thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Some Senate Republicans Want Lower Coronavirus Unemployment Payments

Some Senate Republicans think the coronavirus relief bill the Senate will soon vote on would offer too much money to people who lose their jobs .
Lawmakers have not yet finalized the actual text of the legislation , which was negotiated by the Trump administration and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill .
Democrats said the unemployment provision would boost weekly benefits by $ 600 , a massive increase to payments that average $ 364 .
In normal times , unemployment insurance recipients are required to search for jobs and not reject offers that are comparable in pay to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed last week encouraged states to suspend those rules , however , as part of the government ’ s effort to encourage people to stay home so they don ’ t spread the coronavirus .
As a result of widespread school and business closures , many Americans have already been laid off or forced to stay home from work , and unemployment claims are surging .
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) bragged Tuesday that the extra money would amount to full replacement of lost wages for people who have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own or a family member ’ s ― or for those whose employers have shut down due to the outbreak .
Benefits normally replace about 50 % of someone ’ s lost wages .
The extra benefits would only last for four months and would indeed encourage people to stay home instead of looking for work .
For some workers , the $ 600 boost could push their total benefit above what they previously earned from their jobs .
Democrats came up with the $ 600 figure because it ’ s roughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the average weekly wage , which was $ 981 in February .
A Democratic aide said they would have preferred to actually match a person ’ s previous wage , but U.S. Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia shot that idea down , saying it would be too complicated for state workforce agencies .
A Labor Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment .
A Republican spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee said negotiators opted for a temporary across-the-board $ 600 boost in unemployment benefits because it offered faster relief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with different programs administered by the states .
Before Wednesday , the unemployment benefits had not been one of the more controversial pieces of the legislation , which would also direct cash payments to most American households and set up a corporate bailout fund .
It ’ s unclear whether the new objections to the unemployment provisions of the bill will derail its passage .
Republicans said they were hoping to secure a vote on an amendment to the bill to fix it , but Democrats insisted it was a compromise reached in @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Some Senate Republicans think the coronavirus relief bill the Senate will soon vote on would offer too much money to people who lose their jobs.
The last-minute objections threaten to delay the passage of a $2 trillion economic rescue package Senate leaders were hoping to wrap on Wednesday.
Advertisement
The issue stems from what a group of GOP senators called a “drafting error” they argued would incentivize workers to leave their jobs and stay laid off.
“This bill pays you more not to work than if you are working,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said at a press conference on Wednesday.
Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) added: “We cannot encourage people to make more money in unemployment than they do with employment.”
Lawmakers have not yet finalized the actual text of the legislation, which was negotiated by the Trump administration and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill. Democrats said the unemployment provision would boost weekly benefits by $600, a massive increase to payments that average $364.
Advertisement
In normal times, unemployment insurance recipients are required to search for jobs and not reject offers that are comparable in pay to their previous positions. A bill Congress passed last week encouraged states to suspend those rules, however, as part of the government’s effort to encourage people to stay home so they don’t spread the coronavirus.
As a result of widespread school and business closures, many Americans have already been laid off or forced to stay home from work, and unemployment claims are surging.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) bragged Tuesday that the extra money would amount to full replacement of lost wages for people who have to stop working due to illness ― either their own or a family member’s ― or for those whose employers have shut down due to the outbreak. Benefits normally replace about 50% of someone’s lost wages.
The extra benefits would only last for four months and would indeed encourage people to stay home instead of looking for work. For some workers, the $600 boost could push their total benefit above what they previously earned from their jobs.
HuffPost readers: Do you receive SNAP benefits, often known as food stamps, and have you had any trouble getting groceries due to the coronavirus outbreak? Tell us about it ― email arthur@huffpost.com. Please include your phone number if you’re willing to be interviewed
Though Republicans called it a drafting error, it wasn’t an accident.
Democrats came up with the $600 figure because it’s roughly the difference between the average unemployment benefit and the average weekly wage, which was $981 in February. A Democratic aide said they would have preferred to actually match a person’s previous wage, but U.S. Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia shot that idea down, saying it would be too complicated for state workforce agencies. A Labor Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Democratic aide said it was possible the provision could change before the text is finalized.
A Republican spokesman for the Senate Finance Committee said negotiators opted for a temporary across-the-board $600 boost in unemployment benefits because it offered faster relief than would have been possible by tinkering with different programs administered by the states.
“Nothing in this bill incentivizes businesses to lay off employees, in fact it’s just the opposite,” the spokesman said.
Before Wednesday, the unemployment benefits had not been one of the more controversial pieces of the legislation, which would also direct cash payments to most American households and set up a corporate bailout fund.
It’s unclear whether the new objections to the unemployment provisions of the bill will derail its passage. Republicans said they were hoping to secure a vote on an amendment to the bill to fix it, but Democrats insisted it was a compromise reached in bipartisan negotiations.
Advertisement
Graham has previously urged speedy passage of the bill. “There is no good reason left to deny the American people the relief they need,” he tweeted Wednesday. “Enough already. Pass the damn bill!”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, issued a statement Wednesday threatening to hold up the bill over its corporate provisions if the Republican senators did not drop what he called their “anti-worker objections” to unemployment assistance.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--NRA Cuts Salaries, Prepares For Layoffs As Coronavirus Spreads

The National Rifle Association will cut salaries , lay off employees and cancel planned events due to the group ’ s floundering financial situation , which has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic .
Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre told board members on Monday that the “ elimination of certain positions ” is in response to the outbreak of COVID-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus , which has killed thousands and continues to spread across the U.S .
Along with the layoffs , hourly employees will work just four days a week , and staffers ’ salaries will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In addition , some senior staff members are voluntarily taking deeper cuts , ” an NRA spokesperson told NPR in an emailed statement .
It ’ s not clear how much LaPierre will stand to lose , but the Washington Post reports he will also take a 20 % pay cut .
( LaPierre was paid $ 2.1 million in 2018 , according to the nonprofit ’ s most recent public tax filing . )
Planned events — including banquets , gun shows and recruitment stations — will also be placed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has ended .
While this latest bit of financial trouble for the gun group may not necessarily be its fault ― businesses in various industries across the U.S. are being negatively impacted by the virus ― it ’ s another huge blow to the already struggling organization .
Infighting in the group has led to several lawsuits alleging financial mismanagement in recent years .
Attorneys general in Washington , D.C. and New York have subpoenaed the NRA ’ s financial records .
Several board members have jumped ship .
Its television arm was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice released a report detailing how the group worked as a “ foreign asset ” for Russia during the 2016 presidential election .
Meanwhile , the NRA has continued its fear mongering as the coronavirus outbreak continues , recently claiming Democrats are using the pandemic as an excuse to take away guns ( they ’ re not ) .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The National Rifle Association will cut salaries, lay off employees and cancel planned events due to the group’s floundering financial situation, which has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic.
Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre told board members on Monday that the “elimination of certain positions” is in response to the outbreak of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, which has killed thousands and continues to spread across the U.S.
Advertisement
Along with the layoffs, hourly employees will work just four days a week, and staffers’ salaries will be cut by 20%, NPR reported.
“In addition, some senior staff members are voluntarily taking deeper cuts,” an NRA spokesperson told NPR in an emailed statement. It’s not clear how much LaPierre will stand to lose, but the Washington Post reports he will also take a 20% pay cut. (LaPierre was paid $2.1 million in 2018, according to the nonprofit’s most recent public tax filing.)
Planned events — including banquets, gun shows and recruitment stations — will also be placed on an indefinite hold until the pandemic has ended.
While this latest bit of financial trouble for the gun group may not necessarily be its fault ― businesses in various industries across the U.S. are being negatively impacted by the virus ― it’s another huge blow to the already struggling organization. Infighting in the group has led to several lawsuits alleging financial mismanagement in recent years. Attorneys general in Washington, D.C. and New York have subpoenaed the NRA’s financial records. Several board members have jumped ship. Its television arm was shuttered. And last September, the Department of Justice released a report detailing how the group worked as a “foreign asset” for Russia during the 2016 presidential election.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--If Trump’s ‘Travel Ban’ Was So Great, Then How Come We Have 61,167 COVID-19 Cases?

WASHINGTON ― The way President Donald Trump tells it , his China travel ban was a gutsy move against the coronavirus that “ pretty much shut it down coming in from China , ” “ stopped it , ” and put the deadly virus “ very much under control.
” Which of course raises the question : Why , then , does the U.S. have 61,167 coronavirus cases and 849 deaths as of Wednesday afternoon , with both numbers on the rise ?
Global health experts agree that blocking travel from China made sense , particularly given the Chinese government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ severity and extent of the disease there .
But they also agree that Trump should have simultaneously made it a top priority to set up an extensive testing regime to understand the spread of the virus and to equip hospitals and first responders with the ventilators , respirators and other medical supplies they now need as the disease inevitably spreads around the country .
“ Once the virus is introduced to a community , unless it is contained it will grow exponentially .
