thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--American Expert Axed From CDC Post In China Months Before Coronavirus Outbreak

The American disease expert , a medical epidemiologist embedded in China ’ s disease control agency , left her post in July , according to four sources with knowledge of the issue .
The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November , and as cases exploded , the Trump administration in February chastised China for censoring information about the outbreak and keeping U.S. experts from entering the country to help .
Zhu and the other sources said the American expert , Dr. Linda Quick , was a trainer of Chinese field epidemiologists who were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help track , investigate and contain diseases .
As an American CDC employee , they said , Quick was in an ideal position to be the eyes and ears on the ground for the United States and other countries on the coronavirus outbreak , and might have alerted them to the growing threat weeks earlier .
“ Dr .
Redfield and I made the offer on January 6th - 36 days ago , 60,000 cases and 1,300 deaths ago , ” Azar said .
“ We made the offer to send the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to the bottom of key scientific questions like , how transmissible is this disease ?
What is the severity ?
What is the incubation period and can there be asymptomatic transmission ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - Several months before the coronavirus pandemic began, the Trump administration eliminated a key American public health position in Beijing intended to help detect disease outbreaks in China, Reuters has learned.
The American disease expert, a medical epidemiologist embedded in China’s disease control agency, left her post in July, according to four sources with knowledge of the issue. The first cases of the new coronavirus may have emerged as early as November, and as cases exploded, the Trump administration in February chastised China for censoring information about the outbreak and keeping U.S. experts from entering the country to help.
Advertisement
“It was heartbreaking to watch,” said Bao-Ping Zhu, a Chinese American who served in that role, which was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, between 2007 and 2011. “If someone had been there, public health officials and governments across the world could have moved much faster.”
Zhu and the other sources said the American expert, Dr. Linda Quick, was a trainer of Chinese field epidemiologists who were deployed to the epicenter of outbreaks to help track, investigate and contain diseases. As an American CDC employee, they said, Quick was in an ideal position to be the eyes and ears on the ground for the United States and other countries on the coronavirus outbreak, and might have alerted them to the growing threat weeks earlier.
No other foreign disease experts were embedded to lead the program after Quick left in July, according to the sources. Zhu said an embedded expert can often get word of outbreaks early, after forming close relationships with Chinese counterparts.
Zhu and the other sources said Quick could have provided real-time information to U.S. and other officials around the world during the first weeks of the outbreak, when they said the Chinese government tamped down on the release of information and provided erroneous assessments.
Advertisement
Quick left amid a bitter U.S. trade dispute with China when she learned her federally funded post, officially known as resident adviser to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China, would be discontinued as of September, the sources said. The U.S. CDC said it first learned of a “cluster of 27 cases of pneumonia” of unexplained origin in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31.
Since then, the outbreak of the disease known as COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide, killing more than 13,600 people, infecting more than 317,000. The epidemic has overwhelmed healthcare systems some countries, including Italy, and threatens to do so in the United States and elsewhere.
In a statement to Reuters, the U.S. CDC said the elimination of the adviser position did not hinder Washington’s ability to get information and “had absolutely nothing to do with CDC not learning of cases in China earlier.”
A worker wearing a protective suit stands outside a hotel converted into a quarantine location for travelers from overseas in Beijing, Tuesday, March 17, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS / Andy Wong
The agency said its decision not to have a resident adviser “started well before last summer and was due to China’s excellent technical capability and maturity of the program.”
Advertisement
The CDC said it has assigned two of its Chinese employees as “mentors” to help with the training program. The agency did not respond to questions about the mentors’ specific role or expertise.
“CDC has had a 30-year partnership with China CDC and close collaboration,” the statement said. “We had the right staff to engage China and ability to provide technical assistance were it requested.”
The CDC would not make Quick, who still works for the agency, available for comment.
Asked for comment on Chinese transparency and responsiveness to the outbreak, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs referred Reuters to remarks by spokesman Geng Shuang on Friday. Geng said the country “has adopted the strictest, most comprehensive, and most thorough prevention and control measures in an open, transparent, and responsible manner, and informed the (World Health Organization) and relevant countries and regions of the latest situation in a timely manner.”
One disease expert told Reuters he was skeptical that the U.S. resident adviser would have been able to get earlier or better information to the Trump administration, given the Chinese government’s suppression of information.
“In the end, based on circumstances in China, it probably wouldn’t have had made a big difference,” Scott McNabb, who was a CDC epidemiologist for 20 years and is now a research professor at Emory University. “The problem was how the Chinese handled it. What should have changed was the Chinese should have acknowledged it earlier and didn’t.”
Advertisement
Workers in protective suits lead travelers to their transport outside the new China International Exhibition Center converted into a transit center for screening overseas arrivals in Beijing, on Tuesday, March 17, 2020. ASSOCIATED PRESS / Andy Wong
Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)said Friday that his agency learned of the coronavirus in early January, based on Redfield’s conversations with “Chinese colleagues.”
Redfield learned that “this looks to be a novel coronavirus” from Dr. Gao Fu, the head of the China CDC, according to an HHS administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Dr. Redfield always talked to Dr. Gao,” the official said.
HHS and CDC did not make Azar or Redfield available for comment.
Zhu and other sources said U.S. leaders should not have been relying on the China CDC director for alerts and updates. In general, they said, officials in China downplayed the severity of the outbreak in the early weeks and did not acknowledge evidence of person-to-person transmission until Jan. 20.
After the epidemic exploded and China had imposed strict quarantines, Trump administration officials complained that the Chinese had censored information about the outbreak and that the United States had been unable to get American disease experts into the country to help contain the spread.
Advertisement
Azar told CNN on Feb. 14 that he and CDC director Redfield officially offered to send a CDC team into China on Jan. 6 but still had not received permission for them to enter the country. HHS oversees the CDC.
“Dr. Redfield and I made the offer on January 6th - 36 days ago, 60,000 cases and 1,300 deaths ago,” Azar said. “We made the offer to send the CDC experts in to assist their Chinese colleagues to get to the bottom of key scientific questions like, how transmissible is this disease? What is the severity? What is the incubation period and can there be asymptomatic transmission?”
Days later, the World Health Organization secured permission to send a team that included two U.S. experts. The team visited between Feb. 16th and 24th. By then, China had reported more than 75,000 cases.
On Feb. 25, the first day the CDC told the American public to prepare for an outbreak at home, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused China of mishandling the epidemic through its “censorship” of medical professionals and media.
Relations between the two countries have deteriorated since then, as Trump has labeled the coronavirus the “Chinese virus” - a description the Chinese have condemned as stigmatizing. Last week, the Chinese government announced that Americans from three U.S. news organizations, The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, would be expelled from China.
Advertisement
The decision to eliminate Quick’s job came as the CDC has scaled back the number of U.S. staffers in China over the last two years, the sources told Reuters.
“We had already withdrawn many technical public health experts,” the same expert said.
The CDC, however, disputed that staffing was a problem or that its information had been limited by the move. “It was not the staffing shortage that limited our ability” it said.
The U.S. CDC team in Beijing now includes three American citizens in permanent roles, an additional American who is temporary and around 10 Chinese nationals, the agency said. Of the Americans, one is an influenza expert with expertise in respiratory disease. Coronavirus is not influenza, though it is a respiratory disease.
The CDC team, aside from Quick, was housed at U.S. Embassy facilities. No American CDC staffer besides Quick was embedded with China’s disease control agency, the sources said.
China in recent weeks has reported a dramatic slowdown in new cases, the result of drastic containment measures including the lockdown of Hubei province, home to 60 million people.
Advertisement
Nevertheless, the infectious disease experts who spoke with Reuters said, the United States could use people like Quick with contacts on the ground, especially if fears of a second wave of infections materializes.
Thomas R. Frieden, a former director of the CDC, said that if the U.S. resident adviser had still been in China, “it is possible that we would know more today about how this coronavirus is spreading and what works best to stop it.”
Dr. George Conway, a medical epidemiologist who knows Quick and had served as resident advisor between 2012 and 2015, said funding for the position had been tenuous for years because of a perennial debate among U.S health officials over whether China should be paying for funding its own training program.
Yet since the training program was launched in 2001, the sources familiar with it say, it has not only strengthened the ranks of Chinese epidemiologists in the field, but also fostered collegial relationships between public health officials in the two countries.
“We go there as credentialed diplomats and return home as close colleagues and often as friends,” Conway said.
Advertisement
In 2007, Dr. Robert Fontaine, a CDC epidemiologist and one of the longest serving U.S. officials in the adviser’s position, received China’s highest honor for outstanding contributions to public health due to his contribution as a foreigner in helping to detect and investigate clusters of pneumonia of unknown cause.
But since last year, Frieden and others said, growing tensions between the Trump administration and China’s leadership have apparently damaged the collaboration.
“The message from the administration was, ‘Don’t work with China, they’re our rival,’” Frieden said.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--10 Years And One Pandemic Later, Obamacare's Impact Is A Lot Clearer

The Cost Of The ACA ’ s Compromises The Price Of The GOP ’ s Obstruction The Impact Of The @ @ @ @ @ Health The Future Of The ACA The Supreme Court has agreed to take that case @ @ @ @ @ already prevailed before some Republican-appointed judges in the lower courts , although the justices will @ @ @ @ @ their next term .
And with the coronavirus threatening so many people , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ the legal , political and policy environment around health care will even look like nine @ @ @ @ @ now , when the justices are expected to decide the case .

