling for the possibility that people are unaware or unwilling to express racially prejudiced attitudes, that proportion is 56%, compared to 49% in 2008.  Thus, instead of moving forward, America is regressing in its commitment to foster equal opportunity.  Not only is racism affecting African Americans, other minorities including the Latino population are also experiencing its rage.  The profiling situation involving Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio previously noted is one example. 

Looking through the 2012 election cycle, it is not difficult to see why America has emerged from its first term under a nonwhite president more prejudiced.  While many touted President Obama’s election as the end of racism, the stark political divide, already colored along racial lines, has only grown deeper.  

On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Shelby County v. Holder that will further hamper efforts for racial parity.  That decision dealt with provisions in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) meant to prevent racially discriminatory voting laws from being enacted in states with a history of such practices.  The specific provision under challenge was Section 5, which required certain jurisdictions to seek “preclearance” of new or revised voting rules and procedures with either the U.S. Department of Justice or the federal District court.  The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the formula in Section 4 of the VRA which determined the jurisdictions subject to federal preclearance of voting laws under Section 5 of the Act, to be unconstitutional.  The formula that was struck down identified jurisdictions subject to preclearance as those with a history of a voting test or device and less than 50 percent voter registration or turnout as of 1964, 1968 or 1972. When originally passed, the preclearance provisions were intended to expire after five years, but were reauthorized by Congress four times, most recently in 2006 for twenty-five years.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas (concurring), views the preclearance formula as anchored in a past that no longer exists and oblivious to the huge progress made since 1965 in the levels of voting participation and election to public office of African Americans and other covered minorities. The majority invited the Congress to write a new formula based on current practices that justifies the extraordinary preclearance procedure.  The fact that Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin all attempted to pass voter suppression laws during the 2012 election apparently didn’t matter to the Roberts’ majority.  If it wasn’t for Section 5, most of these states would have succeeded and thousands of minorities and the elderly would have been disenfranchised from voting.  Remember, these states account for 203 electoral votes, or 75 percent of the total needed to win the presidency.  Shortly after the high court issued its sweeping 5-4 decision striking down a centerpiece of the historic 1965 law, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott vowed to immediately implement a controversial voter ID law that was blocked last year by the now-gutted preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act. 

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, found compelling the evidence compiled by Congress that, in spite of the dated formula, the covered jurisdictions continue to engage disproportionately in actions that discriminate against minorities. Consequently, the preclearance provision is essential to prevent the backsliding that was so frequent in the hundred years following the passage of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.  The Justice Department has filed suit in Federal Court under another provision of the VRA challenging Texas recently enacted voter law.

When a majority of the Supreme Court recently issued its decision declaring the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional, the Republican right-wing went berserk in criticizing the Justices.  Yet there were no Republican or right-wing criticisms of the Court’s Voting Rights decision.

A major problem compounding racial inequity is this country’s broken judicial system as well as certain of its laws.  For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, 1 in every 106 White Men is incarcerated but 1 in every 15 African American men is incarcerated.  Today, there are more African Americans on probation, parole and in prison than there were slaves in 1850.  Despite Fox News pundit, Bill O’Reilly’s comments that the problem exists because of high-crime rates in certain cities, it’s really because of a broken system.  For instance, Whites and Blacks use Marijuana at the same rate yet Blacks are four times as likely to be arrested for drug use.  According to the Sentencing Project, Black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crime.  The facts tell us that blatant racism is a significant factor that contributes to racial disparity.

CONTINUED IN PART III