And that is what we are seeing now , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of epidemiology at Harvard .
“ Travel bans don ’ t help once the spread has already happened.
” Trump , though , repeatedly claimed for weeks that his Jan. 31 decision , which banned foreigners who had been in China in the previous 14 days from entering the country , had saved the United States from COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus .
At a reelection rally in Charleston , South Carolina , on Feb. 28 , Trump said : “ A virus starts in China , bleeds its way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , doesn ’ t spread widely at all in the United States because of the early actions that myself and my administration took against a lot of other wishes.
” To this day , Trump continues to tout that decision as a brave call that others would not have made and which has kept Americans safe .
“ I made a decision to close off to China .
That was weeks early .
And , honestly , I took a lot of heat , ” Trump said during an extended Fox News interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And I must say , doctors — nobody wanted to make that decision at the time .
It was very , very early .
Call it luck or call it talent .
It doesn ’ t matter .
We made a great decision.
” Trump ’ s claim that not even doctors supported his decision is false ― in fact , his own White House points to statements from doctors both inside and outside the administration supporting the China travel ban , which was later broadened to include foreigners who had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however , said that merely keeping out potentially sick foreigners does nothing to slow the spread of a disease that was already present in the United States before the Jan. 31 travel restrictions .
Other countries that have done a better job slowing the spread of the virus ― South Korea , Germany ― worked hard to mass produce a test to figure out where precisely the disease was and how best to slow it .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , meanwhile , suffered technical problems developing a test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adopt a German test as a fallback .
During those weeks , rather than push his administration hard on either of those issues , Trump instead used seemingly every available opportunity to downplay the threat from the virus .
He claimed ― falsely ― that the disease was no worse than the seasonal flu , that it was likely to go away on its own , and advised Americans to ignore it and invest in the stock market .
“ Travel bans are easy , especially when , as in this case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Ned Price , a former CIA analyst and a spokesman for the National Security Council under President Barack Obama .
“ But they ’ re also not particularly effective when it comes to pandemics , and that ’ s especially the case when China was already weeks into the outbreak , and hundreds of thousands had already left the affected region .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON ― The way President Donald Trump tells it, his China travel ban was a gutsy move against the coronavirus that “pretty much shut it down coming in from China,” “stopped it,” and put the deadly virus “very much under control.”
Which of course raises the question: Why, then, does the U.S. have 61,167 coronavirus cases and 849 deaths as of Wednesday afternoon, with both numbers on the rise?
Advertisement
Jeremy Konyndyk, who worked in the Obama White House on the response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak, compared Trump’s move to France’s famously useless fortifications against the Nazis in World War II.
“The travel ban was his Maginot Line, the false sense of security that in fact left us hugely vulnerable to attack,” Konyndyk said. “Because it meant we didn’t man our other defenses.”
Global health experts agree that blocking travel from China made sense, particularly given the Chinese government’s attempts to cover up the severity and extent of the disease there. But they also agree that Trump should have simultaneously made it a top priority to set up an extensive testing regime to understand the spread of the virus and to equip hospitals and first responders with the ventilators, respirators and other medical supplies they now need as the disease inevitably spreads around the country.
“Once the virus is introduced to a community, unless it is contained it will grow exponentially. And that is what we are seeing now,” said William Hanage, an associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard. “Travel bans don’t help once the spread has already happened.”
Advertisement
International travelers, some wearing face masks, arrive at Los Angeles International Airport on March 12, 2020, one day before a U.S. flight travel ban hit 26 European countries over the coronavirus. FREDERIC J. BROWN via Getty Images
Trump, though, repeatedly claimed for weeks that his Jan. 31 decision, which banned foreigners who had been in China in the previous 14 days from entering the country, had saved the United States from COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus.
Speaking to a favorite interviewer on Feb. 2, Trump assured Fox News viewers that there was no reason to worry about coronavirus. “Well, we pretty much shut it down coming in from China,” he told Sean Hannity.
At a reelection rally in Charleston, South Carolina, on Feb. 28, Trump said: “A virus starts in China, bleeds its way into various countries all around the world, doesn’t spread widely at all in the United States because of the early actions that myself and my administration took against a lot of other wishes.”
On March 7, Trump declared: “It came out of China, and we heard about it. And made a good move: We closed it down. We stopped it.”
Advertisement
To this day, Trump continues to tout that decision as a brave call that others would not have made and which has kept Americans safe. “I made a decision to close off to China. That was weeks early. And, honestly, I took a lot of heat,” Trump said during an extended Fox News interview from the White House on Tuesday. “And I must say, doctors — nobody wanted to make that decision at the time. It was very, very early. Call it luck or call it talent. It doesn’t matter. We made a great decision.”
Trump’s claim that not even doctors supported his decision is false ― in fact, his own White House points to statements from doctors both inside and outside the administration supporting the China travel ban, which was later broadened to include foreigners who had been in Iran and Europe.
Outside experts, however, said that merely keeping out potentially sick foreigners does nothing to slow the spread of a disease that was already present in the United States before the Jan. 31 travel restrictions.
“Travel bans are easy ... but they’re also not particularly effective when it comes to pandemics.” - Ned Price, former National Security Council spokesman under Obama
“By the time he imposed those measures we already had community spread underway. And the failure to test guaranteed we didn’t catch or prepare for it,” Konyndyk said.
Advertisement
Other countries that have done a better job slowing the spread of the virus ― South Korea, Germany ― worked hard to mass produce a test to figure out where precisely the disease was and how best to slow it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, meanwhile, suffered technical problems developing a test for several weeks, yet failed to adopt a German test as a fallback.
That put the United States a good six weeks behind other countries in mapping the coronavirus’s spread and in ramping up the production and distribution of medical supplies.
During those weeks, rather than push his administration hard on either of those issues, Trump instead used seemingly every available opportunity to downplay the threat from the virus. He claimed ― falsely ― that the disease was no worse than the seasonal flu, that it was likely to go away on its own, and advised Americans to ignore it and invest in the stock market.
“Travel bans are easy, especially when, as in this case, the airlines had already curtailed service,” said Ned Price, a former CIA analyst and a spokesman for the National Security Council under President Barack Obama. “But they’re also not particularly effective when it comes to pandemics, and that’s especially the case when China was already weeks into the outbreak, and hundreds of thousands had already left the affected region.”
He added: “What’s harder, but far more effective at stopping the spread of a disease, is the blocking and tackling that should have come in the weeks, months, and even years before the first case of coronavirus emerged.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Free COVID-19 Tests Aren't Enough To Protect Patients From High Costs

Congress has already assured that anyone who can actually get tested for coronavirus won ’ t face any costs for the diagnosis .
But in the high-priced U.S. health care system , that won ’ t be nearly enough .
Patients who show possible symptoms of the coronavirus are typically first screened for other illnesses , such as influenza , to determine whether they need a coronavirus test .
Those diagnostics and any other services a patient receives while undergoing COVID-19 testing will still cost money , which can deter someone from seeking the test at all .
Then there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with COVID-19 .
While there is no proven medical treatment to fight the viral infection itself , patients who are too sick to recover at home frequently require hospitalizations , and with hospital stays come hospital bills .
Intensive care unit beds , ventilators and specialized physician treatment can get very expensive .
The American health care system is particularly unsuited to a moment like this , when potential millions of people get sick at the same time with a disease for which there is no cure and that requires aggressive medical interventions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Coronavirus Test The medical costs of the coronavirus will be considerable , as high as $ 251 billion over the next year , according to an analysis from Covered California , the state ’ s health insurance exchange .
That assumes 15 million Americans are diagnosed with COVID-19 , which is the upper end of Covered California ’ s projections .
But even the low end of the Covered California projection anticipates 4 million cases and $ 31 billion in costs .
Patients will pay a substantial portion of that themselves in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kinds of out-of-pocket costs required by their insurance policies .
By examining job-based health benefits ― the most common type of private health coverage ― the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the average COVID-19 patient younger than 65 will incur at least $ 1,300 in out-of-pocket costs for treatment , depending on the severity of their illness .
That ’ s on top of the premiums policyholders pay for their insurance .
To some , that may not seem like much money .
But last year , the Federal Reserve Board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t have enough savings to cover even $ 400 in unexpected expenses .
And even under normal circumstances , big health care bills can lead to financial ruin .
From 2013 through 2016 , 59 % of people who filed for bankruptcy cited medical costs as a reason .
Those calculations don ’ t include other aspects of the U.S. health care system , such as higher charges from out-of-network medical providers , which can lead to surprise bills .
Eighteen percent of hospital admissions for people who have pneumonia with major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience ― resulted in bills from out-of-network providers , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation .
Those with deductibles into the thousands of dollars will pay even more , including people who work for small businesses and those who buy the lower-cost policies available from health insurance exchanges like HealthCare.gov or directly from insurance companies .
So-called Bronze plans this year have an average deductible of $ 6,506 , and the average Silver plan deductible is $ 4,554 , a separate Kaiser Family Foundation report found .
