Tag Archives: congress

The President Is Determined to Be Presidential

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The New York Times tells us about President Trump’s TV strategy:

One West Wing official, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about strategy, said the administration craved the split-screen television images of Mr. Trump at round-table discussions with business executives every few days on one side, and the vehement protesters of his administration on the other.

This sounds right. Trump seems to believe that sitting around a table with powerful business executives is “presidential.” It’s basically a child’s idea of what a president looks like. So that’s what he does. I don’t think it’s even cynical image manipulation on his part. He really does think this is what makes a president presidential.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have this:

A day before delivering a high-stakes address on Tuesday to a joint session of Congress, Mr. Trump will demand a budget with tens of billions of dollars in reductions to the Environmental Protection Agency and State Department, according to four senior administration officials with direct knowledge of the plan. Social safety net programs, aside from the big entitlement programs for retirees, would also be hit hard.

This is obviously the work of Mike Pence and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney more than it is of Trump himself, but Trump will nonetheless be the master showman selling this plan. It’s also more symbolic than anything else, but it’s symbolism that matters since it means Trump is signaling that he’s willing to go along with Paul Ryan’s feverish devotion to cutting spending on the poor. We already know that Trump is also eager to cut taxes on the rich, so it appears he and Ryan are entirely on the same page. The next few months promise to be bloody.

Continued:  

The President Is Determined to Be Presidential

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The President Is Determined to Be Presidential

Tom Perez Wins Race for DNC Chair

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The election for DNC chair is over, and Tom Perez won:

Sigh. This is so ridiculous. I know that Keith Ellison was the “Bernie guy” and Perez was the “Obama/Hillary guy,” but it’s nuts that this got turned into some kind of ideological showdown. Not only are Ellison and Perez about equally progressive, but DNC chair isn’t a policy position anyway. It’s a fundraising and managerial position. I didn’t really care one way or the other between the two because I have no idea which of them is a better manager and fundraiser.

In any case, thank goodness that Ellison and Perez themselves are grownups. Perez, in what was obviously a prearranged move, immediately offered Ellison the deputy chair job, and Ellison accepted:

This strikes me as the best of all outcomes. Democrats get to keep Ellison in Congress, and hopefully Perez will give him some real authority at the DNC. Better two high-profile guys there than one.

Besides, national-level purity contests are stupid. Democrats are fine at the national level. It’s every other level that they suck at. Anybody who spends any time or energy continuing to fight over some national standard of progressiveness at the DNC is just wasting everyone’s time. From a party standpoint, state and local races are all that matter for the next couple of years.

Continue at source: 

Tom Perez Wins Race for DNC Chair

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tom Perez Wins Race for DNC Chair

Reality Begins to Set in on Obamacare—For Both Sides

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Reality is setting in:

For seven years, few issues have animated conservative voters as much as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But with President Barack Obama out of office, the debate over “Obamacare” is becoming less about “Obama” and more about “care” — greatly complicating the issue for Republican lawmakers.

….As liberals overwhelm congressional town hall-style meetings and deluge the Capitol phone system with pleas to protect the health law, there is no similar clamor for dismantling it, Mr. Obama’s signature legislative accomplishment. From deeply conservative districts in the South and the West to the more moderate parts of the Northeast, Republicans in Congress say there is significantly less intensity among opponents of the law than when Mr. Obama was in office.

Intensity is the key word here, since actual opinions about Obamacare don’t seem to have changed more than a eyelash over the past seven years:

But the intensity of opinion has changed. With Obama out of office, the Republican base doesn’t care as much. Hating Obamacare was mostly just a way of hating Obama. Likewise, the Democratic base cares more. They spent the past seven years griping about how weak Obamacare was—no public option, too friendly to insurance companies, subsidies too low, blah blah blah—under the apparent assumption that it didn’t matter that practically no one was passionately defending the law. With Trump in office, Democrats have finally figured out that it matters, and congressional phones are now ringing off the hook.

So reality has set in for everyone. The Republican rank-and-file has finally figured out they never really cared all that much about taxing the rich an extra three points to provide health care for everyone. The Democratic rank-and-file has finally figured out that Obamacare is a pretty good program and it’s worth fighting for.