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost
Monday is the Affordable Care Act’s 10th anniversary and two of its architects, former President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), had originally planned to mark the occasion by attending a special event at American University in Washington, D.C.
It was supposed to be a reunion of the officials who led the effort to pass Obamacare and had been present at the White House signing ceremony on March 23, 2010.
Advertisement
Now the event, like so much else, is canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic. Organizers said they may find a way to reschedule but, for now, celebration of the Affordable Care Act will have to wait.
And maybe that’s not surprising, given the controversy and tumult that has surrounded the law ever since it was proposed.
The effort to pass the legislation lasted a year and would have collapsed if Obama, Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had listened to all the political advisers counseling them to give up at every difficult moment.
“We had an opportunity of a generation,” Pelosi told HuffPost recently. “We were not passing it by.”
When the law was finally enacted, she and her allies understood that it was not everything it could be or everything they wanted it to be. The mantra, from Obama on down, was that the new law was a “starter home” for health care reform ― with a strong foundation, solid roof and sturdy walls.
Advertisement
It would need expansion and improvement, but they figured those upgrades would come with time.
That is not what happened.
Republicans won control of the House in the November 2010 midterm elections and, almost immediately, launched their campaign to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And although they failed, just barely, to pass repeal legislation, they managed to undermine the program in myriad ways, big and small.
Partly because of those efforts, and partly because of how the law was written, the Affordable Care Act looks different today than its architects imagined it would. Polls indicate that the program is more popular than it’s ever been, thanks partly to a backlash against GOP repeal efforts, but its shortcomings have also become more obvious.
Tens of millions of Americans remain uninsured or under-insured, facing large out-of-pocket costs, which among other things deter people from getting the health care they need. That’s a scary prospect at any time, but it’s especially scary when a once-in-a-generation pandemic is sweeping across the country.
Already, lawmakers are scrambling to help people pay for coronavirus tests and treatment. And it looks like there’s a lot more work to do.
Advertisement
But if the law’s weaknesses were never more apparent, the same goes for its strengths.
If the Affordable Care Act were not law, if the U.S. health care system still looked like it did before, the number of uninsured and under-insured Americans would be dramatically higher. And there would be fewer options for the millions losing income and jobs in the coming months, as the pandemic-stricken economy grinds to a halt.
Those are not small things.
The Cost Of The ACA’s Compromises
One reason the 2010 signing ceremony felt like such a milestone was history. Every Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt had at least contemplated pursuing major health reforms. Most had failed and the most recent attempt, Bill Clinton’s, was still a fresh memory.
Democrats were determined to avoid past mistakes and decided ― for better or worse ― that the best way to do that was to minimize disruption of existing insurance arrangements, borrow conservative ideas in order to win over some Republicans, make peace with potentially hostile interest groups, and avoid a huge price tag that they believed would scare the public.
They settled on a reform framework that kept overall spending under $1 trillion, at least for the first 10 years, and more than paid for itself with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.
To expand insurance, they relied on Medicaid for the poor and a new marketplace of subsidized, regulated insurance for people buying coverage on their own ― while very deliberately leaving employer coverage largely untouched.
Advertisement
To limit the cost of medical care, they decided to alter the way Medicare paid for services and a change in the tax treatment of employer coverage.
This approach represented a compromise on what most Democrats considered an ideal system. And once the congressional debate began, leaders had to make even more concessions. They faced unrelenting hostility from Republicans, but also resistance from many in their own party.
“It was a puzzle that you had to do 535 times, because you were basically solving it for every member of the House and every member of the Senate,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who ran the White House Office of Health Reform under Obama, told HuffPost in a recent interview.
Lots of people remember how then-Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent from Connecticut who caucused with Democrats, killed the public option ― a hoped-for government-run insurance plan that was going to offer an alternative to private coverage and might have someday grown into a version of “Medicare for All” in which the federal government insured everybody directly.
Advertisement
Many fewer remember how then-Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, insisted on concessions to the medical device industry. Those concessions involved easing up on a tax the industry faced, which rendered it even harder for lawmakers to make the health care budgeting work.
“It was dead so many times,” Harry Reid recalled, describing the Affordable Care Act as “the most important thing I did in my entire congressional career, over many decades, and also the most difficult.”
The deals Democratic leaders made with industry and with their own members shaped the legislation in ways that affected its implementation. This was especially true for the newly regulated private insurance plans available to people buying their own coverage.
Because these plans now had comprehensive benefits and because insurers could no longer deny them to people with preexisting medical conditions, they were more expensive.
The law’s tax credit subsidies were supposed to offset the higher prices, and millions got comprehensive insurance because of them. But the subsidies tapered off as income rose and cut out altogether at four times the poverty line, which today is about $100,000 a year for a family of four.
Advertisement
As a result, many middle-income families found the only coverage available was expensive ― in some cases, prohibitively expensive ― and even then came with high deductibles. Making matters worse, Obama had promised that people could “keep their plans” if they liked them.
But once the new system launched in 2014, many insurers simply stopped offering their old policies. When Americans with those plans found out, they were furious.
The Price Of The GOP’s Obstruction
In principle, softening that blow should have been easy. All it would have taken was a little extra financial assistance, with a little more government spending, in order to provide more of a cushion for the higher prices. But Republicans refused to endorse that idea or any others that could shore up the system.
Instead, they looked for ways to attack the law. And they found quite a few.
One particularly important blow was the defunding of a “risk corridor” program designed to insulate insurers from major losses. That led to the shuttering of some smaller insurer plans while forcing bigger ones to raise premiums, to the point where many people who qualified for little or no subsidy stopped buying plans.
Advertisement
Republicans did even more damage to the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld most of the law against a constitutional challenge. But in that same decision, it effectively made the Medicaid expansion optional for states. In any state where Republicans had the power to block expansion, they did.
GOP opposition to Medicaid expansion has left millions of low-income people, mostly in the South, without insurance. Many of those states are also the ones where newly reformed private insurance markets have struggled because the Affordable Care Act’s design puts a lot of discretion in the hands of state officials. Where officials are ambivalent about or hostile to the law, as they have been in places like Tennessee and Iowa, the state markets have tended not to work well.
But it’s been a different story in states like California and Michigan, where officials have been enthusiastic and the markets have been stable. These are also the states that expanded Medicaid early and where, as a result, the number of people without insurance has fallen to the lowest levels.
The Impact Of The ACA On Finances ― And Health
Nationally, the number of people without insurance was at an all-time low when Obama left office. People who had asthma, diabetes or a history of cancer or heart disease finally had a way to buy comprehensive coverage, just like people in good health, with no markup for their preexisting conditions.
Even people paying more for their insurance had benefits, like a prohibition on annual or lifetime caps on payouts, that could save them from financial ruin if they were hit with a catastrophic illness or injury.
Advertisement
Insurance numbers alone don’t prove that the Affordable Care Act has been beneficial. But there’s now a large body of research that shows people have better access to care, are less likely to face financial distress from medical bills, and are probably healthier as a result.
That last part is important because, traditionally, it’s been the most difficult link for researchers to establish. And even now the evidence that the Affordable Care Act has improved health is far from definitive. But several studies point very strongly in that direction.
Some found that previously uninsured people who gained coverage because of the Affordable Care Act were less likely to show up at the hospital with advanced, life-threatening versions of conditions like appendicitis and diverticulitis, most likely because they had sought care earlier. Others found that pregnant women who got coverage received better prenatal care, with health benefits for them and their babies.
Yet another group of researchers focused exclusively on the Medicaid expansion and found that its beneficiaries were less likely to die from cardiovascular problems.
Advertisement
One of the most compelling pieces of research was a byproduct of federal efforts to boost insurance enrollment. In 2016 and early 2017, the Treasury Department identified 4.6 million people who hadn’t signed up for insurance and sent letters to 3.9 million of them.
That set up a natural experiment, comparing those who got the letters from those who didn’t. Those who received letters signed up for coverage in higher numbers and, among middle-aged adults, they were less likely to die in the two years that followed. For every 1,648 people who got the letters, one extra person lived.
“Dozens of studies over the past six years, or even the full decade really, on the Affordable Care Act have shown that ... the net effects are really positive,” Benjamin Sommers, a Harvard economist who conducted some of the most definitive research, said in an interview. “People can afford their care. People get better preventive care, more chronic disease care. They feel better and they live longer.”
The Future Of The ACA
The letters in that Treasury Department study went out right before the Trump administration took over ― which is important because President Donald Trump began attacking the law on literally his first day in office.
Repealing the Affordable Care Act was a core promise of his 2016 presidential campaign and although efforts to pass repeal legislation failed (just barely), Trump has taken a number of budgetary and regulatory actions to further undermine the law.
Advertisement
The most blatant were a series of funding cuts to the advertising of HealthCare.gov, the federal website for people buying coverage on their own, as well as to groups that help individuals navigate that process. The most significant attack on the law may have been new regulations that allow insurers to sell “short-term” plans not subject to the Affordable Care Act’s insurance regulations.
These short-term plans can actually last up to three years (in theory), making them an alluring alternative to people who think plans compliant with Affordable Care Act standards are too expensive. But the short-term plans frequently aren’t available to people with preexisting conditions, lack key benefits and have huge out-of-pocket costs. Those out-of-pocket costs have, among other problems, made it difficult for coronavirus patients to pay their bills.
The Trump administration still isn’t done. Right now it’s supporting a lawsuit challenging the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality. It’s a bonkers case that virtually nobody in the legal establishment takes seriously. But the Republican state officials who first brought the lawsuit have asked the courts to throw out the entire law and the Trump administration has endorsed that recommendation.
If that happens, 20 million people could lose coverage, according to projections from the Urban Institute.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court has agreed to take that case, whose central argument has already prevailed before some Republican-appointed judges in the lower courts, although the justices will not hear the dispute until their next term. And with the coronavirus threatening so many people, it’s hard to know what the legal, political and policy environment around health care will even look like nine months or a year from now, when the justices are expected to decide the case.
One possibility is that Democrats will emerge from the 2020 elections with unified control of the federal government, for the first time since 2010, and that they will make another run at health care reform ― if not to pursue the creation of a full-fledged Medicare for All system, with truly universal coverage and government control of prices, then at least to make some of the improvements they had hoped to make all along.
“We knew it was not perfect, that it had some problems,” Reid said of the Affordable Care Act. If Democrats get control of the government, he said he hopes they can start by undoing the damage Trump has done to the health care system and then add a public option.
Though Reid is no longer in office to work on such reforms, Pelosi is. She has said she thinks Medicare for All is not realistic, but she has endorsed making the insurance subsidies more generous, as California just did for its own residents.
For now, the focus of politics is the pandemic. And if it highlights the Affordable Care Act’s shortcomings, the law’s architects, like DeParle, say it also reinforces an idea that is part of the law’s core philosophy: that it makes sense to insure everybody because everybody is vulnerable. “It was important to get this foundation laid ― of everybody being in the system together,” she said.
Advertisement
When the pandemic ends, Obama, Pelosi and all of their allies may finally get a chance to have that celebratory event they’d originally planned for this week.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--10 Years On, A Look Back At Obamacare From The People Who Lived It