Similar to people with private insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their deductibles and for a share of their medical costs , unless they have supplemental “ Medigap ” plans that cover those .
Those with private Medicare Advantage plans face cost-sharing that varies among the policies , but the federal government has instructed insurers not to charge patients more when they see out-of-network providers .
In most states , Medicaid beneficiaries have little to no out-of-pocket costs .
The sticker price for COVID-19 care ranges from $ 9,763 to $ 20,292 for people who have employer-sponsored health insurance .
But even that doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an uninsured person because employers and insurers negotiate lower fees with hospitals and other medical providers while those without coverage face the full , non-discounted prices .
The private health insurance system was designed to discourage Americans from getting medical treatments and to erect financial and logistical barriers to care .
During a national and personal emergency , patients who have or think they have COVID-19 still have to navigate their insurance companies ’ rules .
High cost-sharing , especially large deductibles , has been a growing trend in private insurance for more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big reason why 45 % of those who have health coverage are “ underinsured ” and have coverage that doesn ’ t meet their financial needs .
Insurers — and employers , in the case of job-based benefits — want patients to get less medical care and discourage them with big deductibles , copays and the like .
And it works : More than one-quarter of Americans had gone without medical care they needed over the past 12 months due to the cost , according to a 2019 West Health/Gallup poll .
Since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients won ’ t have paid down much of their annual deductible yet .
Eleven states and the District of Columbia are offering some help by re-opening their health insurance exchanges to uninsured people during the outbreak .
So far , however , Idaho ’ s state-run exchange and federally run exchanges in the rest of the country remain closed , although people can still apply for coverage in those places under certain circumstances , such as losing a job .
The federal government also is fielding requests from states that want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ qualified individuals to sign up for Medicaid .
There are 14 states that have refused to adopt the Affordable Care Act ’ s Medicaid expansion ― 90 % of which is financed by the federal government ― that could do so at any time if they want to protect low-income residents from coronavirus costs .
That would allow 4.4 million uninsured people in those states to qualify for Medicaid coverage .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Congress has already assured that anyone who can actually get tested for coronavirus won’t face any costs for the diagnosis. But in the high-priced U.S. health care system, that won’t be nearly enough.
The free testing for COVID-19, the disease caused by coronavirus, that was made available in the legislation President Donald Trump signed last week alleviates only one concern.
Advertisement
Patients who show possible symptoms of the coronavirus are typically first screened for other illnesses, such as influenza, to determine whether they need a coronavirus test. Those diagnostics and any other services a patient receives while undergoing COVID-19 testing will still cost money, which can deter someone from seeking the test at all.
Then there are the treatment costs for those diagnosed with COVID-19. While there is no proven medical treatment to fight the viral infection itself, patients who are too sick to recover at home frequently require hospitalizations, and with hospital stays come hospital bills. Intensive care unit beds, ventilators and specialized physician treatment can get very expensive.
The American health care system is particularly unsuited to a moment like this, when potential millions of people get sick at the same time with a disease for which there is no cure and that requires aggressive medical interventions.
High Costs For Everything But The Coronavirus Test
The medical costs of the coronavirus will be considerable, as high as $251 billion over the next year, according to an analysis from Covered California, the state’s health insurance exchange. That assumes 15 million Americans are diagnosed with COVID-19, which is the upper end of Covered California’s projections. But even the low end of the Covered California projection anticipates 4 million cases and $31 billion in costs.
Advertisement
Patients will pay a substantial portion of that themselves in the forms of deductibles, copayments and other kinds of out-of-pocket costs required by their insurance policies. By examining job-based health benefits ― the most common type of private health coverage ― the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the average COVID-19 patient younger than 65 will incur at least $1,300 in out-of-pocket costs for treatment, depending on the severity of their illness. That’s on top of the premiums policyholders pay for their insurance.
To some, that may not seem like much money. But last year, the Federal Reserve Board reported that four in 10 Americans don’t have enough savings to cover even $400 in unexpected expenses. And even under normal circumstances, big health care bills can lead to financial ruin. From 2013 through 2016, 59% of people who filed for bankruptcy cited medical costs as a reason.
Those calculations don’t include other aspects of the U.S. health care system, such as higher charges from out-of-network medical providers, which can lead to surprise bills. Eighteen percent of hospital admissions for people who have pneumonia with major complications ― which the sickest COVID-19 patients experience ― resulted in bills from out-of-network providers, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Those with deductibles into the thousands of dollars will pay even more, including people who work for small businesses and those who buy the lower-cost policies available from health insurance exchanges like HealthCare.gov or directly from insurance companies. So-called Bronze plans this year have an average deductible of $6,506, and the average Silver plan deductible is $4,554, a separate Kaiser Family Foundation report found.
Similar to people with private insurance, Medicare enrollees must pay up to their deductibles and for a share of their medical costs, unless they have supplemental “Medigap” plans that cover those. Those with private Medicare Advantage plans face cost-sharing that varies among the policies, but the federal government has instructed insurers not to charge patients more when they see out-of-network providers. In most states, Medicaid beneficiaries have little to no out-of-pocket costs.
Advertisement
The 28 million uninsured people in the U.S., of course, will have it much worse.
The sticker price for COVID-19 care ranges from $9,763 to $20,292 for people who have employer-sponsored health insurance. But even that doesn’t capture the potential costs for an uninsured person because employers and insurers negotiate lower fees with hospitals and other medical providers while those without coverage face the full, non-discounted prices.
Time reported last week that a Massachusetts woman with no health insurance had received bills totaling $34,927.43 after getting treated for COVID-19. There will be more like her.
A System Designed To Deter Care
The private health insurance system was designed to discourage Americans from getting medical treatments and to erect financial and logistical barriers to care. During a national and personal emergency, patients who have or think they have COVID-19 still have to navigate their insurance companies’ rules.
They must choose from the providers in their networks or be subject to higher costs, including surprise bills from hospital personnel who aren’t in a network even when a hospital is. In 2018, 39% of Americans reported receiving a surprise bill.
High cost-sharing, especially large deductibles, has been a growing trend in private insurance for more than a decade, and is a big reason why 45% of those who have health coverage are “underinsured” and have coverage that doesn’t meet their financial needs.
Advertisement
Insurers — and employers, in the case of job-based benefits — want patients to get less medical care and discourage them with big deductibles, copays and the like. And it works: More than one-quarter of Americans had gone without medical care they needed over the past 12 months due to the cost, according to a 2019 West Health/Gallup poll. Since it’s only March, most patients won’t have paid down much of their annual deductible yet.
Eleven states and the District of Columbia are offering some help by re-opening their health insurance exchanges to uninsured people during the outbreak. So far, however, Idaho’s state-run exchange and federally run exchanges in the rest of the country remain closed, although people can still apply for coverage in those places under certain circumstances, such as losing a job. The federal government also is fielding requests from states that want to make it easier, temporarily, for qualified individuals to sign up for Medicaid.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--GOP Senators Fear Coronavirus Cash Will Make Americans Lazy

Some Republican lawmakers have a big problem with the Senate ’ s emergency coronavirus legislation , which improves unemployment benefits for millions of people being laid off during the pandemic : They think Americans won ’ t want to go back to work .
“ A massive drafting error in the current version of the coronavirus relief legislation could have devastating consequences : Unless this bill is fixed , there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work , ” GOP Sens .
Lindsey Graham ( S.C. ) , Rick Scott ( Fla. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ben Sasse ( Neb . )
said Wednesday in a statement , according to RawStory .
But as the senators worried about the terrible things that might happen if Americans had enough money to pay their bills and expenses , a reporter asked a question that suggested their concern was a bit out of touch .
“ I don ’ t know how to ask this without sounding like I ’ m being a smartass , and I ’ m not , ” the reporter said .
“ But do you understand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably the wealthiest person in the Senate potentially holding up this bill for a couple hundred bucks for some of the poorest people in this country ?
” The wealthy man in question ― Rick Scott , who is estimated to worth $ 255 million ― responded with a variation of Calvin Coolidge ’ s old line that “ the business of America is business.
” “ I want to make sure that our small businesses , all of our businesses , including our hospitals and nursing homes and everybody can make sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said , adding that the new unemployment benefits are meant to supplement unemployment insurance already paid by the states .
“ I get it .
Everybody in the room ― everybody in the country ― wishes they had Rick Scott ’ s bank account , ” he said .
Sasse then claimed the issue over the so-called “ drafting error ” was principled and not about rich politicians trying to keep lower-income Americans from getting funds to pay bills during a difficult time .
“ If you go into any coffee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Do we as a people think what America wants to do is say , “ Let ’ s have the federal government build a program that says we want to incentivize severing people ’ s work relationships ?
” ’ Hell no !
” he said .
“ This [ agreement was ] negotiated by Republican senators and the White House and Democratic senators , who believe that it is essentially necessary , ” Raju said .