But did we really have to elect Donald Trump to figure this out?

Link: 

Reality Begins to Set in on Obamacare—For Both Sides

Posted in Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Reality Begins to Set in on Obamacare—For Both Sides

Obama Accomplished Way More In His First Month Than Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I’m jumping the gun a little here, but I’d like to remind everyone that during his first month in office, Barack Obama:

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
Banned torture.
Signed a $787 billion stimulus bill.
Sent 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.
Ended the month with a net job approval rating of +27 percent.

Donald Trump still has a few days to go, but so far he has:

Signed no legislation.
Mostly signed executive orders that are either routine (pay freezes, a halt to new regulation, reversing the Mexico City rule) or little more than PR messages to his base (cracking down on drug cartels, financial regulatory reviews, rebuilding the military, etc.).
Signed one executive order that was important, but rolled it out so incompetently that it caused massive chaos and was promptly overturned by the courts.
Sat idly by at dinner while aides discussed a North Korean missile launch and then failed to respond in any way at all.
Has presided over a White House so epically leak-prone and amateurish that people are already taking bets about which senior officials will get fired within the next few weeks.
Ended the month with a net job approval rating of about -8 percent.

This comparison extends to the new Republican Congress too. Obama’s Congress was busy immediately with serious legislation. Trump’s Congress is struggling to confirm cabinet nominees; is completely at sea about how to tackle Obamacare; and can’t seem to agree on how to handle corporate taxes and tariffs. I assume that big tax cuts for the rich are still on the agenda, but it’s not yet clear what else is.

Obviously Trump has done some genuine damage already,1 and both Trump and Congress have plenty of time left to wreak a tsunami of even more. But for a guy who was elected to shake things up, he sure hasn’t done much real shaking yet. Just a lot of big talk.

1In other words: don’t let your guard down. That’s not what I’m suggesting here.

This article is from: 

Obama Accomplished Way More In His First Month Than Trump

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama Accomplished Way More In His First Month Than Trump

Top General Tells Senate We Can Win in Afghanistan With Just a “Few Thousand” More Troops

Mother Jones

I almost forgot about this:

The commander of the American-led international military force in Afghanistan, warning that the United States and its NATO allies are facing a “stalemate,” told Congress on Thursday that he needed a few thousand additional troops to more effectively train and advise Afghan soldiers.

“We have a shortfall of a few thousand,” Gen. John W. Nicholson said in a sober assessment of America’s longest war to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

A few thousand! We weren’t able to stamp out the Taliban and train the Afghan army when we had over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, but Nicholson wants us to believe we can break the current stalemate with just a few thousand more troops? Is he serious?

Read more:  

Top General Tells Senate We Can Win in Afghanistan With Just a “Few Thousand” More Troops

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Top General Tells Senate We Can Win in Afghanistan With Just a “Few Thousand” More Troops

Here’s Why Donald Trump Can’t Defund “Out-of-Control” California

Mother Jones

One of President Donald Trump’s favorite threats is cutting federal government funding to states, cities, and other entities that refuse to cooperate with his policies. On January 25, he issued an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which warns “sanctuary cities” that they could lose federal funds if they continue to protect undocumented residents from deportation. After an appearance by Breitbart‘s Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California-Berkeley was canceled amid violent protests, Trump tapped out the following tweet:

And during a pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, Trump doubled down on California: “If we have to, we’ll defund…We give tremendous amounts of money to California. California in many ways is out of control, as you know.”

Here’s the thing: Trump can’t just yank funding from states or cities or universities that upset him. Yet the matter is far from resolved: Several cities and one state have already filed lawsuits against the Trump administration over its threats, all but ensuring a battle that could end up before the Supreme Court. Here’s what you need to know about the legal issues behind this fight.

Why can’t the president withhold federal money from states or cities?

The short answer is that Congress, not the White House, has ultimate power over the federal purse. The president’s budget requests may direct Congress how to allocate federal spending, but the matter is not entirely in his hands. And he has no authority to withhold or rescind spending that’s already been authorized.