But when she chose a replacement plan from Access Health CT , her state ’ s health insurance exchange , @ @ @ @ @ the many glitches that characterized the first year of Obamacare enrollment .
At the time @ @ @ @ @ scheduled to test her for lung cancer , which both of her parents had had @ @ @ @ @ told her she wasn ’ t actually covered because they never got her enrollment information @ @ @ @ @ after HuffPost spoke to the head of Access Health CT about Handler did the problem @ @ @ @ @ she feels good about their insurance even though the family had to pay out of @ @ @ @ @ Wesley ’ s daily vision therapy sessions , which their policy didn ’ t cover @ @ @ @ @ $ 6,000 over those two years , but it was worth the cost , she @ @ @ @ @ positive results .
His eyes still don ’ t coordinate , but he has improved @ @ @ @ @ much easier than it used to be , she said .

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/HuffPost; Photos: Getty
The Affordable Care Act turns 10 on March 23. Over the last decade, HuffPost has interviewed many Americans about the revamped health care system that the law created and how the changes affected their lives.
Some of those stories highlighted people with preexisting conditions who gained coverage for the first time or who could finally afford private insurance thanks to the law’s subsidies. Others got coverage because the 2014 Medicaid expansion made the program available to more adults with low incomes. Others focused on the failures and shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act and the private health insurance system that serves as its foundation.
Advertisement
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of President Barack Obama signing the Affordable Care Act into law, HuffPost returned to the subjects of previous stories to find out what’s happened since.
Joe Lucas, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
In 2015, Joe Lucas was among the millions of Americans at risk of losing their health insurance subsidies because of a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court. After an aortic aneurysm in 2010, he faced $69,000 in medical bills before temporarily qualifying for Medicaid. The 57-year-old self-employed house painter became acutely aware of the dangers of living without health coverage.
Since the Affordable Care Act subsidies became available in 2014, they’ve allowed Lucas to not only get coverage he could afford, but also cut back on how many jobs he takes so he can give his body a rest after decades of working a tough job. This year, he’s paying $94 a month for his insurance after the subsidies, and he’s happy with the coverage.
Advertisement
“I’ve had no problem whatsoever,” he said.
What Lucas appreciates most about the Affordable Care Act is that it enables people like him to get insurance regardless of their preexisting conditions.
“A lot of people with preexisting conditions, they’re given a stigma I don’t think they deserve,” he said. “They’re branded for life with the preexisting conditions thing. If not for the ACA, it’ll put them into a category where they might not be able to afford care at all.”
Lucas’ health is good now. He gets exams every two years to make sure his heart is healthy, and he takes some generic prescriptions for his high blood pressure.
“It’s not like I overwhelm the health care system, put it that way,” Lucas said.
K.C. Handler, New Canaan, Connecticut
In the past month, K.C. Handler has suffered a knee injury and two cracked teeth — but that’s nothing compared to the hassle she’s experienced with her insurance company and with Obamacare, she said.
Advertisement
“I really hesitate to say this because I was an Obama supporter,” said Handler, 49. “I honestly 100% believe that the quality of customer service, the quality of consumer rights, the quality of care — everything has been compromised by the Affordable Care Act.”
Handler’s problems with the health care law started early, when she found in 2013 that the plan she’d been buying for years directly from an insurance company wouldn’t be renewed the following year because it didn’t meet Affordable Care Act standards.
But when she chose a replacement plan from Access Health CT, her state’s health insurance exchange, she ran into one of the many glitches that characterized the first year of Obamacare enrollment. At the time, Handler had a procedure scheduled to test her for lung cancer, which both of her parents had had. But the insurance company told her she wasn’t actually covered because they never got her enrollment information from the exchange. Only after HuffPost spoke to the head of Access Health CT about Handler did the problem get resolved.
On the bright side, Handler got a new diagnosis soon after for a benign condition and didn’t need surgery. On the other hand, she’s been fighting her insurance company and the exchange pretty much since then.
“It’s a failing system,” Handler said. She believes the influx of uninsured people, many of whom have preexisting conditions, into the health insurance market has “punished” customers like her who were in the system already. Rising premiums and confusing benefit packages have also bolstered her antipathy toward Obamacare.
Advertisement
After her premiums rose to $1,000 a month for a Gold plan in 2018, Handler decided to save money by switching to a Bronze plan that cost about half as much for less generous coverage, Handler said. But she contends that the Access Health CT representative who helped her enroll gave her incorrect information about the plan’s coverage, which led to her accruing nearly $20,000 in unexpected out-of-pocket costs last year, even though all of her medical providers belonged to the insurance company’s network.
“I had to sell my house because of this,” Handler said. At the same time, she was dealing with breast cancer surgery and radiation.
“Even before the diagnosis was confirmed, I got a bill for the MRI,” which cost her $3,900, she said.
She tried to fight that bill but couldn’t get anywhere with either the exchange or her insurance carrier.
“I gave up, to be honest, because I’m trying to mitigate my illness,” she said. “I can’t spend 10 hours a week on the phone.”
Advertisement
“The insurance companies rely on the fact that a person with a legitimate grievance is not going to be able to log the amount of time and the bureaucratic red tape they put you through,” she added.
Handler’s troubles didn’t end when she again opted for a more comprehensive Gold plan for this year at a cost of almost $1,000 a month. Handler discovered after choosing her policy that she couldn’t see her oncologists in New York anymore without a referral from a Connecticut doctor ― something she said was again the result of incorrect information from customer service.
“I can’t wait two months to see a doctor,” she said, because she needs treatment for complications that arose after her cancer treatments. “It’s outrageous.”
Dawn Josephson, Portland, Oregon
Wesley Josephson, 14, was born with strabismus, a condition that limits muscle control over one of his eyes. Before the Affordable Care Act, no health insurance company would offer his family a policy that covered treatment for his eyes. That changed in 2010, when the law’s provision forbidding insurers from rejecting or limiting coverage for children with preexisting conditions took effect.
Advertisement
His mother, Dawn Josephson, told HuffPost in 2012 that her family had been spending $1,000 a month out of pocket for services their insurance policy didn’t cover, and that the family was afraid a Supreme Court ruling might invalidate the law and leave her family in the lurch again.
“No one would think that a little eyeball can put so much stress, financial strain on a family,” said Josephson, 47. “If the Affordable Care Act had never happened and the insurance could exclude us for the rest of our lives about his eye, we never would’ve been able to do this vision therapy because we couldn’t afford that on top of the regular doctor bills that we were paying.”
Josephson is pleased with the coverage her family has had since the ACA was enacted, which has enabled them to get regular medical care. That included an exhaustive physical exam for her after her husband, Dave, died suddenly in 2018. She felt fortunate to have access to those services, which reassured her that she was healthy and would be there for her children, she said.
Josephson said she feels good about their insurance even though the family had to pay out of pocket for two years for Wesley’s daily vision therapy sessions, which their policy didn’t cover. That service cost her $6,000 over those two years, but it was worth the cost, she said, because Wesley showed positive results. His eyes still don’t coordinate, but he has improved enough so that reading is much easier than it used to be, she said.
She believes Americans don’t realize how vulnerable they are under the U.S. health care system, even after the Affordable Care Act.
Advertisement
“It’s not about big health issues. Yes, big health issues exist and big health issues are catastrophic and they’re awful,” Josephson said. “But I guarantee you ― you, me, the guy next door, everybody ― we’re all going to have small things happen. Everyone. And it’s those small things that can cause so much frustration and financial strain, so having some kind of health care in place for our society ― how can you not? We need it.”
Sean Kenny, Grand Rapids, Michigan
As a psychologist, Sean Kenny has seen how the Affordable Care Act has helped his patients afford therapy, though high deductibles and significant out-of-pocket costs for medications are still challenges for many.
Back in 2017, Kenny told HuffPost that he was pleasantly surprised by the policies available on HealthCare.gov. Kenny had lost his previous insurance policy because the insurer discontinued it, but he found a plan that had better coverage than his old plan at just $50 more a month.
But this year, the 55-year-old decided not to buy health insurance for the first time since Obamacare. It’s not so much that Kenny has soured on the ACA, he said. His reasons are different: Rising premiums, fewer choices and a surprise bill he received all compelled him to bow out.
Advertisement
“Partly out of frugality and partly out of disappointment with the actual experience of the plan that I had, and partly because ― and I know this is sort of taking a risk — but I’m so healthy right now,” Kenny said.
Last year, Kenny’s insurance company directed him to a public clinic for a physical and some blood work. What he didn’t notice was that a private lab company had a contract with the clinic ― and that lab wasn’t in his plan’s network. He got a bill for $600.
“It’s so scammy,” he said. “I felt abandoned by my insurance company.”
He successfully sued the clinic and got the $600 back, but he refuses to turn the money over the lab: “I told them to fuck off.”
In the meantime, Kenny is taking his chances and hoping he won’t experience any costly health problems. And he’s spending the money that would’ve gone to health insurance on Facebook ads against President Donald Trump’s reelection.
Advertisement
Sheila Tyson, Birmingham, Alabama
The Affordable Care Act came along at just the right time for Sheila Tyson, who faced insurmountable medical bills after she got a liver transplant in 2013. She was too sick to work, so she lost her job and the insurance that went with it, and she couldn’t afford to pay for her own policy. Obamacare subsidies changed that.
“It helped me at a time that I truly needed it, simply because otherwise, I would not have been able to maintain my basic needs,” said Tyson, now 64. Five years ago, Tyson spoke to HuffPost about her fears that the Supreme Court would take away her health insurance subsidies, leaving her destitute and possibly homeless.
Tyson is doing much better now. Her health is stable and, after two years of unemployment, she’s now working at a hospital. That job has excellent health benefits, she said, which means she doesn’t need assistance from ACA programs. But she understands very well that others do.
“There are so many people, especially people in my situation — a life event happened and then you turn around and you’re uninsured at a time when you need to be insured, and there is no insurance,” she said. “It’s like a no-brainer that insurance should be granted to everyone.”
Jared Blitz, Seattle, Washington
When HuffPost interviewed Jared Blitz in 2015, he was facing double anxiety over the Supreme Court ruling to make his health insurance more expensive and planning ahead for a major heart procedure he needed to stay alive. Without coverage, it would have cost at least $200,000.
Advertisement
Blitz, now 37, was born with aortic valve stenosis, meaning one of his heart valves is too narrow. He had a replacement valve implanted in 1999 that was supposed to last 15 years, and time was running out to replace it.
Because he had a preexisting condition, Blitz couldn’t find insurance coverage before the ACA. Under the law, he was guaranteed access to coverage and even received a small subsidy to help make it more affordable. Before the ACA, he spent $15,000 a year on cardiology tests. By 2014, those costs were down to $4,000, including his monthly insurance premiums.
The insurance wasn’t perfect. Even with the subsidy, Blitz could only afford a mid-level Silver plan, which came with a $2,500 annual deductible. He also ran into glitches with the federal health insurance exchange and almost lost his subsidy.
Nevertheless, he said, what he got from the ACA was a huge help.
“It allowed me to breathe a little bit more and it didn’t make me worry as much,” he said. “Some of the anxiety disappeared, which is important when you have a chronic health condition. That alone, to me, was a lifesaver, even though it wasn’t great.”
And he never wound up needing that new heart valve. His doctors told him that his current valve has as many as five years of use left in it, so he still has time.
Advertisement
Blitz has health coverage from his employer now, but having lived through the insurance system that existed before the ACA, he knows how valuable affordable care can be for people like him.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Trump Repeats Latest Bonkers Fox News Coronavirus Claims In Midnight Rant