“ They don ’ t think that it would lead to layoffs .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment benefit for those that do lose their job .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Some Republican lawmakers have a big problem with the Senate’s emergency coronavirus legislation, which improves unemployment benefits for millions of people being laid off during the pandemic: They think Americans won’t want to go back to work.
“A massive drafting error in the current version of the coronavirus relief legislation could have devastating consequences: Unless this bill is fixed, there is a strong incentive for employees to be laid off instead of going to work,” GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.) and Ben Sasse (Neb.) said Wednesday in a statement, according to RawStory.
Advertisement
The four senators proposed adding an amendment that would limit unemployment benefits to 100% of a worker’s salary.
Graham said he believes “very few people would choose work over unemployment benefits that provided moderately more money.”
But as the senators worried about the terrible things that might happen if Americans had enough money to pay their bills and expenses, a reporter asked a question that suggested their concern was a bit out of touch.
“I don’t know how to ask this without sounding like I’m being a smartass, and I’m not,” the reporter said. “But do you understand how bad the optics are to have probably the wealthiest person in the Senate potentially holding up this bill for a couple hundred bucks for some of the poorest people in this country?”
Advertisement
The wealthy man in question ― Rick Scott, who is estimated to worth $255 million ― responded with a variation of Calvin Coolidge’s old line that “the business of America is business.”
“I want to make sure that our small businesses, all of our businesses, including our hospitals and nursing homes and everybody can make sure people want to come to work,” he said, adding that the new unemployment benefits are meant to supplement unemployment insurance already paid by the states.
Sasse jumped in and attempted to defend Scott, suggesting people were just jealous of his wealth.
“I get it. Everybody in the room ― everybody in the country ― wishes they had Rick Scott’s bank account,” he said.
Sasse then claimed the issue over the so-called “drafting error” was principled and not about rich politicians trying to keep lower-income Americans from getting funds to pay bills during a difficult time.
“If you go into any coffee shop in Nebraska ... and you say, ‘Do we as a people think what America wants to do is say, “Let’s have the federal government build a program that says we want to incentivize severing people’s work relationships?”’ Hell no!” he said.
Advertisement
You can see the complete interaction below.
But the GOP senators’ position that there was a “drafting error” is not true, CNN congressional correspondent Manu Raju later explained.
“This [agreement was] negotiated by Republican senators and the White House and Democratic senators, who believe that it is essentially necessary,” Raju said. “They don’t think that it would lead to layoffs. In fact, this is a temporary enhanced unemployment benefit for those that do lose their job.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Justice Department Says Coronavirus-Related Crimes Can Be Considered Terrorism

The Justice Department has informed federal law enforcement officials that they can prosecute certain coronavirus-related crimes as acts of terrorism , according to a memo sent Tuesday night .
“ Because coronavirus appears to meet the statutory definition of ‘ biological agent ’ ... such acts potentially could implicate the Nation ’ s terrorism-related statutes , ” Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the memo , sent to all federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors .
“ Threats or attempts to use COVID-19 as a weapon against Americans will not be tolerated.
” These crimes could range from “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals or the general public , to the purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19 , ” Rosen wrote .
In another memo , Attorney General William Barr announced a task force to combat “ market manipulation , hoarding , and price gouging , ” amid reports of people buying supplies like hand sanitizer , disinfectants and masks and then selling them at exorbitant prices .
Scammers have also tried to sell fake testing kits and medical treatments , and have sent phishing emails that bait users into providing personal information or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has brought out the best in most Americans , there appear to be a few unfortunate exceptions , ” Barr wrote .
“ We will not tolerate bad actors who treat the crisis as an opportunity to get rich quick.
” Asian Americans have reported an increase in hate crimes and discrimination as the coronavirus pandemic has worsened .
The rise is largely fueled by racist rhetoric from prominent figures including President Donald Trump , Republicans on Capitol Hill and right-wing media hosts .
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidelines would apply to those incidents .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The Justice Department has informed federal law enforcement officials that they can prosecute certain coronavirus-related crimes as acts of terrorism, according to a memo sent Tuesday night.
“Because coronavirus appears to meet the statutory definition of ‘biological agent’ ... such acts potentially could implicate the Nation’s terrorism-related statutes,” Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen wrote in the memo, sent to all federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. “Threats or attempts to use COVID-19 as a weapon against Americans will not be tolerated.”
Advertisement
These crimes could range from “malicious hoaxes, to threats targeting specific individuals or the general public, to the purposeful exposure and infection of others with COVID-19,” Rosen wrote.
In another memo, Attorney General William Barr announced a task force to combat “market manipulation, hoarding, and price gouging,” amid reports of people buying supplies like hand sanitizer, disinfectants and masks and then selling them at exorbitant prices.
Scammers have also tried to sell fake testing kits and medical treatments, and have sent phishing emails that bait users into providing personal information or downloading malware.
“While this crisis has brought out the best in most Americans, there appear to be a few unfortunate exceptions,” Barr wrote. “We will not tolerate bad actors who treat the crisis as an opportunity to get rich quick.”
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Domestic Abuse Victims Need More Help As Coronavirus Spreads, Senators Say

As millions of Americans are forced to shelter in place amid the coronavirus crisis , some of the most vulnerable are those confined to isolation with their abusers .
On Monday , two dozen senators urged the Trump administration to make sure domestic violence victims aren ’ t forgotten as the government addresses the pandemic .
Sens .
Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) , Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) , Kirsten Gillibrand ( D-N.Y. ) and others wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and anti-sexual violence organizations have the “ flexiblity , resources and information needed to continue to provide these critical services during the pandemic.
” “ An unintended but foreseeable consequence of these drastic measures will be increased stress at home , which in turn creates a greater risk for domestic violence , ” the senators wrote , referring to the shelter-in-place guidelines implemented in many states .
Incidences of intimate partner violence often increase during emergency situations like the one currently gripping the globe , according to studies .
Domestic abuse increased in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina .
Experts say this is likely because perpetrators have more contact with their families during these times and , as support systems break down in the wake of emergencies , victims are less likely or less able to seek help .
Activists in China reported an uptick in domestic abuse cases earlier this year when millions of people were under quarantine in their homes .
“ During a time of extreme lockdown with the coronavirus , when people are not allowed to move around , it makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of domestic violence in the home to go somewhere else , ” Leta Hong Fincher , author of “ Betraying Big Brother : The Feminist Awakening in China , ” told HuffPost earlier this month .
The senators who wrote the letter predicted that there will be an increase in the need for emergency child care services and domestic violence shelters as the coronavirus spreads .
The continued need for supplies and resources to keep these critical programs afloat will only increase as the outbreak continues , the senators added .
The senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration for Children and Families and the Office on Violence Against Women , answer several questions , including whether either has seen an increase in the need for domestic violence services in the wake of COVID-19 and how they plan to handle a rise in intimate partner violence cases .
The lawmakers also asked that the offices brief them on their future plans and urged them to prepare for increased domestic abuse incidents .
“ When people are required to stay home , abusive situations can become even worse , ” Gillibrand said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an obligation to ensure that providers of services to domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors have the preparation , resources , and funding to address the unique challenges that these victims face during a public health emergency.
” As part of the coronavirus relief bill , lawmakers included $ 45 million to provide more support to family violence shelters and $ 2 million to go toward the National Domestic Violence Hotline .
The Trump administration and lawmakers reached a deal on the trillion-dollar emergency legislation on Wednesday morning , and a vote on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As millions of Americans are forced to shelter in place amid the coronavirus crisis, some of the most vulnerable are those confined to isolation with their abusers. On Monday, two dozen senators urged the Trump administration to make sure domestic violence victims aren’t forgotten as the government addresses the pandemic.
Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and others wrote a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services asking it to ensure anti-domestic violence and anti-sexual violence organizations have the “flexiblity, resources and information needed to continue to provide these critical services during the pandemic.”
Advertisement
“An unintended but foreseeable consequence of these drastic measures will be increased stress at home, which in turn creates a greater risk for domestic violence,” the senators wrote, referring to the shelter-in-place guidelines implemented in many states.
Incidences of intimate partner violence often increase during emergency situations like the one currently gripping the globe, according to studies. Domestic abuse increased in frequency and intensity after crises like 9/11, Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Katrina. Experts say this is likely because perpetrators have more contact with their families during these times and, as support systems break down in the wake of emergencies, victims are less likely or less able to seek help.
Activists in China reported an uptick in domestic abuse cases earlier this year when millions of people were under quarantine in their homes. “During a time of extreme lockdown with the coronavirus, when people are not allowed to move around, it makes it exponentially more difficult for a victim of domestic violence in the home to go somewhere else,” Leta Hong Fincher, author of “Betraying Big Brother: The Feminist Awakening in China,” told HuffPost earlier this month.
The senators who wrote the letter predicted that there will be an increase in the need for emergency child care services and domestic violence shelters as the coronavirus spreads. The continued need for supplies and resources to keep these critical programs afloat will only increase as the outbreak continues, the senators added.