So couldn’t Congress defund a state or city if the president asked it to?

Hypothetically, Congress could pass a law or budget bill that puts conditions on the federal funding provided to, say, out-of-control California. But numerous Supreme Court decisions protect state and local governments against this type of vindictive policymaking. When the federal government raised the national minimum drinking age to 21 in 1984, it prodded states into enforcing the new law by stipulating that any state that didn’t comply would lose 5 percent of its federal highway construction funds. South Dakota wasn’t happy about this and filed a lawsuit against the federal government. South Dakota v. Dole worked its way up to the Supreme Court, which found that the federal government can apply conditions to funding—with a few limits. One of those limits is the stipulation that any conditional spending must not be “coercive.” As Justice William Rehnquist wrote, there is a point when “pressure turns into compulsion,” and a state might unconstitutionally be forced to comply because it needs the federal money to operate. Additionally, conditional funding can only apply to new money, not funding that’s already been committed.

As a practical matter, states and cities receive federal money through hundreds of different appropriations bills and programs. If Trump and congressional Republicans wanted to effectively defund California, they would have to modify each federal spending provision that affects the state. Conceivably, they could pass a bill that instructs the Department of the Treasury to stop sending money to Sacramento, but that would spark an enormous constitutional crisis.

But aren’t states and cities required to follow federal laws whether they like it or not?

Yes—but again there are limits. When the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012, it also considered the law’s expansion of state Medicaid programs. The Affordable Care Act had threatened to cut off all Medicaid funding to states should they fail to expand the program in accordance with its standards. Citing South Dakota v. Dole, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his opinion that this ultimatum was “a gun to the head” of the states. For many states, federal Medicaid money comprises more than 10 percent of total revenue, and losing that money would effectively cripple them. Six other justices agreed with Roberts on this point, and Medicaid expansion was left to the states.

What about the 10th Amendment?

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution says that any power not delegated to the federal government becomes the responsibility of the states. This is the basis of America’s federal system, whereby states have the freedom to pass laws that are distinct from those passed by Congress.

The Supreme Court has long interpreted the 10th Amendment as the foundation for a check on federal power. Take the case of Printz v. United States. After Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1993, a Montana sheriff named Jay Printz challenged its requirement that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on gun buyers. He argued that Congress was acting outside of its authority to compel state-level officials to enforce federal law. In 1997, five Supreme Court justices, led by Antonin Scalia, agreed.

The Printz decision underscores what Duke University law professor Matthew Adler calls “an external constraint upon congressional power—analogous to the constraints set forth in the Bill of Rights—but one that lacks an explicit textual basis.” In other words, decades of Supreme Court rulings on the 10th Amendment have formed an effective check on federal power by the states. And that could mean that just as Printz was allowed to resist conducting federally mandated background checks, a court could find that officials in sanctuary states and cities are allowed to avoid enforcing federal immigration law.

Don’t conservatives like the 10th Amendment more than progressives?

In the past, the 10th Amendment has provided cover for advocates of states’ rights and efforts to resist federal civil rights efforts such as integrating schools. More recently, the 10th Amendment became a rallying cry for the Obama administration’s opponents. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is a big fan of the 10th, and tea partiers and “Tenthers” invoked the amendment to push back against Obamacare and even call for secession.

Now it’s liberals who are warming to the promise of the 10th Amendment. San Francisco’s recently filed federal lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that, defunding aside, the anti-sanctuary-city executive order violates the 10th Amendment. The city claims that it is within its rights to not cooperate with federal authorities under the “anti-commandeering” precedent set in Printz, which says higher jurisdictions may not “commandeer” local resources to enforce federal rules. Likewise, Massachusetts has also invoked the 10th amendment against Trump’s “Muslim ban” executive order. Several Boston suburbs have also cited the 10th in their lawsuits against the administration’s sanctuary city order, as has Santa Clara County, California, the home of Silicon Valley. Last week, Portland’s mayor issued a statement that the 10th Amendment protects its sanctuary city policies too.

How could this battle play out?