Fox News host Steve Hilton blasted “ our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear ” over the coronavirus outbreak on Sunday and warned that a recession due to shutdowns could be deadly .
Donald Trump seemed to be watching .
Soon after the segment aired , the president fired off an all-caps tweet repeating some of Hilton ’ s talking points .
Hilton played a clip of Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , saying he was fine if people think the response to the virus was an overreaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easy for him to say , ” Hilton said .
“ He ’ ll still have a job at the end of this , whatever happens.
” “ Our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear over this virus , they can afford an indefinite shutdown .
Working Americans can ’ t , they ’ ll be crushed by it .
You know that famous phrase , ‘ The cure is worse than the disease ?
’ That is exactly the territory we are hurting towards.
” Hilton calculated that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would lead to a recession that could kill 1 million Americans .
“ Poverty kills .
Despair kills .
This shutdown is deadly , ” Hilton said .
He then urged Trump to reassess the plan within 15 days .
After that , it would be time to stop the shutdown while keeping in place bans on large gatherings and measures to protect the elderly .
WE CAN NOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF .
AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD , WE WILL MAKE A DECISION @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GO !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 23 , 2020 Steve Hilton has gone from advising David Cameron to , it seems , advising Donald Trump .
His argument against Dr Fauci 's advice is that many people died because of austerity in Britain between 2012-2017. https : //t.co/xRxKAlV1Aj — Dave Lee ( @ DaveLeeFT ) March 23 , 2020 Steve Hilton on Fox just called Anthony Fauci a global elitist whipping up hysteria who will still have a job when this is all over .
And public health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions now : we shouldn ’ t be ‘ caging ’ the American entrepreneur .
This is /1 — Robert E Kelly ( @ Robert_E_Kelly ) March 23 , 2020 We could really use a steady hand in the White House right now .
https : //t.co/t731MIn4mR — Renato Mariotti ( @ renato_mariotti ) March 23 , 2020 Trump 's ALL-CAPS tweet tonight where he suggests he might end social distancing guidelines after 15 days was likely prompted by Steve Hilton 's Fox News show .
Meanwhile , who were Hilton 's 'experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kirk , Lisa Boothe and Sara Carter .
pic.twitter.com/BfUUaewP4Z — Justin Baragona ( @ justinbaragona ) March 23 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Fox News host Steve Hilton blasted “our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear” over the coronavirus outbreak on Sunday and warned that a recession due to shutdowns could be deadly.
Donald Trump seemed to be watching. Soon after the segment aired, the president fired off an all-caps tweet repeating some of Hilton’s talking points.
Advertisement
Hilton played a clip of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, saying he was fine if people think the response to the virus was an overreaction.
“Well, that’s easy for him to say,” Hilton said. “He’ll still have a job at the end of this, whatever happens.”
Hilton added:
“Our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear over this virus, they can afford an indefinite shutdown. Working Americans can’t, they’ll be crushed by it. You know that famous phrase, ‘The cure is worse than the disease?’ That is exactly the territory we are hurting towards.”
Hilton calculated that an economic shutdown in response to the virus would lead to a recession that could kill 1 million Americans.
Advertisement
“Poverty kills. Despair kills. This shutdown is deadly,” Hilton said. He then urged Trump to reassess the plan within 15 days. After that, it would be time to stop the shutdown while keeping in place bans on large gatherings and measures to protect the elderly.
Shortly after the segment aired, Trump tweeted:
WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2020
On Twitter, critics trashed both Hilton and Trump:
Policy by Donald Trump channeling Steve Hilton. God help us — Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) March 23, 2020
im having a hard time wrapping my head around this making it on airpic.twitter.com/8wnRuUL0xT — Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) March 23, 2020
Steve Hilton has gone from advising David Cameron to, it seems, advising Donald Trump. His argument against Dr Fauci's advice is that many people died because of austerity in Britain between 2012-2017. https://t.co/xRxKAlV1Aj — Dave Lee (@DaveLeeFT) March 23, 2020
Advertisement
Steve Hilton on Fox just called Anthony Fauci a global elitist whipping up hysteria who will still have a job when this is all over. And public health officials have too much influence over economic decisions now: we shouldn’t be ‘caging’ the American entrepreneur. This is /1 — Robert E Kelly (@Robert_E_Kelly) March 23, 2020
We could really use a steady hand in the White House right now. https://t.co/t731MIn4mR — Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) March 23, 2020
Trump's ALL-CAPS tweet tonight where he suggests he might end social distancing guidelines after 15 days was likely prompted by Steve Hilton's Fox News show.
Meanwhile, who were Hilton's 'experts' on coronavirus this evening? Charlie Kirk, Lisa Boothe and Sara Carter. pic.twitter.com/BfUUaewP4Z — Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) March 23, 2020
Translation: Trump is thinking about sending people back to work a week from now while the pandemic rages out of control. https://t.co/dJZpNHTNgY — Max Boot (@MaxBoot) March 23, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--Democrats Block Senate Coronavirus Bill, Calling It A 'Corporate Bailout'