Advertisement
The senators requested that the two HHS offices, Administration for Children and Families and the Office on Violence Against Women, answer several questions, including whether either has seen an increase in the need for domestic violence services in the wake of COVID-19 and how they plan to handle a rise in intimate partner violence cases. The lawmakers also asked that the offices brief them on their future plans and urged them to prepare for increased domestic abuse incidents.
“When people are required to stay home, abusive situations can become even worse,” Gillibrand said in a statement. “We have an obligation to ensure that providers of services to domestic abuse and sexual violence survivors have the preparation, resources, and funding to address the unique challenges that these victims face during a public health emergency.”
As part of the coronavirus relief bill, lawmakers included $45 million to provide more support to family violence shelters and $2 million to go toward the National Domestic Violence Hotline. The Trump administration and lawmakers reached a deal on the trillion-dollar emergency legislation on Wednesday morning, and a vote on the bill is expected later in the day.
Need help? In the U.S., call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233) for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Billionaires Want People Back At Work, Even If It Kills Them

As President Donald Trump pushes for an end to the nationwide social distancing practices that health professionals say are essential to saving lives during the coronavirus outbreak , incredibly wealthy Americans are eager to get employees back to work ― and some say they ’ re OK with people dying if that ’ s what it takes .
A number of the country ’ s richest businesspeople spoke frankly about the matter for a Bloomberg story published Wednesday .
Dick Kovacevich , who ran Wells Fargo until 2007 , said he wants healthy people under age 55 to return to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is contained enough .
“ We ’ ll gradually bring those people back and see what happens .
Some of them will get sick , some may even die , I don ’ t know , ” he said .
“ Do you want to suffer more economically or take some risk that you ’ ll get flu-like symptoms and a flu-like experience ?
Do you want to take an economic risk or a health risk ?
You get to choose.
” That ’ s a false choice , ethicists and economists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. on the advice of scientists and health professionals will do economic damage .
But rushing people back to work ― thereby prolonging the outbreak , straining the hospital system and adding to the death count from the virus ― would also be disastrous for the economy .
Moreover , testing still isn ’ t available enough in the U.S. to determine who doesn ’ t have COVID-19 , the disease caused by the virus , and so determine who could theoretically return to work .
“ The damages of keeping the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse than losing a few more people , ” he told Bloomberg , saying he expected businesses would have to fold .
He wants states that haven ’ t been hit hard by the virus to return to normalcy .
Conservative pundits are beating the same drum .
Radio and TV host Glenn Beck , whose Forbes-estimated net worth in 2014 was $ 90 million , said this week that people may have to get sick or die for the sake of economic prosperity .
“ I would rather have my children stay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 50 go in and keep this economy going and working , ” Beck , 56 , said on his show “ The Blaze ” Tuesday .
“ Even if we all get sick , I ’ d rather die than kill the country.
” “ I think what we are doing with the shutdown is good but in a few weeks people will need to be around people , ” he said Tuesday .
“ Otherwise you are going to go into an economic crisis that is going to take us years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Extreme measures to flatten the virus ‘ curve ’ is sensible-for a time-to stretch out the strain on health infrastructure , ” he wrote .
“ But crushing the economy , jobs and morale is also a health issue-and beyond .
Within a very few weeks let those with a lower risk to the disease return to work.
” His focus has been on returning to business as usual by Easter , which falls on April 12 .
During a Tuesday press conference , Trump said it would be a “ beautiful timeline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because of the day ’ s religious significance .
But Dr. Anthony Fauci , the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , pushed back on that , saying at the same press conference that “ you can look at a date , but you ’ ve got to be very flexible on a literally day-by-day , week-by-week basis .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As President Donald Trump pushes for an end to the nationwide social distancing practices that health professionals say are essential to saving lives during the coronavirus outbreak, incredibly wealthy Americans are eager to get employees back to work ― and some say they’re OK with people dying if that’s what it takes.
A number of the country’s richest businesspeople spoke frankly about the matter for a Bloomberg story published Wednesday. Dick Kovacevich, who ran Wells Fargo until 2007, said he wants healthy people under age 55 to return to work in late April if the outbreak is contained enough.
Advertisement
“We’ll gradually bring those people back and see what happens. Some of them will get sick, some may even die, I don’t know,” he said. “Do you want to suffer more economically or take some risk that you’ll get flu-like symptoms and a flu-like experience? Do you want to take an economic risk or a health risk? You get to choose.”
That’s a false choice, ethicists and economists have pointed out. Keeping businesses closed across the U.S. on the advice of scientists and health professionals will do economic damage. But rushing people back to work ― thereby prolonging the outbreak, straining the hospital system and adding to the death count from the virus ― would also be disastrous for the economy. Moreover, testing still isn’t available enough in the U.S. to determine who doesn’t have COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, and so determine who could theoretically return to work.
But Tom Golisano, the founder and chairman of the payroll processor Paychex Inc., thinks he can prove that wrong ― dead workers be damned.
“The damages of keeping the economy closed as it is could be worse than losing a few more people,” he told Bloomberg, saying he expected businesses would have to fold. He wants states that haven’t been hit hard by the virus to return to normalcy.
Advertisement
“You’re picking the better of two evils,” he said. “You have to weigh the pros and cons.”
Forbes estimates Golisano’s net worth to be $3 billion.
Conservative pundits are beating the same drum. Radio and TV host Glenn Beck, whose Forbes-estimated net worth in 2014 was $90 million, said this week that people may have to get sick or die for the sake of economic prosperity.
“I would rather have my children stay home and all of us who are over 50 go in and keep this economy going and working,” Beck, 56, said on his show “The Blaze” Tuesday. “Even if we all get sick, I’d rather die than kill the country.”
Billionaire Tilman Fertitta, the magnate of a casino, hotel and restaurant empire, has also told Bloomberg that people need to get back to work soon.
“I think what we are doing with the shutdown is good but in a few weeks people will need to be around people,” he said Tuesday. “Otherwise you are going to go into an economic crisis that is going to take us years to dig ourselves out of.”
Fertitta, whose net worth Forbes estimates to be $4.4 billion, temporarily laid off 40,000 of his employees this week.
Advertisement
Lloyd Blankfein, the billionaire who ran Goldman Sachs until 2018, took his grievances to Twitter on Sunday.
“Extreme measures to flatten the virus ‘curve’ is sensible-for a time-to stretch out the strain on health infrastructure,” he wrote. “But crushing the economy, jobs and morale is also a health issue-and beyond. Within a very few weeks let those with a lower risk to the disease return to work.”
Trump has signaled that he’d like social distancing efforts to lift as soon as possible, despite public health experts urging him not to rush those plans.
His focus has been on returning to business as usual by Easter, which falls on April 12. During a Tuesday press conference, Trump said it would be a “beautiful timeline” to have it done by then, because of the day’s religious significance.
But Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, pushed back on that, saying at the same press conference that “you can look at a date, but you’ve got to be very flexible on a literally day-by-day, week-by-week basis.”
Advertisement
Public health experts have indicated social distancing measures may need to go on for months in order to avoid overwhelming the nation’s hospitals with COVID-19 cases.
As of Wednesday, more than 20,000 people have died of the coronavirus worldwide, with more than 900 of those deaths occurring in the U.S.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--Marie Newman: Coronavirus Makes 'Medicare For All' More Likely To Happen

Because I have a union background and taking care of everybody is really important to me , right now I think we have a good start .
I think we are finally coming together .
I am buoyed by the fact that we are coming together as a nation — that ’ s the most important thing .
I hope that our leaders in the Democratic Party continue to fight for paid leave for wage workers .
Some industries are being left out .
Some parts of industries are being left out , and that ’ s really distressing me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because I think the Republican Party is coming to their senses a little bit and realizing that working families have been let out of the economy more than they had thought — that 80 % of our economy is workers and working families .
By the way , if we inject them with this help , it will help the economy overall because they are the first ones that spend because they need things .
So it ’ s really a logical thing .
If you ’ re not going to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for logic .
Let ’ s credit Bernie , for sure .
But this is about many progressives .
I just want to be clear and inclusive .
He has been doing a fabulous job , I have no quibble with that whatsoever .
But this is not just Bernie , not just Elizabeth Warren .
This is many people , frankly outside of politics , that have been pushing these notions that we have to make an economy that works for everyone .
Just period .
What I am thrilled about is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to its roots .
If you look back to the 1930s and the Great Depression , why these ideas became popular and worked really well is because they worked really well .
It ’ s that simple .
When we inject jobs into the economy and transportation and infrastructure and health care in all these places , guess what ?
The economy booms and families thrive .
This is not a new concept at all , but just one that we are going back to .
I see what you mean .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families and the middle class having a better economy to work from — I think it became glaringly apparent that when the economy did recover and we did see good recovery in spots , but it was clear to me going back to 2014 that , wow , you know what ?
Our average hourly wage hasn ’ t increased in 15 years .