The feds depend on state and local officials to enforce their policies. The federal system is set up to encourage cooperation between state and federal officials. If that falls apart, Trump will have difficulty enacting his agenda. As Yale law professor Heather Gerken recently argued on Vox, “Even if President Trump spends enough political capital to win this or that battle against blue cities and states, he cannot win the war. The federal government doesn’t have the resources to carry out Trump’s policies.”

The funding question remains up in the air since Trump hasn’t given any indication to how, exactly, he would defund cities and states. However, given that California is in the process of passing legislation that effectively makes the entire state a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, and given that its elected officials have been vocal about their opposition to Trump, we could see a California v. U.S. case in the near future if Trump tries to follow through. On Monday, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra reiterated his commitment to pushing back against Trump’s defunding threat. “We will fight anyone who wants to take away dollars that we have earned and are qualified for simply because we are unwilling to violate the Constitution under these defective executive orders,” he said.

Original source: 

Here’s Why Donald Trump Can’t Defund “Out-of-Control” California

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why Donald Trump Can’t Defund “Out-of-Control” California

Everyone on Capitol Hill Needs to Go Backpacking ASAP

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Getting out into the wild is restorative. Fresh air, natural sounds and settings, a spot of exercise: It tends to free our mind, bring down our stress levels, and, with any luck, give us a break from work. The converse is also true. Excessive urban noise, for example, stresses us out and can wreak havoc on our psyches. These are things we know just based on everyday experience.

Author and journalist Florence Williams, whose last book was Breasts: A Natural and Unnatural History, takes this knowledge way further in a new book that focuses on the science behind the health-wilderness link. For The Nature Fix, which hits bookstores this week, Williams bounced around the planet talking to naturalists, scientists, and government workers to get to the bottom of our complex relationship with our environment, which turns out to be both intensely physical and psychological.

I reached out to Williams to talk about the science—and why our government is in desperate need of a monthlong camping trip.

Mother Jones: You write about something called “biophilia.” What is that and why is it important?

Florence Williams: Biophilia is a concept popularized by Harvard biologist and naturalist E.O. Wilson that humans are deeply and instinctively bonded to living systems. It’s important because modern life has made us forget this. We think we are separate from nature, and we often treat the natural world as if that were the case. Our essential amnesia of biophilia has devastating consequences for both us and the natural world. Wilson believes that although the bond is instinctual, it must be cultivated from childhood or we lose it. If we really care about the future of our planet, we need start reconnecting little kids to nature. Unfortunately, many schools, neighborhoods and ever-tempting new technologies are moving kids in the opposite direction.

MJ: We’ve always known intuitively that nature has restorative effects, hence a turn in the countryside, but you really dug in. What surprised you?

FW: I figured being in beautiful environments would be good for our mood and mental health, but I wasn’t expecting the evidence that it also improves our attention and cognition. I was also kind of blown away by the so-called “awe studies” that show that when we experience even little shots of awe, like a sunset or an unexpected butterfly, it can make us actually more compassionate and generous. I have this new plan that we need to line the halls of Congress with potted ficuses and unleash some butterflies.

MJ: A lot of the health aspects of our exposure to nature seems to involve reducing our stress levels. Is there much else to it?

FW: There’s some debate about the mechanisms by which time in nature makes us feel better. It reduces our stress levels, but why? Some argue it’s because of the way information enters our brains. In ordinary life, we suffer from an onslaught of stimuli that taxes our frontal cortex, especially, leading to fatigue and a kind of general grumpiness. When we’re in nature, the frontal lobes get a break, and other parts of our brains get turned on, like parts governing empathy and daydreaming and self-concept.

Another theory is just that, hey, our nervous systems evolved in nature, not in Euclidean concrete cityscapes, and it just makes us feel good to be back in the green and the blue and the environments that sustained us for millions of years. Yet another piece of it is that being outside facilitates a lot of other effective happy-making things, like exercise and hanging out with fun people and seeing beauty. We can get those things in a city, too, but nature provides them for free and for all.

MJ: There’s a growing body of science supporting these health effects, but it seems like foreign scientists and governments are more serious about this stuff and more willing to act on it than Americans. What’s your theory on this?