WASHINGTON ― Democrats are raising serious concerns about the Senate ’ s massive emergency legislation aimed at propping up the economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the growing coronavirus pandemic , saying it ’ s tilted too far in favor of Wall Street and big corporations .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) attempted to advance the bill on Sunday evening , emphasizing the need to move quickly to help those who have been laid off during the crisis .
He said both sides had ample time to reach a deal on outstanding issues before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats unanimously blocked the measure over its provisions allowing the Trump administration to lend hundreds of billions of dollars to major industries like hotels , casinos , cruise lines , and oil and gas .
“ We ’ re fiddling here , fiddling with the emotions of the American people , fiddling with the markets , fiddling with our health care , ” a visibly frustrated McConnell said in a floor speech after the vote , accusing Democrats of partisan obstruction that threatened the economy .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed moving forward with the bill “ because among other problems it includes huge bailouts without protections for people and workers and without accountability , and because it shortchanges our hospitals and health care workers who need our help.
” Schumer said he was hopeful changes could be made in ongoing discussions with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin but added that “ we are not yet at that point.
” The high-stakes negotiations , which have been taking place all weekend , gained even more urgency on Sunday after Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus .
He is the first member of the Senate to contract the virus .
Four other Republican senators , some of whom were in close proximity to Paul on Capitol Hill earlier this week , are also self-isolating and did not vote Sunday .
We ’ re not here to create a slush fund for Donald Trump and his family , or a slush fund for the Treasury Department to be able to hand out to their friends .
The proposal , which would cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of billions in loans for small businesses , many of which have been forced to close to fight the spread of the highly contagious virus .
It would also provide a direct cash payment to the majority of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet as a wide span of business and services have been forced to cease .
Major sticking points remain as of Sunday night , however .
Democrats want more funding for hospitals and health care workers across the country who have struggled with shortages of beds and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding a bigger expansion of unemployment benefits for workers who get fired due to the pandemic .
“ Wall Street ’ s going to do just fine .
They ’ ve always rebounded real well ... let ’ s take care of the people we ’ re asking to take care of us if we need them , ” Sen. Joe Manchin , a conservative Democrat from West Virginia , said in a floor speech .
Democrats are also unhappy with the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The massive fund would be controlled by the Treasury Department and could include bailouts to hotels , casinos , cruise lines , and the oil and gas industry .
It includes virtually no restrictions on how the money would be distributed , allowing properties owned directly by President Donald Trump to receive a bailout , for example , according to a Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations .
Another provision in the bill Democrats oppose would allow Mnuchin to delay publicly releasing the names of businesses that receive a bailout , as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for six months .
“ We ’ re not here to create a slush fund for Donald Trump and his family , or a slush fund for the Treasury Department to be able to hand out to their friends , ” Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
told reporters .
“ We ’ re here to help workers , we ’ re here to help hospitals .
And right now what the Republicans proposed does neither of those.
” Democrats have leverage over the final shape of the bill because it requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number only 53 in the 100-seat Senate .
With several Republicans under quarantine , their advantage could be even smaller .
The Senate is expected to try to advance the bill again Monday morning .
“ We ’ re closer than we ’ ve been at any time over the past 48 hours to an agreement , but there are still too many problems in the proposed legislation , ” Schumer said on the floor .
“ Can we overcome the remaining disagreements in the next 24 hours ?
Yes .
We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― Democrats are raising serious concerns about the Senate’s massive emergency legislation aimed at propping up the economy and giving relief to workers hit hard by the growing coronavirus pandemic, saying it’s tilted too far in favor of Wall Street and big corporations.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attempted to advance the bill on Sunday evening, emphasizing the need to move quickly to help those who have been laid off during the crisis. He said both sides had ample time to reach a deal on outstanding issues before a final vote on Monday. But Democrats unanimously blocked the measure over its provisions allowing the Trump administration to lend hundreds of billions of dollars to major industries like hotels, casinos, cruise lines, and oil and gas.
Advertisement
“We’re fiddling here, fiddling with the emotions of the American people, fiddling with the markets, fiddling with our health care,” a visibly frustrated McConnell said in a floor speech after the vote, accusing Democrats of partisan obstruction that threatened the economy.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), meanwhile, said his party opposed moving forward with the bill “because among other problems it includes huge bailouts without protections for people and workers and without accountability, and because it shortchanges our hospitals and health care workers who need our help.”
Schumer said he was hopeful changes could be made in ongoing discussions with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin but added that “we are not yet at that point.”
The high-stakes negotiations, which have been taking place all weekend, gained even more urgency on Sunday after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced he had tested positive for COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus. He is the first member of the Senate to contract the virus. Four other Republican senators, some of whom were in close proximity to Paul on Capitol Hill earlier this week, are also self-isolating and did not vote Sunday.
Advertisement
“We’re not here to create a slush fund for Donald Trump and his family, or a slush fund for the Treasury Department to be able to hand out to their friends.” - Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
The proposal, which would cost well over $1 trillion, includes hundreds of billions in loans for small businesses, many of which have been forced to close to fight the spread of the highly contagious virus. It would also provide a direct cash payment to the majority of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet as a wide span of business and services have been forced to cease.
Major sticking points remain as of Sunday night, however. Democrats want more funding for hospitals and health care workers across the country who have struggled with shortages of beds and protective gear. They’re also demanding a bigger expansion of unemployment benefits for workers who get fired due to the pandemic.
“Wall Street’s going to do just fine. They’ve always rebounded real well ... let’s take care of the people we’re asking to take care of us if we need them,” Sen. Joe Manchin, a conservative Democrat from West Virginia, said in a floor speech.
Democrats are also unhappy with the portion of the bill aimed at helping distressed industries with at least $450 billion in loans. The massive fund would be controlled by the Treasury Department and could include bailouts to hotels, casinos, cruise lines, and the oil and gas industry. It includes virtually no restrictions on how the money would be distributed, allowing properties owned directly by President Donald Trump to receive a bailout, for example, according to a Democratic aide familiar with the negotiations.
Advertisement
Another provision in the bill Democrats oppose would allow Mnuchin to delay publicly releasing the names of businesses that receive a bailout, as well as the amounts of those loans, for six months.
“We’re not here to create a slush fund for Donald Trump and his family, or a slush fund for the Treasury Department to be able to hand out to their friends,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters. “We’re here to help workers, we’re here to help hospitals. And right now what the Republicans proposed does neither of those.”
Democrats have leverage over the final shape of the bill because it requires 60 votes for passage, and Republicans number only 53 in the 100-seat Senate. With several Republicans under quarantine, their advantage could be even smaller. The Senate is expected to try to advance the bill again Monday morning.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--'Heartless' Trump Slammed For Apparent Dig At Mitt Romney's Coronavirus Quarantine

President Donald Trump is being called out for seemingly taunting Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) for being in self-quarantine due to potential coronavirus exposure .
Romney released a statement on Sunday saying he was experiencing no symptoms but had prolonged exposure to Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ky. ) , who tested positive for the virus .
“ Romney ’ s in isolation ?
” Trump said when asked about it during a news conference .
“ Gee , that ’ s too bad.
” Trump said he wasn ’ t being sarcastic .
But he ’ s been highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , calling him a “ fool ” and a “ pompous ‘ ass ’ ” and claiming Utah voters look at him with “ contempt & disgust.
” Given Trump ’ s history of attacking his critics when they ’ re down ― including hurling insults at the late Sen. John McCain ( R-Ariz. ) during his cancer battle and even after his death ― many of his critics weren ’ t buying it : Romney ’ s being extra careful in part because his wife , who has MS , can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is meanness and selfishness personified .
https : //t.co/b317afsscs — Brian Goldsmith ( @ GoldsmithB ) March 22 , 2020 Imagine expressing glee — even veiled as sarcasm — that someone might be infected with a life-threatening illness that could leave him unable to breath and to possibly die ... WHO DOES THAT ?
?
Oh yeah , the President of the United States https : //t.co/J5IS5TReTf — Asha Rangappa ( @ AshaRangappa_ ) March 23 , 2020 Reminder : The virus is especially life threatening to both Romney because of age @ @ @ @ @ @ @ underlying condition .
People used to cane each other on the floor of the Senate for things like this .
— Tom Nichols ( @ RadioFreeTom ) March 23 , 2020 Trump mocks Mitt Romney for self-isolating due to coronavirus concerns .
Even in the middle of a national emergency , Trump is still bitter about Romney 's impeachment vote .
pic.twitter.com/pgXQqhSgMA — Sarah Reese Jones ( @ PoliticusSarah ) March 22 , 2020 Romney 's wife has MS & would be exceptionally at risk from COVID-19 .
Rand Paul 's behavior put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mitt is closer than he 's ever been in his extremely polite life to wanting to throw a punch .
https : //t.co/Sqvb6Aqgyq — Erin The Non Vector Ryan ( @ morninggloria ) March 22 , 2020 The President behaves like a spoiled child .. comment about Romney ridiculous .
I ’ m glad the reporter called him out and asked him about it .
— Mika Brzezinski ( @ morningmika ) March 22 , 2020 Conservatives spent much of the day slamming anyone for daring to say anything about Rand Paul testing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s their man mocking Romney for going into self-quarantine : https : //t.co/z6ZhhTC0cs — Mehdi Hasan ( @ mehdirhasan ) March 23 , 2020 Anne Romney was diagnosed with MS ~23 years ago .
Donald shows again he regards everyone else as objects , as narcissistic con artists often do .
# heartless https : //t.co/TGDb18yO7x — David Cay Johnston ( @ DavidCayJ ) March 23 , 2020 No THIS President @ realDonaldTrump - no other president would be that heartless or cruel - but when you ’ re as stupid as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depths of your deprivation https : //t.co/ZHw0N8oIbE — Matthew Scherer ( @ mscherer0902 ) March 23 , 2020 Today , Trump publicly took sadistic joy in hearing that Mitt Romney might have COVID19 .
Now recall the biggest hotspots in America are Washington , whose governor he called a snake , and NY , whose citizens he 's already harmed as retribution for the state 's investigations of him .
— subscribe to my newsletter ( @ brianbeutler ) March 23 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump is being called out for seemingly taunting Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) for being in self-quarantine due to potential coronavirus exposure.
Romney released a statement on Sunday saying he was experiencing no symptoms but had prolonged exposure to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who tested positive for the virus.
Advertisement
“Romney’s in isolation?” Trump said when asked about it during a news conference. “Gee, that’s too bad.”
Trump said he wasn’t being sarcastic. But he’s been highly critical of Romney, in recent months, calling him a “fool” and a “pompous ‘ass’” and claiming Utah voters look at him with “contempt & disgust.”
Given Trump’s history of attacking his critics when they’re down ― including hurling insults at the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) during his cancer battle and even after his death ― many of his critics weren’t buying it:
Romney’s being extra careful in part because his wife, who has MS, can’t get sick.
As usual, Trump is meanness and selfishness personified. https://t.co/b317afsscs — Brian Goldsmith (@GoldsmithB) March 22, 2020
Advertisement
Imagine expressing glee — even veiled as sarcasm — that someone might be infected with a life-threatening illness that could leave him unable to breath and to possibly die...WHO DOES THAT??
Oh yeah, the President of the United States https://t.co/J5IS5TReTf — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) March 23, 2020
Reminder: The virus is especially life threatening to both Romney because of age and his wife, who has an underlying condition.
People used to cane each other on the floor of the Senate for things like this. — Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) March 23, 2020
Trump mocks Mitt Romney for self-isolating due to coronavirus concerns. Even in the middle of a national emergency, Trump is still bitter about Romney's impeachment vote. pic.twitter.com/pgXQqhSgMA — Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) March 22, 2020
Romney's wife has MS & would be exceptionally at risk from COVID-19. Rand Paul's behavior put Ann Romney at risk. I bet Mitt is closer than he's ever been in his extremely polite life to wanting to throw a punch. https://t.co/Sqvb6Aqgyq — Erin The Non Vector Ryan (@morninggloria) March 22, 2020
The President behaves like a spoiled child .. comment about Romney ridiculous. I’m glad the reporter called him out and asked him about it. — Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) March 22, 2020
Advertisement
Conservatives spent much of the day slamming anyone for daring to say anything about Rand Paul testing positive - oh the irony: here’s their man mocking Romney for going into self-quarantine: https://t.co/z6ZhhTC0cs — Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) March 23, 2020
Anne Romney was diagnosed with MS ~23 years ago. Donald shows again he regards everyone else as objects, as narcissistic con artists often do. #heartless https://t.co/TGDb18yO7x — David Cay Johnston (@DavidCayJ) March 23, 2020
No THIS President @realDonaldTrump - no other president would be that heartless or cruel - but when you’re as stupid as Trump there is no bottom to the depths of your deprivation https://t.co/ZHw0N8oIbE — Matthew Scherer (@mscherer0902) March 23, 2020
And Trump is laughing about Romney having it. He’s a heartless ghoul. https://t.co/xTnsEnzwN4 — Doctrina neglecta in tenebris iacet (@stopthatgirl7) March 23, 2020
Today, Trump publicly took sadistic joy in hearing that Mitt Romney might have COVID19. Now recall the biggest hotspots in America are Washington, whose governor he called a snake, and NY, whose citizens he's already harmed as retribution for the state's investigations of him. — subscribe to my newsletter (@brianbeutler) March 23, 2020


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--Trump Declines To Promise That His Own Company Won't Get Coronavirus Bailout Money

President Donald Trump on Sunday refused to say if he would bar his own company from receiving stimulus money included in any potential bailout package Congress passed to deal with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic .
“ I ’ ve learned , let ’ s just see what happens , ” the president told reporters at the White House when asked about the Trump Organization .
“ Because we have to save some of these great companies.
” '' Instead of being thanked for ... for just not doing it , I get excoriated all the time .
So I 've @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens . ''
Trump does not commit to reject taxpayer bailout money for his hotels .
pic.twitter.com/VD95KOYFI5 — Pod Save America ( @ PodSaveAmerica ) March 22 , 2020 Senators are currently locked in negotiations over a massive economic relief package that could cost upward of $ 1.8 trillion in an effort to help stave off financial disaster .
Both parties have said they want a sweeping stimulus that would cover concerns across America — protecting small businesses , sending cash payments to millions and upping unemployment benefits — but some are concerned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big business without equal measures for workers .
Democrats on Sunday refused to back a GOP-led proposal , which some lawmakers said included a “ slush fund ” for large corporations that would be doled out by the Treasury Department .
Critics argued the proposal would give Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wide authority to hand out funds without any guarantees those companies wouldn ’ t then fire employees or roll back their health care .
“ There ’ s too much money with no oversight , ” Sen. Jon Tester ( D-Mont .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stimulus plan , per The Washington Post .
While declining to give a firm answer about the Trump Organization , which owns many hotels and golf clubs already impacted by the coronavirus , the president also said he hadn ’ t gotten enough credit for refusing to take home a salary while in office .
“ Nobody said ‘ thank you , ’ ” the president said , also noting it was “ very hard for rich people to run for office.
” Reporters also asked Trump whether he had sold any stocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicating several lawmakers , including Sens .
Richard Burr ( R-N.C. ) , Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) and Dianne Feinstein ( D-Calif. ) , sold hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in holdings after Congress began receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak .
( All three have denied any impropriety . )
“ Nasty question , and yet it deserves to be asked I guess , ” he added .
“ What I ’ ve done , by deciding to run … it costs me billions of dollars to become @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump on Sunday refused to say if he would bar his own company from receiving stimulus money included in any potential bailout package Congress passed to deal with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.
“I’ve learned, let’s just see what happens,” the president told reporters at the White House when asked about the Trump Organization. “Because we have to save some of these great companies.”
Advertisement
"Instead of being thanked for ... for just not doing it, I get excoriated all the time. So I've learned, let's just see what happens."
Trump does not commit to reject taxpayer bailout money for his hotels. pic.twitter.com/VD95KOYFI5 — Pod Save America (@PodSaveAmerica) March 22, 2020
Senators are currently locked in negotiations over a massive economic relief package that could cost upward of $1.8 trillion in an effort to help stave off financial disaster. Both parties have said they want a sweeping stimulus that would cover concerns across America — protecting small businesses, sending cash payments to millions and upping unemployment benefits — but some are concerned current proposals include too many protections for big business without equal measures for workers.
Democrats on Sunday refused to back a GOP-led proposal, which some lawmakers said included a “slush fund” for large corporations that would be doled out by the Treasury Department. Critics argued the proposal would give Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin wide authority to hand out funds without any guarantees those companies wouldn’t then fire employees or roll back their health care.
“There’s too much money with no oversight,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said after Senate Democrats blocked the stimulus plan, per The Washington Post.
Advertisement
While declining to give a firm answer about the Trump Organization, which owns many hotels and golf clubs already impacted by the coronavirus, the president also said he hadn’t gotten enough credit for refusing to take home a salary while in office.
“Nobody said ‘thank you,’” the president said, also noting it was “very hard for rich people to run for office.”
Reporters also asked Trump whether he had sold any stocks in recent weeks. Reports have emerged indicating several lawmakers, including Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), sold hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in holdings after Congress began receiving private briefings on the coronavirus outbreak. (All three have denied any impropriety.)
“I don’t have stock,” Trump said. “I own things.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Anthony Fauci Unpacks How He Schools Trump On His Coronavirus Fibs

Dr. Anthony Fauci has been a leading voice in the fight against coronavirus and has repeatedly corrected President Donald Trump ’ s misinformation about the outbreak .
In an interview with Science Insider , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases unpacked how he ’ s navigating that role without losing his job .
In light of the president ’ s history with dissenting voices , Fauci ’ s absence from a handful of recent press briefings sparked speculation online that he ’ d been fired ― or perhaps had fallen ill. “ Well , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other than that , I ’ m good .
I mean , I ’ m not , to my knowledge , coronavirus infected .
To my knowledge , I haven ’ t been fired , ” he told Science Insider .
“ To his [ Trump ’ s ] credit , even though we disagree on some things , he listens .
He goes his own way .
He has his own style .
But on substantive issues , he does listen to what I say , ” Fauci said .
When asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ timeline painted by Trump during a press briefing Saturday , Fauci shed light on how he corrects the president .
“ The way it happened is that after he made that statement , I told the appropriate people , it doesn ’ t comport , ” Fauci told the magazine .
Even though he has on multiple occasions fact-checked the president in real time , Fauci said he can hardly do so on every occasion .
“ The next time they sit down with him and talk about what he ’ s going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the way , Mr. President , be careful about this and don ’ t say that , ” Fauci said .
“ But I can ’ t jump in front of the microphone and push him down .
OK , he said it .
Let ’ s try and get it corrected for the next time.
” Fauci has repeatedly provided a factual counterpoint to the Trump administration ’ s response to the outbreak .
On Friday , after Trump touted two malaria drugs as a treatment against coronavirus , Fauci pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those drugs were effective was anecdotal .
Weeks ago , when the president riffed about a vaccine for COVID-19 being ready in months , Fauci noted that it would likely take at least a year .
And despite repeated assurances from Trump that testing was readily available , Fauci has labeled the lack of testing “ a failing.
” “ The president is talking about hope for people ” while his own focus is on the science , Fauci said .
Fauci referred to similar diplomacy and fact-based counters to Trump during an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thursday , describing his public opposition to the president ’ s claims as a “ risky business.
” “ I say it the way it is , and if he ’ s gon na get pissed off , he ’ s gon na get pissed off .
Thankfully , he is not .
Interestingly , ” Fauci told the Times .
“ I don ’ t want to embarrass him , ” he added .
“ I don ’ t want to act like a tough guy , like I stood up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get the facts out .
And instead of saying , ‘ You ’ re wrong , ’ all you need to do is continually talk about what the data are and what the evidence is .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Anthony Fauci has been a leading voice in the fight against coronavirus and has repeatedly corrected President Donald Trump’s misinformation about the outbreak. In an interview with Science Insider, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases unpacked how he’s navigating that role without losing his job.
In light of the president’s history with dissenting voices, Fauci’s absence from a handful of recent press briefings sparked speculation online that he’d been fired ― or perhaps had fallen ill.
Advertisement
“Well, I’m sort of exhausted. But other than that, I’m good. I mean, I’m not, to my knowledge, coronavirus infected. To my knowledge, I haven’t been fired,” he told Science Insider.
“To his [Trump’s] credit, even though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen to what I say,” Fauci said.
When asked to weigh in on the inaccurate virus timeline painted by Trump during a press briefing Saturday, Fauci shed light on how he corrects the president.
“The way it happened is that after he made that statement, I told the appropriate people, it doesn’t comport,” Fauci told the magazine.
Advertisement
Even though he has on multiple occasions fact-checked the president in real time, Fauci said he can hardly do so on every occasion.
“The next time they sit down with him and talk about what he’s going to say, they will say, by the way, Mr. President, be careful about this and don’t say that,” Fauci said. “But I can’t jump in front of the microphone and push him down. OK, he said it. Let’s try and get it corrected for the next time.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, left, and President Donald Trump at a White House press briefing with the coronavirus task force. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Fauci has repeatedly provided a factual counterpoint to the Trump administration’s response to the outbreak. On Friday, after Trump touted two malaria drugs as a treatment against coronavirus, Fauci pushed back, explaining that the only evidence those drugs were effective was anecdotal. Weeks ago, when the president riffed about a vaccine for COVID-19 being ready in months, Fauci noted that it would likely take at least a year. And despite repeated assurances from Trump that testing was readily available, Fauci has labeled the lack of testing “a failing.”
“The president is talking about hope for people” while his own focus is on the science, Fauci said.
Fauci referred to similar diplomacy and fact-based counters to Trump during an interview with The New York Times last Thursday, describing his public opposition to the president’s claims as a “risky business.”
Advertisement
“I say it the way it is, and if he’s gonna get pissed off, he’s gonna get pissed off. Thankfully, he is not. Interestingly,” Fauci told the Times.
“I don’t want to embarrass him,” he added. “I don’t want to act like a tough guy, like I stood up to the president. I just want to get the facts out. And instead of saying, ‘You’re wrong,’ all you need to do is continually talk about what the data are and what the evidence is.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Conservative Website Hammers Trump For Repeatedly Lying About Coronavirus Tests

A conservative website denounced President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for repeatedly lying about the availability of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ said millions of tests were being sent out , but states complained they weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ the tests did come , they were missing crucial elements .
In response , The @ @ @ @ @ by a group of anti-Trump conservatives , published a supercut of Trump and Pence promising @ @ @ @ @ what really happened : Watch : All the President ’ s false promises regarding the @ @ @ @ @ //t.co/352PZlz5DE pic.twitter.com/spD0tZG6iK — The Bulwark ( @ BulwarkOnline ) March 22 , 2020 The failure @ @ @ @ @ made it impossible to determine how many people have the infection and how fast it @ @ @ @ @ lack of testing also makes it difficult to know if and when measures to slow @ @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A conservative website denounced President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for repeatedly lying about the availability of coronavirus tests.
The two leaders said millions of tests were being sent out, but states complained they weren’t arriving, and when the tests did come, they were missing crucial elements.
Advertisement
In response, The Bulwark, which is run by a group of anti-Trump conservatives, published a supercut of Trump and Pence promising tests side-by-side with numbers showing what really happened:
Watch: All the President’s false promises regarding the tests for COVID-19 https://t.co/352PZlz5DE pic.twitter.com/spD0tZG6iK — The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) March 22, 2020
The failure to test suspected cases has made it impossible to determine how many people have the infection and how fast it’s spreading. A lack of testing also makes it difficult to know if and when measures to slow COVID-19 have worked.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Intensive Care Specialist Does The Chilling Math On How Fast Coronavirus Spreads

“ If you are irresponsible enough to think that you don ’ t mind if you get the flu , @ @ @ @ @ about you - it ’ s about everybody else.
” Intensive care specialist Professor Hugh @ @ @ @ @ is different from the ordinary flu .
pic.twitter.com/h9sQorHQUv

“If you are irresponsible enough to think that you don’t mind if you get the flu, remember it’s not about you - it’s about everybody else.”
Intensive care specialist Professor Hugh Montgomery explains why this coronavirus is different from the ordinary flu. pic.twitter.com/h9sQorHQUv


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-22--Here Is What The Auto Industry Can (And Can't) Do To Help With Ventilators

GM is working with another Detroit-area manufacturer , Meridian Lightweight Technologies Holdings , to obtain foam and metal parts and send them to ventilator manufacturers , according to a report in Crain ’ s Detroit Business .
Ford has said it ’ s in preliminary talks with the government to see how it can help as well .
Projections suggest that supply might not be enough , and health care leaders and elected officials in parts of the country hit hard by coronavirus have said they already don ’ t have enough ventilators .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been begging the federal government for help .
The process of building a car is not especially similar to the process of building a ventilator .
Like any medical device , ventilators are subject to strict and careful oversight by government regulators .
The fastest way to ramp up production , according to many experts and engineers , is to have existing manufacturers add new facilities rather than to recruit new ones .
“ From a technical standpoint , clearly companies like GM , Ford , and Tesla have the capability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Larry Smith , a retired medical device executive who is now director of graduate business programs at Rider University .
“ However , in the short-term , it seems to me that people that are already either making the subcomponents or doing the assembly could ramp up their own manufacturing more quickly than standing up brand new manufacturing from scratch.
” “ I have been getting inquiries from suppliers , asking how can we get involved , how can we help , can we make parts or can we sew things , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Original Equipment Suppliers Association , told HuffPost on Friday .
But there are bound to be many more suppliers out there looking for work , especially with car factories curbing production .
The same goes for companies that supply other industries , from aerospace to appliances that use the same kinds of components ventilators do .
“ The global scale of what the auto industry does on a day-to-day basis is just orders of magnitude larger than almost any other industry , ” said Kristin Dziczek , a vice president at the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chain and logistics systems are highly refined , they know how to get around bottlenecks in supply and distribution.
” Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) has said she thinks there are myriad opportunities for the auto industry to help with ventilator production .
Like Cuomo , however , she has also said the need is urgent and would like to see more action ― and coordination ― from the federal government .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
General Motors factories aren’t about to start churning out ventilators.
But some smaller manufacturers that supply parts for GM vehicles are about to shift production in order to help companies already making ventilators produce even more of them.
That could make a real difference, especially if more suppliers do the same.
GM is working with another Detroit-area manufacturer, Meridian Lightweight Technologies Holdings, to obtain foam and metal parts and send them to ventilator manufacturers, according to a report in Crain’s Detroit Business. Ford has said it’s in preliminary talks with the government to see how it can help as well.
Advertisement
These efforts require cooperation and coordination among supply and manufacturing firms that are typically rivals for work.
“Usually we compete, but in this circumstance, we’re not competitors,” Joe Petrillo, director of North American sales for Meridian, told Crain’s.
The shipments could start as early as this week, according to Crain’s, and that wouldn’t be a moment too soon.
Auto Suppliers Could Play An Important Role
Ventilators are the devices that push and pull air through a tube connected to the lungs. COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, attacks the lungs, and people with severe cases need ventilators to survive.
Advertisement
The best estimates suggest that U.S. hospitals currently have close to 200,000 ventilators. But that includes older units, some of which may not work, and a supply from a federal emergency stockpile.
Projections suggest that supply might not be enough, and health care leaders and elected officials in parts of the country hit hard by coronavirus have said they already don’t have enough ventilators. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), among others, has been begging the federal government for help.
Auto industry leaders announced last week that they were eager to do their part. But the realities of ventilator production would make it difficult for a company like Ford or GM to start producing the machines quickly.
The process of building a car is not especially similar to the process of building a ventilator. Like any medical device, ventilators are subject to strict and careful oversight by government regulators. The fastest way to ramp up production, according to many experts and engineers, is to have existing manufacturers add new facilities rather than to recruit new ones.
“From a technical standpoint, clearly companies like GM, Ford, and Tesla have the capability to assemble complicated machines like ventilators,” said Larry Smith, a retired medical device executive who is now director of graduate business programs at Rider University. “However, in the short-term, it seems to me that people that are already either making the subcomponents or doing the assembly could ramp up their own manufacturing more quickly than standing up brand new manufacturing from scratch.”
Advertisement
“I have been getting inquiries from suppliers, asking how can we get involved, how can we help, can we make parts or can we sew things.” - Julie Fream, Original Equipment Suppliers Association
The story with the parts is a little different.
Vehicles and ventilators use many of the same components, from circuit boards and pressure sensors to valves and pipes. Although they must be custom-built and then checked by government regulators, officials can fast-track the process.
And with the auto industry idling its assembly factories as the economy slows down, suppliers are eager for the work.
“I have been getting inquiries from suppliers, asking how can we get involved, how can we help, can we make parts or can we sew things,” Julie Fream, president of the Original Equipment Suppliers Association, told HuffPost on Friday.
Ventilator Production Still Faces Big Challenges
Ventilator manufacturers still face many challenges when it comes to ramping up production. They say they’re already running at or above their normal capacity, because of the unprecedented international demand for their products.
Advertisement
They may have to hire more workers, which would require both finding and training people. That may get difficult, in part because of the coronavirus pandemic and its effects.
“Folks are scared to come to work and in some cases they are bound to their homes,” a senior supply chain manager at one medical device company told HuffPost. “Finding people to do the work is a concern.”
And although a handful Midwest auto suppliers pitching in will ease the crunch on some parts, ventilators have hundreds of components and subcomponents. Experts have said for a while that a limited supply could slow down production.
But there are bound to be many more suppliers out there looking for work, especially with car factories curbing production. The same goes for companies that supply other industries, from aerospace to appliances that use the same kinds of components ventilators do.
Vehicles go through the assembly line at a General Motors plant in Lansing, Michigan, in February. Bill Pugliano via Getty Images
Advertisement
Major automative manufacturers may be able to help in other ways, because they have so much expertise in the logistics of producing a large amount of goods in a short time.
GM announced last week that it was working with a Ventec, a Seattle-based ventilator company, to increase production. Ventec is a smaller firm ― at least, relative to large ones like General Electric ― and the announcement mentioned specifically “logistics, purchasing and manufacturing expertise.”
“The global scale of what the auto industry does on a day-to-day basis is just orders of magnitude larger than almost any other industry,” said Kristin Dziczek, a vice president at the Center for Automotive Research. “Their supply chain and logistics systems are highly refined, they know how to get around bottlenecks in supply and distribution.”
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) has said she thinks there are myriad opportunities for the auto industry to help with ventilator production. Like Cuomo, however, she has also said the need is urgent and would like to see more action ― and coordination ― from the federal government.
“I’ve got to solve problems, and I need the federal government to help me make sure that I’ve got what we need for our frontline providers, in particular, but also ventilators for people that are going suffer,” Whitmer said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Advertisement
One way Trump could potentially help is by using authority under the Defense Production Act. Among other things, that would give government orders for ventilators priority over existing contracts. Trump has so far resisted taking that action, with administration officials saying it’s not necessary given what the private sector is doing on its own.
The federal government could also help by getting a clearer sense of what ventilators are available and how many the country might need, and then making sure the machines get to the areas of greatest need. Typically the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be overseeing those efforts.
But Trump did not make an official disaster declaration until March 13, so FEMA only took charge of the response last week.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Rep. Ben McAdams Hospitalized After Coronavirus Diagnosis

Days after announcing his coronavirus diagnosis , Rep. Ben McAdams ( D-Utah ) revealed Sunday that he was hospitalized after experiencing “ severe shortness of breath.
” McAdams said in a statement that his condition had since improved and he was “ feeling relatively better.
” He said he remains in the hospital , however , and would stay there until his doctors “ determine it is appropriate.
” “ My experience has shown me how critical it is to follow the advice of the [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] and the Utah Department of Health in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , ” the freshman lawmaker said .
Thank you everyone for your well wishes .
Here is an update on my health status.👇 # utpol # covid19 # coronavirus pic.twitter.com/MrugvuupQq — Rep. Ben McAdams ( @ RepBenMcAdams ) March 23 , 2020 Prior to his hospitalization , McAdams had said that he “ feeling about as sick as I ’ ve ever been.
” He told CNN ’ s Wolf Blitzer on Friday that he was struggling with “ really labored breathing.
” “ I feel like I have a belt around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When I cough , my muscles are so sore , so I just feel pain every time I cough , which is frequently , ” he said , adding that he had a “ fever of about 102.
” McAdams and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart ( R-Fla. ) were the first two lawmakers in the House to be diagnosed with the coronavirus .
Sen. Rand Paul ( R-Ken . )
on Sunday became the first senator to be diagnosed with the disease .
The lawmakers are among the more than 35,000 people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to date .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Days after announcing his coronavirus diagnosis, Rep. Ben McAdams (D-Utah) revealed Sunday that he was hospitalized after experiencing “severe shortness of breath.”
McAdams said in a statement that his condition had since improved and he was “feeling relatively better.” He said he remains in the hospital, however, and would stay there until his doctors “determine it is appropriate.”
Advertisement
“My experience has shown me how critical it is to follow the advice of the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the Utah Department of Health in order to stop the spread of this virus,” the freshman lawmaker said.
Thank you everyone for your well wishes. Here is an update on my health status.👇#utpol #covid19 #coronavirus pic.twitter.com/MrugvuupQq — Rep. Ben McAdams (@RepBenMcAdams) March 23, 2020
Prior to his hospitalization, McAdams had said that he “feeling about as sick as I’ve ever been.”
He told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday that he was struggling with “really labored breathing.”
“I feel like I have a belt around my chest that’s really tight. When I cough, my muscles are so sore, so I just feel pain every time I cough, which is frequently,” he said, adding that he had a “fever of about 102.”
McAdams and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) were the first two lawmakers in the House to be diagnosed with the coronavirus. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) on Sunday became the first senator to be diagnosed with the disease.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-23--Joe Biden Rips Donald Trump's Response To Coronavirus Pandemic

Former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday delivered remarks from his home in Delaware in an effort to reignite his presidential campaign during the coronavirus outbreak , and he blasted President Donald Trump for being slow to respond to the health crisis .
“ The president says no one saw this coming .
Well , that ’ s just not accurate , ” Biden said .
“ The mindset that was slow to recognize the problem in the first place ... is still too much of how the president is addressing the problem.
” The address was the first of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be regular briefings on the coronavirus outbreak , an effort to offer some counterprogramming to Trump ’ s daily press briefings .
Biden called on Trump to activate the authority of the Defense Production Act , which would mandate that private companies produce medical and safety equipment like ventilators and masks .
He also called out the president for not taking the crisis seriously in January , when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the United States .
“ Trump keeps saying he is a wartime president — well , start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ Donald Trump is not to blame for the coronavirus but he does bear responsibility for our response.
” Former Vice President Joe Biden , a current candidate for president , has converted a rec room in his home into a studio from which he can broadcast live and address Americans .
Republicans included a proposal to give $ 500 billion to the Treasury Department , which it could loan to companies ― from airlines to the energy industry ― hit hard by the crisis .
The proposal does not require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it would give Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin broad discretion to hand out the money .
“ President Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying to put a corporate bailout ahead of millions of families , ” Biden said of negotiations in the Senate , calling the bailout package a “ slush fund for corporations.
” Biden ’ s remarks come as both his supporters and his detractors have been raising concerns about his inability to campaign in person during the pandemic .
Both Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) have canceled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would just love to see you more , ” one donor told Biden during a telefundraiser held over the weekend .
“ Like , how do we get more of you and less of [ Trump ] on our airwaves ?
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Vice President Joe Biden on Monday delivered remarks from his home in Delaware in an effort to reignite his presidential campaign during the coronavirus outbreak, and he blasted President Donald Trump for being slow to respond to the health crisis.
“The president says no one saw this coming. Well, that’s just not accurate,” Biden said. “The mindset that was slow to recognize the problem in the first place ... is still too much of how the president is addressing the problem.”
Advertisement
The address was the first of what the former vice president said will be regular briefings on the coronavirus outbreak, an effort to offer some counterprogramming to Trump’s daily press briefings.
Biden called on Trump to activate the authority of the Defense Production Act, which would mandate that private companies produce medical and safety equipment like ventilators and masks. He also called out the president for not taking the crisis seriously in January, when the first case of coronavirus was detected in the United States.
“Trump keeps saying he is a wartime president — well, start to act like one,” Biden said. “Donald Trump is not to blame for the coronavirus but he does bear responsibility for our response.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden, a current candidate for president, has converted a rec room in his home into a studio from which he can broadcast live and address Americans. Joe Biden
Advertisement
Biden also echoed congressional Democrats’ concerns about current negotiations over a coronavirus bailout package.
Republicans included a proposal to give $500 billion to the Treasury Department, which it could loan to companies ― from airlines to the energy industry ― hit hard by the crisis. The proposal does not require companies to keep employees on payroll, and it would give Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin broad discretion to hand out the money.
“President Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying to put a corporate bailout ahead of millions of families,” Biden said of negotiations in the Senate, calling the bailout package a “slush fund for corporations.”
The country’s “guiding principle” should be “to keep everyone paid through this,” Biden said.
Biden’s remarks come as both his supporters and his detractors have been raising concerns about his inability to campaign in person during the pandemic. Both Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have canceled all public campaign events.
“I would just love to see you more,” one donor told Biden during a telefundraiser held over the weekend. “Like, how do we get more of you and less of [Trump] on our airwaves?”
Advertisement