That ’ s troublesome .
We were so busy getting out of the worst recession we ’ ve ever had that we were forgetting that many parts of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t move .
And that struck me in 2014 .
And for 25 years — you can test this with my husband — I ’ ve been saying CEOs make far too much money .
The executive suite makes far too much money .
And I mean large companies .
There are parts of our economy that are ridiculously overpaid , and greed has taken over the economy .
I ’ ve been saying that for 25 years .
Let ’ s be clear about that .
I think they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , I would put this forth : I think Medicare for All is going to be much more likely to happen as a result of having the tragedy of the pandemic on our hands .
Because it is very clear to me and everyone , even people who have been somewhat against Medicare for All , that if that had been in place , this probably wouldn ’ t have gone as poorly as it has .
Secondly , if we get that into place , it will be universal care , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this again .
I actually think Medicare for All is going to be easier to pass .
It has to come from the grassroots , because nothing in this country that brings change comes from the top .
It always comes from the grassroots .
My campaign was emblematic of that — we were full grassroots and very powerful .
And infrastructure is now in place — we will push issues , we will push each other and we will work together .
Similarly , at the national level , I think the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job .
Now they will have more members — well , they will have at least one more member .
That ’ s me .
They have momentum , they should use that momentum .
They have three great leaders in Reps. Mark Pocan , Pramila Jayapal and Ro Khanna , and I think they are making a difference .
I don ’ t think we are seeing full-on legislation come through , but when you look at Medicare for All ’ s acceptance in my district , it ’ s very high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s very high .
Despite conservatives of all stripes bludgeoning it , it is very resilient if you look at the polls .
It ’ s extremely resilient .
What that tells me is that the progressive caucus and its members have done a good job of telling their constituents and America that this is a tried and true program that we can make better and more robust and roll out in a measured fashion .
It will allow full choice of doctors instead of restricted networks .
It is the only , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system that by all studies shows will bring down costs .
That in itself should be commended , and the progressive caucus should feel good about that .
Our job is to make that whoever the nominee is , we make sure they move these ideas forward .
I believe there is power in numbers .
The progressive caucus is the largest caucus in Congress today .
There ’ s 90 and soon to be 91 .
There ’ s power in numbers and power in solutions and there is power in spirit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful in getting the nominee to move toward these things .
This is neither left nor right nor center .
I keep stressing this — stop putting labels on things .
These are ideas that are very , very , very , very practical .
Just stop .
Stop with the labels of “ Oh , this is socialist ” or “ Oh , it ’ s this or that.
” It ’ s the only one that ’ s practical .
Let ’ s go with practical .

Marie Newman smiles while campaigning in the Archer Heights neighborhood of Chicago on March 9. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Marie Newman thought she was surely going to lose last week’s election. With the coronavirus hitting the country in full force, her campaign couldn’t knock on doors or turn out the vote. Voters were scared to go to the polls.
Instead, she won. The progressive Democrat beat out longtime incumbent Rep. Dan Lipinski in the primary election in Illinois’s 3rd Congressional District, located in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago. It was one of the few wins for a progressive challenger this election cycle.
Advertisement
As the coronavirus continues to spread in the United States, infecting tens of thousands and threatening the livelihoods of millions, Newman is convinced the pandemic will lead the country toward the progressive policies she campaigned on.
“I think ‘Medicare for All’ is going to be much more likely to happen as a result of having the tragedy of the pandemic on our hands,” Newman told HuffPost, adding that she’s buoyed by the bipartisan support behind an emergency expansion of the social safety net.
“It’s really a logical thing. If you’re not going to do it for moral reasons, do it for logic,” she added.
Newman ran and won on Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, expanding union membership and raising the minimum wage. Lipinski once voted against the Affordable Care Act, repeatedly voted to defund Planned Parenthood and stood firm on the right wing of his party.
Advertisement
Progressives have already made the connection between universal health care and an adequate response to the pandemic, arguing that a Medicare For All program would lead to a healthier population less susceptible to the disease and protect Americans from astronomical treatment costs. Still, not all states have expanded public health programs in response to the outbreak.
Newman, who had the backing of both Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is very likely to win her general election in the blue district and join the ranks of other progressives like Reps. Katie Porter (Calif.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) in Congress.
In an interview with HuffPost, Newman laid out an optimistic path forward for progressive policies that she said will be seen as the practical option — even if a more moderate Democrat is at the top of the presidential ticket.
You’ll very likely be in these Congress members’ shoes next year. What do you make of the coronavirus relief legislation being negotiated right now in Congress?
Because I have a union background and taking care of everybody is really important to me, right now I think we have a good start. I think we are finally coming together. I am buoyed by the fact that we are coming together as a nation — that’s the most important thing. I hope that our leaders in the Democratic Party continue to fight for paid leave for wage workers. Some industries are being left out. Some parts of industries are being left out, and that’s really distressing me.
Advertisement
Are there specific industries you are particularly worried about?
It’s been alerted to me that some of the airline workers are not covered in this package. There are folks in the service industry and in the public sector that aren’t covered in the package, and we have to cover everybody. These are not people that have huge savings.
I am more hopeful, though, because I think the Republican Party is coming to their senses a little bit and realizing that working families have been let out of the economy more than they had thought — that 80% of our economy is workers and working families. By the way, if we inject them with this help, it will help the economy overall because they are the first ones that spend because they need things. So it’s really a logical thing. If you’re not going to do it for moral reasons, do it for logic.
“This is not just Bernie, not just Elizabeth Warren. This is many people, frankly outside of politics, that have been pushing these notions that we have to make an economy that works for everyone.” - Marie Newman
A lot of the ideas that progressives have been running on are now being talked about in real terms in Congress with this stimulus. I’m curious, you’ve said in the past that you ran on these ideas because you saw them aligning with your district. When did you realize that these ideas, many championed nationally by Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016, aligned with your district?
Let’s credit Bernie, for sure. But this is about many progressives. I just want to be clear and inclusive. He has been doing a fabulous job, I have no quibble with that whatsoever. But this is not just Bernie, not just Elizabeth Warren. This is many people, frankly outside of politics, that have been pushing these notions that we have to make an economy that works for everyone. Just period.
Advertisement
What I am thrilled about is that the party is finally getting back to its roots. If you look back to the 1930s and the Great Depression, why these ideas became popular and worked really well is because they worked really well. It’s that simple. When we inject jobs into the economy and transportation and infrastructure and health care in all these places, guess what? The economy booms and families thrive. This is not a new concept at all, but just one that we are going back to.
The reason I brought up Bernie was because he brought these ideas to the national conversation in 2016 in a way that hadn’t been done in a long time, the cycle before you first ran. I was curious, when did you see those policies aligning with your specific district?
I see what you mean. I would say that these ideas around working families and the middle class having a better economy to work from — I think it became glaringly apparent that when the economy did recover and we did see good recovery in spots, but it was clear to me going back to 2014 that, wow, you know what? Our average hourly wage hasn’t increased in 15 years. That’s troublesome. We were so busy getting out of the worst recession we’ve ever had that we were forgetting that many parts of the economy stayed in place. They didn’t move. And that struck me in 2014. And for 25 years — you can test this with my husband — I’ve been saying CEOs make far too much money. The executive suite makes far too much money. And I mean large companies. There are parts of our economy that are ridiculously overpaid, and greed has taken over the economy. I’ve been saying that for 25 years. Let’s be clear about that.
But what was nice — I’ve been politically active for the last 25 years, but in the last 10 years I would say that throughout our district, everyone is in agreement that it was great that we recovered. But guess what? Everyone else stayed in place.
Advertisement
What is the future for some of these ideas — like Medicare for All, like a Green New Deal — if there isn’t an explicitly progressive candidate backing these policies at the top of the Democratic ticket in the presidential race?
I think they’re still going to live on. In fact, I would put this forth: I think Medicare for All is going to be much more likely to happen as a result of having the tragedy of the pandemic on our hands. Because it is very clear to me and everyone, even people who have been somewhat against Medicare for All, that if that had been in place, this probably wouldn’t have gone as poorly as it has. Secondly, if we get that into place, it will be universal care, which could insulate us from something like this again. I actually think Medicare for All is going to be easier to pass.
The number of people that are worried about the climate is growing exponentially, and they’re not willing to back down. The sadness and tragedy of the pandemic will bring us together. I already see unity in Illinois-3 — of neighbors helping each other. It’s nature or God’s way, depending on who you talk to, of bringing us together to solve problems.
How do you see the organization around progressive policies in Congress?
It has to come from the grassroots, because nothing in this country that brings change comes from the top. It always comes from the grassroots. My campaign was emblematic of that — we were full grassroots and very powerful. And infrastructure is now in place — we will push issues, we will push each other and we will work together. Similarly, at the national level, I think the progressive caucus has done a really good job. Now they will have more members — well, they will have at least one more member. That’s me. They have momentum, they should use that momentum. They have three great leaders in Reps. Mark Pocan, Pramila Jayapal and Ro Khanna, and I think they are making a difference.