FW: A lot of the countries I looked at have socialized medicine. It saves the system a lot of money to put some resources into preventing stress-related diseases and it increases worker productivity in the long run. As a psychologist in Finland told me, there just aren’t enough skilled workers to keep burning through them, like so many industries do in the US. So they invest in the workers, even giving them spa time and hiking days in the woods, so that they’ll keep working. And, oh yeah, they get a year off for parental leave—but don’t even get me started on that.

MJ: Tell me a bit about ways governments have taken action on this science, such as the “healing forests” of Japan and Korea.

FW: Japan has designated some 48 forest-therapy trails, mostly used by Tokyoites, who take the trains out of town and decompress from their demanding lives. South Korea now has three entire healing forests and another couple dozen planned. In both countries, healing rangers offer low-cost programs in stress management for everyone from firefighters with PTSD to school bullies to cancer patients. South Korea has explicitly made “green well-being” part of its forest management plan. Researchers have found that time in the woods improves cardiovascular health as well as mental health, so they’re really promoting it.

MJ: Richard Conniff wrote us an interesting piece a while back about how America’s national parks were inspired by Madison Grant, a prominent racist. To what extent is access to nature a social justice issue as it applies to public health?

FW: Madison Grant may have helped inspire the national parks, but so did Frederick Law Olmsted. Olmsted is well known for his love of boulders and big elms, but less known for his radical ideas about public space—especially green space—and democracy. He had toured the slave-holding South as a journalist and promoted the idea of parks as a mixing pot for the great American experiment. He understood that all men and women need to de-stress from the pressures of crowded and increasingly urban life. These notions are now back in vogue, and I don’t think there’s an environmental group out there—or a land-managing federal agency, or a kids’ health group—that isn’t looking at diversity in the outdoors as a core tenet. I’m really heartened by the efforts of groups like Outdoor Afro and GirlTrek and the scouting groups and a ton of others to improve access to nature for urban kids. And when the kids drag their parents outside, the benefits reach into their communities.

MJ: You also wrote a recent piece for Mother Jones, on how noise, which is defined as unwanted sound, appears to have significant negative effects on human health and learning capacity. Part of the equation is how sensitive a person is to noise. So what can a noise-sensitive urban dweller do? Is there a way to make peace with the leaf blowers or with the death metal our annoying housemates insist on blasting day and night?

FW: I wish that were true. I think once you’re bothered by noise, you’re probably always bothered by noise. The best we can hope for is to change up our personal soundscapes by wearing noise-canceling headphones, playing some nice birdsong or whatever music, and soundproofing your work space. Beyond that, we need to just get the heck out of dodge once in a while to recover some equanimity.

Florence Williams

See the original post: 

Everyone on Capitol Hill Needs to Go Backpacking ASAP

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Ts Books, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everyone on Capitol Hill Needs to Go Backpacking ASAP

A Company Closely Linked to Tom Price’s Medical Practice Paid a Big Medicare Fraud Settlement

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

During Tom Price’s confirmation hearing last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch quizzed him on his commitment to eradicating Medicare fraud, which the Utah Republican noted had cost the government billions of dollars. If confirmed to head the US Department of Health and Human Services, Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, will oversee the agency’s efforts to protect government-run health care programs from scammers. “I think they’re a minority,” Price replied, “but there’s some bad actors out there…If we were to focus on those individuals that were the bad actors specifically, then I think we could do a much better job of not just identifying the fraud that exists out there, but ending that fraud.”

Those bad actors aren’t as rare as Price suggested. In fact, a company closely linked to his medical practice was ensnared in a multimillion-dollar Medicare fraud case. In 1999, Price became a partner in Resurgens PC, what is now Georgia’s largest orthopedic practice, where he also served as a board member until 2004, when he ran for Congress. Resurgens doctors performed surgeries at an outpatient facility that had been incorporated as a separate corporate entity, Resurgens Surgery Center LLC. In 2005, the surgery center agreed to repay $2.5 million to the federal government to settle allegations that it had fraudulently billed Medicare and Medicaid and violated a federal anti-kickback law.