“This is neither left nor right nor center. I keep stressing this — stop putting labels on things. These are ideas that are very very very very practical. Just stop. Stop with the labels of "oh this is socialist" or "oh it’s this or that." It’s the only one that's practical.” - Marie Newman
Advertisement
What are the examples of their successes?
I don’t think we are seeing full-on legislation come through, but when you look at Medicare for All’s acceptance in my district, it’s very high. In many districts, it’s very high. Despite conservatives of all stripes bludgeoning it, it is very resilient if you look at the polls. It’s extremely resilient. What that tells me is that the progressive caucus and its members have done a good job of telling their constituents and America that this is a tried and true program that we can make better and more robust and roll out in a measured fashion. It will allow full choice of doctors instead of restricted networks. It is the only, and I repeat, only health care system that by all studies shows will bring down costs. That in itself should be commended, and the progressive caucus should feel good about that.
Where do you see the room for improvement?
I think we do need to put more focus on wages and empowering unions and the economy that works for anyone. But if we don’t get health care moving alongside the coronavirus package, it won’t have sustainability.
What do you want to hear from the Democratic presidential nominee?
Our job is to make that whoever the nominee is, we make sure they move these ideas forward. I believe there is power in numbers. The progressive caucus is the largest caucus in Congress today. There’s 90 and soon to be 91. There’s power in numbers and power in solutions and there is power in spirit, and using all that will be powerful in getting the nominee to move toward these things. This is neither left nor right nor center. I keep stressing this — stop putting labels on things. These are ideas that are very, very, very, very practical. Just stop. Stop with the labels of “Oh, this is socialist” or “Oh, it’s this or that.” It’s the only one that’s practical. Let’s go with practical.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-25--‘The Worst Type Of Leader To Have In A Crisis’

For the general public , it can be hard to accept that we have a very different kind of leader .
We have a leader who has an authoritarian mentality , and that kind of leader , they ’ re often narcissistic , they are amoral , totally immoral , only power and profit matters .
It ’ s very much the end justifies the means .
So they think in the aggregate , and they really don ’ t care about human life .
So , this is the worst type of leader to have in a crisis because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the public good .
So that ’ s one part of it .
Another part is , Trump is the foe of expertise and science and any kind of fact that gets in the way of what he wants reality to be , and we ’ ve seen this with abundance in the way he handled the growing crisis of coronavirus .
So he would rather send misinformation to the public — which he did recently recommending [ drugs ] that I understand put some people in the hospital — than tell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that authoritarians , they fear transparency and they fear accountability , and this is another reason why they are terrible leaders to have in crises .
And another thing is that they are corrupt to the core and so they will make a profit off of any kind of crisis .
And we saw this , you know , well it ’ s not clear to me what ’ s going on behind the scenes , there was already some talk of involving a company that is partly owned by [ White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jared ] Kushner ’ s brother .
And then the bailout plan that [ Sec .
of Treasury Steve ] Mnuchin presented that was first rejected by the Democrats contains provisions that could , you know , help Trump ’ s businesses , so this is another example of the lack of the public good .
And historically what happened was very tragic .
When authoritarians get into a crisis , for example , during World War II , Mussolini and Hitler were in a losing war which they started , they abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have adequate anti-air defenses .
And they retreated from the public and they were nonresponsive .
And Hitler went into his bunker in the end , and actually said that Germany should just perish .
They blame the people for the consequences of their own decisions , because they despise their people .
This is the secret .
They actively despise and scorn their people .
So all of this adds up to a really dire picture if you are unlucky enough to have this kind of ruler when you have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about himself and about having more power and more money .
The being corrupt , so that you hire your family who are your co-conspirators and you have the opposite of transparency .
You have what ’ s called an inner sanctum , where you have loyalists .
There ’ s this demand for loyalty and the humiliation of everyone around you to make sure they stay loyal .
And then there ’ s the compulsion to lie .
The inability to trust experts or to take counsel from anyone .
To think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could go on .
We ’ re seeing disinformation .
Trump is very uncomfortable with people who are giving blunt information , like [ Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony ] Fauci .
He says he ’ s too blunt .
And very quickly the coronavirus task force doesn ’ t have experts who are not loyalists on it .
Like the Surgeon General is there , but he ’ s a loyalist and he himself is very unhelpful .
So you are seeing censorship , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You ’ re seeing manipulation of information .
When Trump says , “ Well , we want to go back to work in two weeks , and that will be fine , and we ’ ll crowd the churches for Easter ?
” This is denial of reality .
So we ’ re seeing all of the tactics that the new authoritarians use .
Authoritarians use emergencies .
Again , all they care about is power .
They use emergencies as an excuse to do that .
And so there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what these people are doing and he wants to do it .
He ’ s made that very clear to us , that he wants to rule forever .
He said , I think it was , like , right when he got into office , that he wanted to look at the Constitution .
He has his ideas of what he wants to do .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Far-right leaders across the globe are responding to the historic coronavirus pandemic with an alarming mix of lies, incompetence, racism and corruption.
Among them is U.S. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly sought to downplay the severity of the virus, and to obscure all the ways his administration has fumbled the federal government’s response.
Advertisement
Ruth Ben-Ghiat is a history professor at New York University who is a world-renowned expert on fascism and propaganda. She talked to HuffPost Wednesday about the grave dangers of having an authoritarian leader like Trump in charge of America’s effort to beat back the pandemic.
Not only will the president continue to put so many lives at risk, she argued, but he will seek to exploit the crisis to gain more power.
On Tuesday, you tweeted something about Trump that struck me. You wrote: “An amoral authoritarian does not care about human lives, I cannot emphasize this enough, only profit and loyalty and obedience matter to him. The politics of revenge and spite will continue.” And I was honestly just hoping you could expand on that for a minute.
For the general public, it can be hard to accept that we have a very different kind of leader. We have a leader who has an authoritarian mentality, and that kind of leader, they’re often narcissistic, they are amoral, totally immoral, only power and profit matters. It’s very much the end justifies the means. So they think in the aggregate, and they really don’t care about human life. So, this is the worst type of leader to have in a crisis because they’re incapable of acting for the public good. So that’s one part of it.
Advertisement
Another part is, Trump is the foe of expertise and science and any kind of fact that gets in the way of what he wants reality to be, and we’ve seen this with abundance in the way he handled the growing crisis of coronavirus. So he would rather send misinformation to the public — which he did recently recommending [drugs] that I understand put some people in the hospital — than tell the truth. And so the broader thing is that authoritarians, they fear transparency and they fear accountability, and this is another reason why they are terrible leaders to have in crises.
President Donald Trump listens during the daily briefing on the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, at the White House, March 23, 2020, in Washington, D.C. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI via Getty Images
How, historically, have authoritarian leaders or fascist leaders exploited big crises?
For example, during the Depression with Mussolini, the censorship meant that you’re not allowed to tell bad news. There was no way to talk about, you know, the suppression of labor, there was no way to talk about suicide, and so that’s one way in which the whole historical record in crises is always distorted by them.
And another thing is that they are corrupt to the core and so they will make a profit off of any kind of crisis. And we saw this, you know, well it’s not clear to me what’s going on behind the scenes, there was already some talk of involving a company that is partly owned by [White House adviser and Trump’s son-in-law Jared] Kushner’s brother. And then the bailout plan that [Sec. of Treasury Steve] Mnuchin presented that was first rejected by the Democrats contains provisions that could, you know, help Trump’s businesses, so this is another example of the lack of the public good.
And historically what happened was very tragic. When authoritarians get into a crisis, for example, during World War II, Mussolini and Hitler were in a losing war which they started, they abandoned their people completely. Mussolini never bothered to have adequate anti-air defenses. And they retreated from the public and they were nonresponsive. And Hitler went into his bunker in the end, and actually said that Germany should just perish. They blame the people for the consequences of their own decisions, because they despise their people. This is the secret. They actively despise and scorn their people. So all of this adds up to a really dire picture if you are unlucky enough to have this kind of ruler when you have a crisis.
Advertisement
I’m doing fact-checking [for her forthcoming book “Strongmen: How They Rise, Why They Succeed, How They Fall”] and going through the book ... it’s just terrifying because Trump meets every criterion for this type of personality ... So it’s been really weird to be going over the book one last time in this situation.
For people that maybe don’t know maybe the strictest definition of authoritarian, what criteria does he meet?
The amoral: only caring about himself and about having more power and more money. The being corrupt, so that you hire your family who are your co-conspirators and you have the opposite of transparency. You have what’s called an inner sanctum, where you have loyalists. There’s this demand for loyalty and the humiliation of everyone around you to make sure they stay loyal. And then there’s the compulsion to lie. The inability to trust experts or to take counsel from anyone. To think you’re always right. I could go on.
You mentioned that Mussolini, during the Great Depression, employed a lot of censorship. But that’s not necessarily what we’re seeing now. But what are we seeing now, when it comes to, you know, information?