Price was not implicated in the case—the wrongdoing allegedly occurred between 1993 and 1997, before he joined the practice—and he didn’t hold a direct financial stake in Resurgens Surgery Center. But the payout by Resurgens Surgery Center highlights one of the conflicts he may face if his nomination is approved. As HHS secretary, he will be charged with helping enforce the very laws the Justice Department accused Resurgens Surgery Center of violating. A spokeswoman for Price did not respond to questions from Mother Jones.

There are other reasons to question how aggressively Price will go after Medicare scammers. He was a longtime member of a conservative medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, that has strongly opposed fraud investigations by HHS, claiming that “misguided enforcement actions” target honest physicians.

“It’s worth wondering how tough Price is going to be on these issues,” says Marc Smolonsky, a former associate deputy secretary at HHS during the Obama administration and an expert on health care fraud. “I’m not saying he’s not going to be tough, but it’s certainly something to ask.” He notes that Congress earmarks almost $1.5 billion a year for HHS to probe fraud. “Most of that is under his purview.”

The case against Resurgens Surgery Center began in 2001, when a whistleblower named Robert Allen filed a federal False Claims Act lawsuit against the company in a Georgia federal court. Between 1995 and 1997, Allen had been a consultant and then an administrator for a group of anesthesiologists who worked closely with Resurgens Surgery Center. Allen alleged that the anesthesiologists had colluded with Resurgens Surgery Center to illegally collect “facility fees” from Medicare and Medicaid for services they performed in a Resurgens facility. The government health care programs allows certain health care providers, such as hospitals or outpatient surgery centers, to bill extra fees to help cover the overhead of running the facility on top of those charged for medical care.

But to claim such facility fees legally, federal regulations require a health care facility to have a certificate of need and a government-issued billing number. Resurgens Surgery Center had the right paperwork, but the suit alleged it covered only orthopedic services, not pain management or anesthesia. The anesthesiologists named in the whistleblower suit allegedly had neither a billing number nor a certificate of need. In fact, federal rules specifically bar anesthesiologists from collecting facility fees from Medicare. So, Allen’s suit alleged, the anesthesiologists and Resurgens Surgery Center set up a lucrative but illegal arrangement. The anesthesiologists would provide pain treatments to their patients at the Resurgens facility and use its billing number to charge the federal government for use of the premises. In return, the anesthesiologists allegedly kicked back a portion of the facility fees to Resurgens Surgery Center.

Allen claimed this arrangement began in 1993 and continued after he left the anesthesiologists’ practice in 1997. And he alleged that he told the doctors their setup was illegal but they declined to put an end to it.

The Department of Justice can intervene in private whistleblower suits if it believes serious misconduct has occurred. In 2002, it did so in Allen’s case. In 2004, the anesthesiologists settled for $1.3 million. The following year, shortly after Price was elected to Congress, Resurgens Surgery Center also settled, agreeing to repay $2.5 million in fees it had billed the government. Neither Resurgens Surgery Center nor the anesthesiologists admitted to wrongdoing in the settlement.

Doug Lundy, co-president of Resurgens PC, did not respond to requests for comment. But after the 2005 settlement was announced, Charles C. Murphy, an attorney for Resurgens Surgery Center, told a local Georgia newspaper that the company made a “business decision” to settle the case. “The Resurgens doctors believed they had done nothing improper,” he said. “Nonetheless, the case was becoming a significant distraction, and Resurgens Surgery Center believes the more prudent course was to put the matter behind it.”

Since Price entered Congress, his former Resurgens colleagues and other company employees have been major backers of his campaigns, donating nearly $225,000 since 2004. In July 2015, Lundy hosted a fundraiser for Price. After Price was nominated to HHS, Resurgens issued a statement congratulating Price. (The statement was subsequently removed from the company’s website.) A full vote by the Senate on his nomination is expected next week.

The Obama administration made a big push to crack down on Medicare billing fraud, which is believed to sap nearly $100 billion a year from Medicare and Medicaid. It aggressively rooted out crooked doctors and hospitals that were bilking the system, and it included tougher anti-fraud rules in the Affordable Care Act. In June, HHS and the Department of Justice spearheaded the largest Medicare fraud takedown in history. The investigation resulted in charges against more than 300 people and involved nearly $1 billion in fraudulent billing. Sixty-one of the people charged were doctors.

Will a Secretary Price continue to pursue this kind of aggressive enforcement? Dr. Robert Berenson, a fellow at the Urban Institute and a former member of the government’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, is skeptical. “He clearly thinks doctors should be left alone,” Berenson says. “Billing fraud is the kind of thing that happens when they are left alone.”

See original:  

A Company Closely Linked to Tom Price’s Medical Practice Paid a Big Medicare Fraud Settlement

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Company Closely Linked to Tom Price’s Medical Practice Paid a Big Medicare Fraud Settlement

Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hours after President Donald Trump tweeted that he’d launch a “major investigation” into massive voter fraud, of which there’s no evidence, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Wednesday laid out a few details of what such an investigation might look like.

As reporters and experts immediately pointed out, Trump’s belief that 3 million to 5 million people voted illegally in November is at odds with what his own lawyers said in court when they challenged the recount petitions of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. “All available evidence suggests that the 2016 general election was not tainted by fraud or mistake,” Trump’s legal team argued in a brief.

But on Wednesday, Spicer claimed that the legal team had actually only been discussing the three states where Stein pushed for recounts, not the entire country. “I think there’s a lot of states that we didn’t compete in where that’s not necessarily the case,” he said, mentioning California and New York. “I think that if you look at where a lot of potential—a lot of these issues could have occurred in bigger states. That’s where I think we’re going to look.”

Spicer also floated the idea that voter ID laws, which serve to suppress voter participation among minorities, young people, and the elderly, could be a solution to problems the investigation may find.

Spicer’s comments led reporters and other observers to question why a massive voter fraud scheme would be carried out in reliably blue states, instead of swing states where the election is decided.

It’s not just Trump’s legal team that sees no evidence of fraud. Secretaries of state, governors, and even Republican members of Congress have come forward to say they have no evidence to back up Trump’s allegations. On Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that Trump’s voter fraud claims will “erode his ability to govern this country if he does not stop it” and urged him to “knock this off.”

If Wednesday is any indication, Trump is not taking Graham’s advice.

This article – 

Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Spicer Suggests Tighter Voting Restrictions as Solution to Nonexistent Voter Fraud

President Trump’s Tweets Are Not For You

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over the past 24 hours, Donald Trump has tweeted that (a) he plans to send the feds into Chicago if they don’t fix their crime problem, (b) he will be ordering a major investigation into voter fraud, and (c) he plans to start building the wall today. These all made the front page of the New York Times:

The guy is president, so I suppose this is the right thing to do. Still, I want to take yet another opportunity to remind everyone who these tweets are for. They are not for you. They are not for the press. They are not for Congress.

They are for his fans.

That’s it. Trump’s tweets often seem ridiculous or embarrassing or whatnot, but that’s only from our perspective. Instead, imagine you are Joe Sixpack. You’re at home, watching the Factor, and O’Reilly is going on about the crime problem in Chicago. It’s outrageous! The place is a war zone! Somebody should do something!

Then, a few minutes later, you see Trump’s tweet. “If Chicago doesn’t fix the horrible “carnage” going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!” Damn straight, you think. They need the National Guard to set things straight there. Way to go, President Trump.

Joe doesn’t really care about Chicago. He doesn’t know or care that the feds can’t be sent there to fight crime. And he probably doesn’t really want the National Guard sent to Chicago anyway. He just vaguely thinks that those thugs on the South Side need to be on the business end of some muscular action, and he wants to know that someone out there in Washington DC feels the same way he does. So that’s what Trump gives him.

I’m not here to suggest that we should devote either more or less attention to Trump’s tweets. I guess I don’t really care. I just want everyone to understand who and what they’re for. It all makes a lot more sense once you know what he’s up to.

Continued here: 

President Trump’s Tweets Are Not For You

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on President Trump’s Tweets Are Not For You