We’re seeing disinformation. Trump is very uncomfortable with people who are giving blunt information, like [Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony] Fauci. He says he’s too blunt. And very quickly the coronavirus task force doesn’t have experts who are not loyalists on it. Like the Surgeon General is there, but he’s a loyalist and he himself is very unhelpful. So you are seeing censorship, you’re seeing false information distributed. You’re seeing manipulation of information. When Trump says, “Well, we want to go back to work in two weeks, and that will be fine, and we’ll crowd the churches for Easter?” This is denial of reality. So we’re seeing all of the tactics that the new authoritarians use.
Advertisement
Workers build a makeshift morgue outside of Bellevue Hospital to handle an expected surge in coronavirus victims on March 25, in New York. Trump declared the beginning of the end of the coronavirus crisis in the U.S. on Tuesday and called for a quick end to social distancing, even as New York's governor compared the growing pandemic to a "bullet train." BRYAN R. SMITH via Getty Images
There was a poll this week showing Trump’s approval numbers going up. Historically, you know, what’s the breaking point for the followers of authoritarian leaders? Like, what does it take for them to abandon those leaders?
So his numbers may be going up now, but that’s because more and more people have not gotten sick yet ... And historically, you need to get to very dire straits, very dire circumstances before people will give up their cult of the leader.
It takes until you and your family are personally seeing with your own eyes the devastation, the mistakes of the leader and his inadequacy, and his incompetence, and it has to hit very close to home for that to happen with people who have been indoctrinated. But it does happen. It does happen.
That’s why, sooner or later, not that many of these leaders die in office. Most of them are forced into exile or they go out in a violent manner.
Advertisement
Yea. It strikes me that the story you were talking about yesterday about the couple that took the drugs that Trump had recommended. One of them died and the wife basically said, like, “We were listening to the president. Please, no one listen to him anymore.” So it kind of took, like, her own husband dying to like break the spell.
And one conclusion I reached, you know, it’s very important to publicize, to use people who have been indoctrinated and then have come out of it, to use them, to try to present them to people as proof. Yeah, like people, there’s this guy, you must know him, Christian …
Piccolini? [Ed. note: Christian Piccolini is a former neo-Nazi who now works to deradicalize white supremacists.]
Yeah, he’s in your beat. He’s extremist too. So, yeah, giving exposure to those people is really important because they have credibility, because they were part of the cult, whereas somebody like me, or you know, they’ll just say, “Oh, she’s another radical leftist. I don’t believe her to begin with. She works for CNN.” But the other people have more credibility. It’s all very sad.
At this point, if things get as bad as we think they’re going to get, do you foresee Trump being stronger or weaker by this November?
Advertisement
Well, unfortunately there’s a chance that he will do what his buddy [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu did in Israel, which was to use the coronavirus as an excuse for a power grab. He didn’t suspend Parliament, but he did, like, a purge. The Guardian has an article on it. And [Prime Minister Victor] Orban in Hungary is trying to rule through decree with the excuse being the coronavirus.
Authoritarians use emergencies. Again, all they care about is power. They use emergencies as an excuse to do that. And so there’s a chance that Trump would. He sees what these people are doing and he wants to do it. He’s made that very clear to us, that he wants to rule forever. He said, I think it was, like, right when he got into office, that he wanted to look at the Constitution. He has his ideas of what he wants to do.
So there’s a chance that he would use ... growing unrest. We had the lovely news that [Attorney General] William Barr wants to ask Congress to detain people without trial indefinitely, so that’s a total authoritarian move. So, depending on how the economy goes, and if there’s social unrest, you could see a crackdown.
We could see the delay of elections. It’s hard to predict what would happen. And ... if he finds that he’s losing support — we’re only in March, let’s say in July or August, there’s mass death, and people have turned against him, even from his core — he would certainly do a power grab to avoid losing. I have zero doubt. Whether he will, I don’t know. But he would.
Because I guess the final point I’d make is that these guys are so corrupt that they have to stay in power to avoid prosecution. And to keep their kleptocracy going. And that’s why, he has a really nice system there, he makes money off of being president and so Ivanka and Jared and the more people bought into it, the more incentive there is to stay.
Advertisement
The lovely scenario. [Laughs]
Speaking of social unrest, you can’t really protest during the pandemic.
No, you can’t have mass protests.
Yeah. So I guess, what kind of guidance does history offer us in ways of responding to authoritarian leaders during a crisis like this?
Well, I don’t think we’ve had a crisis like this in a democracy. We’re seeing, Netanyahu is an example, that’s a democracy, although he’s been eating away at it for a long time. And now he does this power grab. But some of the things that are most effective historically, like sustained mass protests, like people out there, you know, every weekend, that is harder in the States because it’s not like Hong Kong, where there’s one center. It’s a very, very large place and hard to make an impact.
So I don’t know what guidance to give in terms of substituting for mass protest, other than we still have representatives in a democracy so you have to make your voice heard, because all of Trump’s lackeys, what they care about is staying in office. And we saw how scared they got running away from constituents, from their town halls, over health care, if you remember that. That really unnerved them. Now again, we can’t show up in person, but people are home. Some people have more time on their hands, they certainly can make their voices heard. It’s arguably more important than ever.
And the other thing that doesn’t need in-person protests to do and has proved effective are economic pressure campaigns. Boycotts. There’s an account that this is on Twitter that’s very effective. I’m forgetting the name.
Yes! And there are others. So that is something that has worked off and on very successfully and we’re overlooking it a little bit right now because well, we’re all a little freaked out and trying to survive. That economic pressure campaign can work well.
Advertisement
And then I’d circle back to trying to give as much media to people who have seen the light, who believed Trump and Republicans and no longer do. That’s important.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-03-26--Kellyanne Conway Gets Hit With Unexpected Fact-Check Live On Fox News

Kellyanne Conway on Wednesday slammed New York Mayor Bill de Blasio ’ s slow response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in his city while defending President Donald Trump .
But her attacks on de Blasio didn ’ t quite go as expected when Fox News host Martha MacCallum noted Trump himself followed a similar timeline .
Conway , who is counselor to the president , went after de Blasio by noting his statements earlier this month urging New Yorkers to go out despite the pandemic threat , including this March 2 tweet : Since I ’ m encouraging New Yorkers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get out on the town despite Coronavirus , I thought I would offer some suggestions .
Here ’ s the first : thru Thurs 3/5 go see “ The Traitor ” @ FilmLinc .
If “ The Wire ” was a true story + set in Italy , it would be this film .
— Bill de Blasio ( @ BilldeBlasio ) March 3 , 2020 New York is now the nation ’ s epicenter of the crisis , with nearly half of all the confirmed cases in the country .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” MacCallum said , adding that de Blasio wasn ’ t giving his citizens a “ positive message ” on how he ’ d lead the city through the crisis .
But then MacCallum noted Trump made similar pronouncements at around the same time : “ But in terms of the things that you ’ re mentioning , you could probably match up some of those early March statements from him with also similarly optimistic statements from President Trump , although they ’ ve handled it very differently since then.
” Conway insisted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and said the administration had been working behind the scenes on the situation since Jan. 12 .
However , Trump has also publicly downplayed the threat , especially in February and early March .
On Feb. 26 , he said the country had 15 cases and predicted that “ within a couple of days it ’ s going to be down to close to zero.
” And on March 9 , he complained on Twitter that the flu kills more Americans but “ Nothing is shut down , life & the economy go @ @ @

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Kellyanne Conway on Wednesday slammed New York Mayor Bill de Blasio’s slow response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic in his city while defending President Donald Trump.
But her attacks on de Blasio didn’t quite go as expected when Fox News host Martha MacCallum noted Trump himself followed a similar timeline.
Advertisement
Conway, who is counselor to the president, went after de Blasio by noting his statements earlier this month urging New Yorkers to go out despite the pandemic threat, including this March 2 tweet:
Since I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions. Here’s the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see “The Traitor” @FilmLinc. If “The Wire” was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film. — Bill de Blasio (@BilldeBlasio) March 3, 2020
New York is now the nation’s epicenter of the crisis, with nearly half of all the confirmed cases in the country.
“I think that’s absolutely true,” MacCallum said, adding that de Blasio wasn’t giving his citizens a “positive message” on how he’d lead the city through the crisis. But then MacCallum noted Trump made similar pronouncements at around the same time:
Advertisement
“But in terms of the things that you’re mentioning, you could probably match up some of those early March statements from him with also similarly optimistic statements from President Trump, although they’ve handled it very differently since then.”
Conway insisted there’s “no comparison” and said the administration had been working behind the scenes on the situation since Jan. 12.
However, Trump has also publicly downplayed the threat, especially in February and early March.
On Feb. 26, he said the country had 15 cases and predicted that “within a couple of days it’s going to be down to close to zero.”
And on March 9, he complained on Twitter that the flu kills more Americans but “Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on.”
See Conway’s interview with MacCallum below: