therealnews--2020-02-04--Trump Claims Credit for Life Expectancy Rise, Introduces Medicaid Cutback

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wolpert : It ’ s the Real News network and I ’ m Greg Wolpert .
In Arlington , Virginia .
Last week , the Trump administration made a pair of good news , bad news announcements related to the country ’ s health .
First , the good news is that life expectancy rose for the first time in four years to 78.7 years in 2018 from 78.6 the previous year .
A large part of the reason for the rise in life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 4.1 % in 2018 .
This was the first decline since the opiod overdose crisis began in the 1990 ’ s .
The second announcement , which can be considered the bad news , is that White House plan to cut Medicaid funding .
Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to one in five low income Americans .
White House Advisor Kellyanne Conway announced the increase in life expectancy as follows ’ Kellyanne Conwa : We come before you bearing good news .
For the first time in four years , life expectancy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased .
And for the first time in 29 years , the number of drug overdose deaths has decreased .
This has not happened through coincidence .
It ’ s happened through causation .
It ’ s owing in large part to a whole of government approach to treat the whole person led by President Trump , First Lady Melania Trump and , really , the entire administration .
Greg Wolpert : The announcement about the cut in the Medicaid program was made via a letter to state medical directors indicating that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entitlement program , which expands and contracts according to how many people need it , to a so-called block grant where states would receive a fixed federal grant and is released from many of the rules governing Medicaid disbursement .
Joining me now to discuss the significance of these two announcements is Sam Pizzigati .
He ’ s an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-editor of the website inequality.org .
Thanks for joining us again , Sam .
Sam Pizzigati : Thank you for having me .
Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rise in life expectancy , it ’ s important to put this , I think , in context .
That is , it ’ s extremely unusual both in the history of the United States and in international comparison that life expectancy would drop four years in a row during peace time .
Usually , this number climbs slowly but steadily .
Now the US has already the lowest ranked developed country in the world when it comes to life expectancy .
And the main reason for the recent decline in life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overdose deaths , which has climbed to as many as half a million lives since the late 1990 ’ s .
As someone who has studied the opiod crisis , Sam , what do you see as being the main cause of opiod overdose deaths ?
Sam Pizzigati : Well , Angus Deaton , who is a Nobel Prize winning economist , talks about deaths of despair .
And he ’ s referring there to drug overdoses , to alcoholism , to suicide .
And all those numbers have increased a great deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the opioid crisis , it ’ s hit the hardest in those communities and those states that have been hit the hardest by economic change in the United States .
Factory towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia , these are the places that are suffering the most deaths of despair .
And these deaths of despair are definitely and closely and directly related to changes in economic conditions .
Greg Wolpert : What kinds of changes do you mean , though ?
Can you be a little bit more specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic thing is that there ’ s been a huge change in the distribution of income and wealth in the United States , essentially over the past 50 years , since the early 1970 ’ s .
So back in the early 1970 ’ s , back in the middle of the 20th century , most American families could look forward to a increasingly healthier economic personal situation .
That ’ s no longer the case .
We have millions of families that have hit an economic dead end , and the result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase in these deaths of despair .
Greg Wolpert : Now , as we saw in the clip earlier , the Trump administration is trying to claim credit for the drop in opiod overdose deaths and for the rise in the life expectancy .
Now , she didn ’ t say what the Trump administration actually did to deserve credit , but what ’ s your reaction to Conway ’ s claim for credit ?
Sam Pizzigati : Well , we ’ ve seen this increase , this one year increase in life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but in spite of the Trump administration .
Just a couple quick data points here .
This past September , the Trump administration announced a $ 1.8 billion program of aid to the states to fight opioid abuse , to fight drug overdoses .
Well , let ’ s put that $ 1.8 billion in perspective .
Experts on this issue , people who are looking at the real costs of opioid abuse treatment , are talking in terms of tens of billions of dollars .
And we can look at this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family , the family that ran Purdue Pharma , the corporation , the big pharma corporation that brought us the opioid overdose problem .
The Sackler family has personally made between $ 11 and $ 12 billion from the opioid crisis .
So that $ 1.8 billion the Trump administration is talking about is really a drop in the bucket of what we actually need to be doing to help families and households that are suffering from the opioid crisis .
Greg Wolpert : Now , the irony about the life expectancy announcement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , last Thursday , that the Trump administration announced the possibility of block grants for Medicaid .
Now , explain to us what block grounds would mean in terms of policy and what effect it would have on those receiving Medicaid .
Sam Pizzigati : Sure .
So right from the start of the Medicaid program , the federal government has matched what states spend for a health care for poor people .
And that matching formula is based on the poverty level in the state .
So a more a state votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more the the state will get from the federal government in assistance for healthcare for poor people .
If you put that into block grants , then everything changes .
If there ’ s a crisis , if there ’ s a greater need within a state for healthcare assistance , the state can not get that greater assistance from the federal government because the block grant caps the total of aid that is available .
So a block grant approach to Medicaid would be a disaster in terms of the support that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
A real step backwards .
And all the advocacy groups that work on healthcare for the poor are dead set against this change .
Greg Wolpert : So what effect do you expect this transition to a block grant to have on life expectancy ?
Sam Pizzigati : Absolutely .
The gains that we ’ ve seen over the last year that are reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control figures for 2018 that just came out .
I expect that those would be reversed and we would be seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have in the previous three years .
Greg Wolpert : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now and we ’ re going to continue to follow the story , of course .
I ’ m speaking to Sam Pizzigati , associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-editor of the website inequality.org .
Thanks again , Sam , for having joined us today .
Greg Wolpert : And thank you for joining the Real News Network .

Life expectancy in the US rose for the first time in four years because of a drop in opioid overdose deaths. Trump claimed credit, even though he’s done nothing to address the problem and intends to cut Medicaid.
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wolpert: It’s the Real News network and I’m Greg Wolpert. In Arlington, Virginia. Last week, the Trump administration made a pair of good news, bad news announcements related to the country’s health. First, the good news is that life expectancy rose for the first time in four years to 78.7 years in 2018 from 78.6 the previous year. A large part of the reason for the rise in life expectancy is that opiod overdose deaths declined by 4.1% in 2018. This was the first decline since the opiod overdose crisis began in the 1990’s.
The second announcement, which can be considered the bad news, is that White House plan to cut Medicaid funding. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to one in five low income Americans. White House Advisor Kellyanne Conway announced the increase in life expectancy as follows’
Kellyanne Conwa: We come before you bearing good news. For the first time in four years, life expectancy in the United States of America has increased. And for the first time in 29 years, the number of drug overdose deaths has decreased. This has not happened through coincidence. It’s happened through causation. It’s owing in large part to a whole of government approach to treat the whole person led by President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and, really, the entire administration.
Greg Wolpert: The announcement about the cut in the Medicaid program was made via a letter to state medical directors indicating that the Trump administration will allow states to switch the entitlement program, which expands and contracts according to how many people need it, to a so-called block grant where states would receive a fixed federal grant and is released from many of the rules governing Medicaid disbursement. Joining me now to discuss the significance of these two announcements is Sam Pizzigati. He’s an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-editor of the website inequality.org. Thanks for joining us again, Sam.
Sam Pizzigati: Thank you for having me.
Greg Wolpert: So before we turn to the rise in life expectancy, it’s important to put this, I think, in context. That is, it’s extremely unusual both in the history of the United States and in international comparison that life expectancy would drop four years in a row during peace time. Usually, this number climbs slowly but steadily. Now the US has already the lowest ranked developed country in the world when it comes to life expectancy. And the main reason for the recent decline in life expectancy has been the rise in opiod overdose deaths, which has climbed to as many as half a million lives since the late 1990’s. As someone who has studied the opiod crisis, Sam, what do you see as being the main cause of opiod overdose deaths?
Sam Pizzigati: Well, Angus Deaton, who is a Nobel Prize winning economist, talks about deaths of despair. And he’s referring there to drug overdoses, to alcoholism, to suicide. And all those numbers have increased a great deal over recent years. When we look at the opioid crisis, it’s hit the hardest in those communities and those states that have been hit the hardest by economic change in the United States. Factory towns in Ohio and Pennsylvania and West Virginia, these are the places that are suffering the most deaths of despair. And these deaths of despair are definitely and closely and directly related to changes in economic conditions.
Greg Wolpert: What kinds of changes do you mean, though? Can you be a little bit more specific?
Sam Pizzigati: Well, the basic thing is that there’s been a huge change in the distribution of income and wealth in the United States, essentially over the past 50 years, since the early 1970’s. So back in the early 1970’s, back in the middle of the 20th century, most American families could look forward to a increasingly healthier economic personal situation. That’s no longer the case. We have millions of families that have hit an economic dead end, and the result of that dead end has been an increase in these deaths of despair.
Greg Wolpert: Now, as we saw in the clip earlier, the Trump administration is trying to claim credit for the drop in opiod overdose deaths and for the rise in the life expectancy. Now, she didn’t say what the Trump administration actually did to deserve credit, but what’s your reaction to Conway’s claim for credit?
Sam Pizzigati: Well, we’ve seen this increase, this one year increase in life expectancy not because of the Trump administration, but in spite of the Trump administration. Just a couple quick data points here. This past September, the Trump administration announced a $1.8 billion program of aid to the states to fight opioid abuse, to fight drug overdoses. Well, let’s put that $1.8 billion in perspective.
Experts on this issue, people who are looking at the real costs of opioid abuse treatment, are talking in terms of tens of billions of dollars. And we can look at this another way as well. The Sackler family, the family that ran Purdue Pharma, the corporation, the big pharma corporation that brought us the opioid overdose problem. The Sackler family has personally made between $11 and $12 billion from the opioid crisis. So that $1.8 billion the Trump administration is talking about is really a drop in the bucket of what we actually need to be doing to help families and households that are suffering from the opioid crisis.
Greg Wolpert: Now, the irony about the life expectancy announcement is that it came the same day, last Thursday, that the Trump administration announced the possibility of block grants for Medicaid. Now, explain to us what block grounds would mean in terms of policy and what effect it would have on those receiving Medicaid.
Sam Pizzigati: Sure. So right from the start of the Medicaid program, the federal government has matched what states spend for a health care for poor people. And that matching formula is based on the poverty level in the state. So a more a state votes to healthcare for the poor, the more the the state will get from the federal government in assistance for healthcare for poor people.
If you put that into block grants, then everything changes. If there’s a crisis, if there’s a greater need within a state for healthcare assistance, the state cannot get that greater assistance from the federal government because the block grant caps the total of aid that is available. So a block grant approach to Medicaid would be a disaster in terms of the support that states could count on for the federal government. A real step backwards. And all the advocacy groups that work on healthcare for the poor are dead set against this change.
Greg Wolpert: So what effect do you expect this transition to a block grant to have on life expectancy?
Sam Pizzigati: Absolutely. The gains that we’ve seen over the last year that are reflected in the new Centers for Disease Control figures for 2018 that just came out. I expect that those would be reversed and we would be seeing a decrease in life expectancy as we have in the previous three years.
Greg Wolpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now and we’re going to continue to follow the story, of course. I’m speaking to Sam Pizzigati, associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-editor of the website inequality.org. Thanks again, Sam, for having joined us today.
Sam Pizzigati: Thank you.
Greg Wolpert: And thank you for joining the Real News Network.
Studio: Will Arenas, Cameron Granadino
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Cameron Granadino, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-04--State Sen. Jill Carter ‘Was the Squad Before the Squad’

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Elijah Cummings’ death left a hole difficult to fill. From impeachment to racial justice and the future of America, we explore with the candidates for Maryland’s 7th District seat.
Story Transcript
MARC STEINER: Welcome to The Real News. I’m Marc Steiner. Good to have you with us.
Here in Maryland where we broadcast from, there’s a special election tomorrow for Elijah Cummings’ seat in the 7th Congressional District. He’s a hard man to replace. He sat and fought for his constituency in this country for a long time and was signing subpoenas against Donald Trump 45 minutes before he passed away.
We’re now about to talk to Jill Carter, who was first elected to the House of Delegates in 2002 here in Maryland, served on the House Judiciary Committee until 2016, was Director of Baltimore Office of Civil Rights and Wage Enforcement, and then was elected State Senator in District 41 and is currently a member of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Jill, welcome, good to have you with us here.
JILL CARTER: Thank you.
MARC STEINER: So let’s talk about this race you’re in. But let me start with Donald Trump and this race against Donald Trump and what’s happening. How do you think that plays into what may have motivated you to run and why you chose to run, and what we’re facing in this country?
JILL CARTER: The only tie-in is really that we lack good leadership at the local and national levels in my opinion. Donald Trump’s Presidency has sparked some sentiments in this country that I wouldn’t have been able to imagine that we would be at in 2020. Growing up as a child of the 60s I would say I was born into the belly of the civil rights movement.
MARC STEINER: Yes, you were.
JILL CARTER: I certainly thought we would always be making progress and I think this is the first time when it’s been so glaring that when it comes to racism and classism and Islamophobia and anti-immigrant sentiments that we have someone at the top that is so vocal and so overtly, I would say, somewhat anti-American to the extent that we believe that America stands for the inclusion of people and the diversity of people.
MARC STEINER: The district group you would represent if you win the election is a very strange and diverse district. We have this thing in Maryland where we kind of gerrymandered these districts that really make no sense in many ways. That’s real. But your district comprises of black middle class, black working class poor in Baltimore City, the suburbs, a middle class and working classes of Howard County, the mostly white part of the district in the Northern part of the district, which is in Baltimore County that for all intents and purposes is Trump country; whether it’s working class, middle class, or upper class, it’s Trump country.
So talk about that. And this is almost like a microcosm of America in this district that you would represent if you win the election tomorrow. So talk a bit about that and your campaign.
JILL CARTER: So I want to say that it is a much larger district than what I represent now just within Baltimore city, which is the 41st. But I do feel that the 41st is not all that different. The 41st goes from the tip of Roland Park down through the Glen Area, Park Heights, Pimlico; and then over to where I grew up, Ashburton, Forest Park and then over to Edmondson village. And then beneath Edmondson.
MARC STEINER: My old neighborhood of Windsor Hill.
JILL CARTER: Yes; Windsor Hill, Beachville, Irvington.
MARC STEINER: Right.
JILL CARTER: And so you have an incredible diversity of a class divide, an economic divide, race divide, and religious divide because the district, 41st, also encompasses the largest concentration of Orthodox Jewish people except for further North around New York in this area, in the Eastern seaboard.
MARC STEINER: But what does that say about where we are politically and what you have to represent and where this country has to go? Some people have looked at you if you win this is a special election, then you have to face the election again April 28 where you’re running against a Republican who wins in this primary and then you would have to face the people who run against you to actually take over Elijah Cummings’ seat, so it’s a crazy election, but let’s talk a bit about that and what that means in terms of what are you going to fight for? Some people look at you and say, “You could become the fifth member of the squad.”
JILL CARTER: Some people say that, right? I say I was the squad before this squad because I was always sort of an independent person that found myself pushing up against powerful political leadership even here in Maryland and in the State House. So basically, I just want to represent the district well. There are issues and people always say this where there’s more that brings us together than separates us. But I can tell you a few things that mean a lot to me that that do bring this district together and from door knocking in West Baltimore as well as in Northern Baltimore County, the same thing I hear is that people are losing faith in elected officials, that they want someone they can trust. They are demoralized by a lot of what has happened here locally and nationally with elected officials.
And so I think that what I offer and what I talk about is that first I say, “I’ve been in office for about 16 years total and I don’t have any major scandals or indictments, which puts me above a lot of the fray. And then secondly, I’ve now been touted the “anti-corruption legislator” because of the University of Maryland Medical System Bill that I sponsored last year. And so what people want in all of the areas is good government that works for the people. What people want everywhere is no corruption and representation that puts people’s needs first before their own political interest. And people are kind of tired of feeling like there’s this disconnect between what their needs are and what happens when someone goes, whether it’s to the State House in Annapolis or in Washington, what the differences are. And another thing that’s very similar is our infrastructure needs are universally bad throughout the district. Our infrastructure is antiquated and we have a real opportunity to fix that.
And with the ideas, the concepts, of current infrastructure, resourcing, and the Green New Deal, we have a chance to change that and also clean up our environment and fuel our economy in the future too. But the roads are bad everywhere. The infrastructure is bad all across. Public transportation is abysmal in just about every area of this district, and so that’s another common thing. And then finally, education. People want schools that work and they want their children to be educated well. And even people that are outside of the city that I’ve talked to they say, “I wish you could do something in the city.” In fact, this is kind of funny, I’ve had a couple of people say, “Can you run for Mayor and Congress?” Because they feel a real fear about what’s going on in Baltimore City right now. They want the schools better, they want children educated.
And then I said, finally, but that wasn’t true, I think the other thing that’s universally needed everywhere is universal healthcare. Because poor people and people that don’t have good jobs, that don’t have inadequate insurance, and even older people that may even be people of means still endure difficulties with insurance companies. And so I do believe that universal healthcare is a predictive inevitability. Whether it happens this year or it takes 7, 10 years, I do think that’s where we’re going to go. And so these are the issues I think that bring people together.
MARC STEINER: So let’s talk a bit about some of these issues, the national issues you’re going to face if you go to Congress, and this is about healthcare, Medicare For All, and where you stand on that. Most of the people running in this race are for a public option or for Medicare For All, some kind of universal healthcare. How do you see that happening in a country where the difficulties it will face for at least two and a half million people who work in the private healthcare industry with other people in the hospitals that I’ve encountered in that number who are involved because of the plethora of forms that have to be filled out in every doctor’s office has to hire seven people to just do all the insurance? So how do you make that transition? How do you see Medicare For All coming to reality?
JILL CARTER: I do see having to go through a transition until we get there, but my fundamental belief is that what ever the administrative difficulties are, even when it comes to jobs, we can figure out how to still have people maintain jobs that work in the insurance industry. Now, they can work for the government entity in some way. So I don’t look at it just like, “Oh, what do we do with the jobs?” But I think that we’ve made a terrible mistake by commodifying healthcare and by favoring this idea, first of all, the one thing, and you know we hear it all the time, people say, “I like my insurance,” but even the idea that you would favor an insurance that you like versus the idea that you could have complete coverage. And so the proposal that I support most that’s now before Congress that is gaining ground, it’s had four substantive hearings in the House so far at 1384, which is sponsored by Rep. Jayapal, it’s not the Medicare that we know that’s limited right now that only older people have.
MARC STEINER: Right.
JILL CARTER: It’s a much broader idea of Medicare and it would encompass vision, hearing, longterm care, which is very important for older adults, and it will just be more encompassing, including what people really are concerned about too, is mental health care. So I think we moved there in steps and I think it’s possible to do. But, of course, like most things that we plan to do, it’s going to really depend on who becomes the next President. Just about every President on the Democrat side except one is saying they favor moving toward universal healthcare.
MARC STEINER: So other issues facing … Well, before we go back to Congress here, I want to talk about Congress in, let’s say, places like Baltimore City and what you fight for as a Congresswoman in this city. People are talking about all these law and order kind of resolutions to what we face. People are terrified of violence and crime in the city, there’s no question about it, but there’s also where it comes from, which is the embedded poverty out of racism and people losing their jobs and being stuck in dystopian worlds so people don’t even stand if you don’t live in them and walk through them or spend time with them. So what would you say to that if you were in U.S. Congress?
JILL CARTER: So part of why we have the difficulty that we have and really the horrific divide we have in Baltimore which is a root cause of the crime is because of the bad decisions that were made in the past. And so I do know, I fully understand, that most people’s knee jerk reaction is, let’s resource law enforcement, let’s improve law enforcement. I don’t believe that that is the number one solution or even the first priority. I think the first priority is to work toward bringing more equity. And I also think that violence prevention programs that work are important and I do understand that people initially when they hear that they’re like, “Oh, programs, programs.”
But no, the truth is there are really evidence tested programs that work that are violence intervention and they’ve never been adequately funded and resourced. And so one of the things I’m even doing right now this year in the State along with the delegate Brooke Lierman is we are sponsoring an expansion of money for violence intervention programs in Baltimore City. That’s one thing. But the other thing is everything is interrelated and we live in intersectionality, and so we’re talking about the disinvestment in communities where for at least 20 if not 30 years the illegal drug trade has been the economic engine of many neighborhoods and we’re talking about inadequate schools.
When I first came into Legislature, the legislative body had just passed a Thornton, you may recall, and it stemmed from a case, Bradford versus State, which exposed the inequitable unconstitutional underfunding of Baltimore City public schools. Yet the solution for the legislature was to pass Thornton, which dealt with all jurisdictions but still continued to underfund Baltimore City. I say that to say that we’ve never been, I would say, honestly taking on these issues of inequity. And I think that I’m not here to say, “Well, when I get to the Congress I’m going to force that to happen,” but I do think I continue to move the needle a little bit further in dealing with these issues.
Another thing that I see as an option or a possibility as a Congresswoman is for the entire time that I’ve been in the State Legislature, I’ve noticed that our congressional delegation has a lot of leverage. We give them a lot of deference when it comes to guiding us in a certain direction. And so I think that to the extent I could have influence on our local and state leaders when it comes to how to prioritize the resources that are directed from the Congress, I think that’s something that I look very much forward to. And I’ve been touted as a more progressive candidate than many of the others and so my drives, my guidance, and my pushes are going to be in a more progressive direction than probably what we’ve had in the past.
MARC STEINER: So a couple of quick questions and we’re going to have to conclude. We just finished this impeachment process. Do you think it was a waste of time? What would you have done if you were in the U.S. Congress when this was going on, and where do you think this is going to take us?
JILL CARTER: I would have done the same thing that the other Democrats did. I would have voted, if I were in the House, I would’ve voted for the impeachment. But I have to be honest with you, this is reminds me of a lot of things that I’ve kind of deferred with the Democrat establishment here. Yeah, I would’ve gone ahead because I actually do think the situation warranted it, but what I do know is that somebody walking down Pennsylvania Avenue right now doesn’t really care about Donald Trump and the impeachment. They don’t really care.
JILL CARTER: Or let me say, walking down Hilton Street or Liberty Heights, that is not their number one concern and I don’t think they want their Congress person going to Washington and focusing solely on that. They care about what’s happening right there, as you mentioned, in their neighborhood. They care about the, the grime and the crime. They care about the lack of opportunity and options. They care about all the dilapidated housing. They want someone that’s going to use their latitude and they’re leverage in the Congress to fight to bring resources back to the district. And there is an ability to do that in Congress more so than someone can do in the State level.
MARC STEINER: So do you see the New Green Economy as part of that?
JILL CARTER: Absolutely.
MARC STEINER: You’ve mentioned that in your campaigns.
JILL CARTER: It has to be. I mean, I know that we are woefully undereducated about the climate crisis, including me. I mean, it’s taken me several years, maybe multiple years when I first heard about it. Many years ago, I too was like, “I’ve got other things to deal with.” But I do believe that we are in a crisis and that we have to do something if we want to save life on the planet. But the good news is that as we work towards fixing it, we also have a chance to rebuild our… I say infrastructure a lot. Rebuild housing, rebuild transportation, rebuild a lot of things that will give people opportunities and chances to work. So we clean up our environment and we also create a new economy too.
That’s a global view and it’s going to take a lot of filling in. It’s going to take a lot of figuring out specifically how that works, for example, for Baltimore. But we know it has to work because look at our city. I mean it’s been decades now of row after row, block after block of housing that is completely abandoned and, and it’s worthless, no value because it’s just taking up space and attracting all kinds of undesirable things. We could be putting people in homes, in clean green homes, and we could be hiring people and employing people to rebuild our city.
MARC STEINER: So finally, Jill, let’s talk a little about your closing thoughts here. Tomorrow morning, we go to the polls, we’ll be at the polls all day long in the 7th District. And we don’t know how big the turtle is going to be, but what are your final thoughts?
JILL CARTER: My final thoughts are, we don’t have a woman in our delegation and it’s 2020. And yes, we have had some before, but we need gender equity and we do know that when women are an office that we tend to tackle and take on and champion issues in a different way than men. This is scientific. It’s not me just saying it. Science has shown that when women are in office they tend to focus more on things that affect mothers, children and families, and quality of life issues, and also bring more resources to their constituencies. And so I think we need a woman because we have an all male delegation.
I also think we don’t just need any woman, but we need someone such as myself that’s rooted in the community. I was born here, raised here, educated here, and I’ve served here. But even more than that, I love the district. I love the city. I would never leave, never. Because people have asked me over the years, and this is my home. This is the home. And if I can just take the liberty of saying, this is the home where I grew up as a little girl believing that one day we would have equity and equality and that we would have a beautiful society, and I thought that because I grew up with people like my father, Walter P. Carter, that was fighting for it. I grew up with Parren J. Mitchell. I grew up with Vernon Dobson. I grew up with people that were working every day using their lives to make that happen. Now, once some of them were gone, the ball–I would say–got dropped a bit.
And it’s time that we pick it up. It’s time that we continue on. I would have never been able to believe and I don’t think they would have been able to fathom that we would be where we are right now in this area in 2020. So I’m hoping that people will vote for me because I have a strong track record of, one, being trustworthy and, one, always putting people first before even my own political interest and that’s what we need. I believe we need someone that’s going to fight and champion for people and not just be there to have a title or to go to nice perceptions or get a nice office because they’re in favor with the leadership.
MARC STEINER: So thank you, State Senator Jill Carter. Good to have you with us here. Tomorrow is election day, February the 4th; reminding all of you out there who are in Maryland who are in the 7th District, if you’re going to vote tomorrow, you can register tomorrow at the polls and vote. You don’t always already have to be registered. So get out there and vote. We’ve had a conversation with Jill Carter. It is an important election.
And I’m Marc Steiner here with The Real News Network. Thank you so much for joining us. Take care.
Studio: Dwayne Gladden, Cameron Granadino, Will Arenas, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-02-04--Higginbotham: Expanding ACA Is the ‘Most Efficient Approach’ to Health Insurance

Host, The Marc Steiner Show
Marc Steiner is the host of "The Marc Steiner Show" on TRNN. He is a Peabody Award-winning journalist who has spent his life working on social justice issues. He walked his first picket line at age 13, and at age 16 became the youngest person in Maryland arrested at a civil rights protest during the Freedom Rides through Cambridge. As part of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1968, Marc helped organize poor white communities with the Young Patriots, the white Appalachian counterpart to the Black Panthers. Early in his career he counseled at-risk youth in therapeutic settings and founded a theater program in the Maryland State prison system. He also taught theater for 10 years at the Baltimore School for the Arts. From 1993-2018 Marc's signature “Marc Steiner Show” aired on Baltimore’s public radio airwaves, both WYPR—which Marc co-founded—and Morgan State University’s WEAA.
marc@therealnews.com
@marcsteiner


therealnews--2020-03-30--Climate Crisis: COVID-19 Brings Big Oil Deregulation, Low Auto Emissions, No Green Stimulus

Welcome back to TRNN ’ s Climate Crisis News Roundup .
In the coming weeks , this column will increasingly focus on the intersection between COVID-19 and the climate crisis .
If you have a story you think deserves a spot in the roundup , get in touch with me at [ email protected ] or on Twitter at @ SteveAHorn .
You can read last week ’ s edition here .
One of the weirdly positive planetary side effects of the COVID-19 outbreak is the accidental case study of humanity ’ s daily greenhouse gas and pollution footprint .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for days at a time and forcing people to work from home—while also shutting most public and private gathering spaces to maintain “ social distancing ” —we get clearer air and a rare view of how much pollution daily activity produces in the United States .
This is a topic we previously covered at TRNN .
Reporter Kim Brown interviewed Bryan Duncan , an atmospheric scientist with NASA , who looked at similar data in China .
“ …We ’ ve been able to use these satellites to look at how air pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and we ’ ve never seen such a very sharp decrease as this , over this short period of time , on the matter of just a few weeks , ” Duncan said .
Scientists have already found similar trends in the United States since COVID-19 began spreading .
Examining data from Descartes Labs Platform , The New York Times reported decreasing pollution during this time period in major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles , San Francisco , Seattle , New York , Chicago , and Atlanta .
New York , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drop over 50 % compared to normal on March 13 .
Researchers have linked the decrease to a drastic reduction in traffic .
According to the Environmental Protection Agency , vehicular emissions are over 29 % of all emissions in the United States .
“ We ’ ve never seen anything like the drop , ” Roisin Commane , an assistant professor at Columbia University , told The New York Times .
“ We often see dips during weekends or over holidays , but this is completely different.
” Los Angeles is notorious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country and also some of the highest levels of smog .
The city has seen an unprecedented drop in nitrogen dioxide levels in recent weeks .
Traffic data firm INRIX shows that nationally , “ car traffic dropped a shocking 30 percent at the end of last week compared to the same day of the week , ” Streetsblog USA reported .
Of course , this doesn ’ t mean humanity should rely on a global pandemic as a mechanism for lowering emissions .
But perhaps this crisis , as United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out recently to The Guardian , can serve as a wake-up call for people about the impact we are having on the planet .
Congress , however , still appears asleep at the wheel .
Climate justice activists have called for a $ 2 trillion Green Stimulus in response to the ever-worsening recession COVID-19 has triggered in the United States .
They see it as an opportunity , as with the Green New Deal , to tackle two crises at once : jobs and climate .
When all is said and done , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs lost by the end of March .
The eight-pronged Green Stimulus proposal calls for building more green public housing , scaling up the US public transit system , more production and installation of green energy , financing of family and community sustainable farms , and a green foreign policy .
It ’ s a comprehensive plan , and would plant the seeds of a Green New Deal .
But it was dead on arrival in the Senate .
After extensive meetings between Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deal for a $ 2 trillion stimulus plan that got a unanimous 96-0 vote ( including support from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren ) .
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she expected the bill to get a “ strong , bipartisan vote ” in that chamber , as well .
It did , and Trump signed the stimulus bill on March 27 .
The plan is the largest monetary stimulus in history .
But it includes nothing from the Green Stimulus proposal except for $ 25 billion for public transit agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stimulus to leave out the aviation industry , which contributes 2.5 % of all global greenhouse gas emissions , unless it came with environmental regulations attached.. None of that is in the Senate version of the bill .
Instead , the stimulus gives $ 58 billion to the aviation industry , $ 500 billion to megacorporations , and $ 350 billion to small businesses .
The one-time cash payment to individuals of $ 1,200 per person , plus $ 500 per child , is estimated to cost only $ 300 billion—less than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporations , but more than what ’ s going to public health or food assistance .
Big Oil Gets The Deregulation It Wants On March 26 , the EPA announced a halt to civil enforcement laws during the coronavirus outbreak .
“ EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment , but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements , ” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a press release .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ provide enforcement discretion under the current , extraordinary conditions , while ensuring facility operations continue to protect human health and the environment.
” The oil industry has tried to use the coronavirus crisis to its advantage , seeking deregulatory policies and other favorable measures .
Last week ’ s roundup tackled the Trump administration ’ s push to buy oil from distressed companies for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve .
At one point the coronavirus stimulus bill included money for buying up that oil , even though financial woes for those companies long pre-date @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t included in the final stimulus breakdown , nor was the Strategic Petroleum Reserve proposal .
So Big Oil tried a new route , with some success .
The industry ’ s most powerful lobbying group , the American Petroleum Institute , sent two separate letters to President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler , asking them to relax regulations around its activity .
The first letter asked for a slew of regulatory relaxations from agencies including the Department of Transportation , Department of Interior , Department of Homeland Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EPA .
“ [ T ] he oil and natural gas industry needs to maintain safe and reliable operations , taking into consideration that there may be limited personnel capacity to manage the full scope of the current regulatory requirements , ” reads the letter .
“ As such , we will be requesting assistance in temporarily waiving non-essential compliance obligations from the relevant agencies and departments within your Administration and/or their state counterparts , and may include recordkeeping , training or other non-safety critical requirements.
” Among other things , API requested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and “ nonessential training , ” lowering the bar for “ reporting and auditing requirements , ” and less “ routine testing.
” The second letter made more specific demands of the EPA .
The industry lobbying hegemon wrote in that letter that it “ remains committed to prioritizing safe and reliable operations ” but that it might have “ limited personnel capacity to manage the full scope of the current regulatory requirements ” during this time of crisis .
“ As such , we are requesting assistance from your agency in temporarily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ request coordination with your state agency counterparts as necessary , ” API continued .
“ Industry is seeking temporary relief through enforcement discretion , waivers or revised compliance timeframes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
” The two letters were sent on March 20 and March 23 .
The EPA ’ s announcement was made on March 26 .
“ We can not let our government ’ s response in this moment be driven by lobbyists at the American Petroleum Institute looking to exploit a crisis for their own gain , ” Henderson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The EPA should be focused on protecting the health of those most vulnerable in the middle of a pandemic , not easing requirements for corporate polluters.
” A Win And A Loss On The Dakota Access Pipeline Lastly , a rare bit of good news for the climate justice movement .
In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia , Judge James Boasberg ruled on March 25 that the environmental review that helped greenlight the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 violated the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) .
2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bedrock environmental law that ’ s faced attacks from both the Obama and Trump administrations ( you can watch TRNN ’ s story on Obama ’ s fight to weaken NEPA here ) .
The Dakota Access Pipeline , which opened for business in 2017 , brings oil obtained from fracking in the Bakken Shale in North Dakota across four different states , ending in Illinois .
Obama used a process called the Nationwide Permit 12 to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to separate the pipeline into smaller segments , avoiding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposed pipeline .
In response the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said the expedited review process violated its rights under NEPA , which covers both the protection of cultural heritage sites and potential water impacts .
The anti-pipeline standoff and protest at Standing Rock has become iconic , the largest in United States history .
“ The Court acknowledges that in projects of this scope , it is not difficult for an opponent to find fault with many conclusions made by an operator and relied on by the agency .
But here , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comments raising insubstantial concerns , ” wrote Boasberg in his ruling .
“ The many commenters in this case pointed to serious gaps in crucial parts of the Corps ’ analysis—to name a few , that the pipeline ’ s leak-detection system was unlikely to work , that it was not designed to catch slow spills , that the operator ’ s serious history of incidents had not been taken into account , and that the worst-case scenario used by the Corps was potentially only a fraction of what a realistic figure would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fill any of them.
” Boasberg has sent the review back to the Corps for a more thorough review .
And he has said that there will be a follow-up hearing in April to determine whether the pipeline currently operating and open for business should be shuttered as the revamped environmental review takes place .
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe called it a victory which ideally sets a new legal precedent .
“ After years of commitment to defending our water and earth , we welcome this news of a significant legal win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe , said in a press release .
“ It ’ s humbling to see how actions we took four years ago to defend our ancestral homeland continue to inspire national conversations about how our choices ultimately affect this planet .
Perhaps in the wake of this court ruling the federal government will begin to catch on , too , starting by actually listening to us when we voice our concerns.
” Boasberg ’ s ruling was a win in the anti-pipeline fight .
But two days later , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Access ’ s capacity , one of many states that would need to do so for the plan to go forward .
The increased capacity would be instrumental in bringing oil to the global export market .
That ’ s it for this week .
Stay safe out there , and if you can , stay at home .
Thank you for reading and please come back next week for another edition of the Climate Crisis News Roundup .

Welcome back to TRNN’s Climate Crisis News Roundup. In the coming weeks, this column will increasingly focus on the intersection between COVID-19 and the climate crisis. If you have a story you think deserves a spot in the roundup, get in touch with me at steve@therealnews.com or on Twitter at @SteveAHorn. You can read last week’s edition here.
Pollution Plummets As COVID-19 Spreads
One of the weirdly positive planetary side effects of the COVID-19 outbreak is the accidental case study of humanity’s daily greenhouse gas and pollution footprint. By essentially turning off the economic machine for days at a time and forcing people to work from home—while also shutting most public and private gathering spaces to maintain “social distancing”—we get clearer air and a rare view of how much pollution daily activity produces in the United States.
This is a topic we previously covered at TRNN. Reporter Kim Brown interviewed Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist with NASA, who looked at similar data in China.
“…We’ve been able to use these satellites to look at how air pollution has been changing over time in China, and we’ve never seen such a very sharp decrease as this, over this short period of time, on the matter of just a few weeks,” Duncan said.
Scientists have already found similar trends in the United States since COVID-19 began spreading. Examining data from Descartes Labs Platform, The New York Times reported decreasing pollution during this time period in major metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Chicago, and Atlanta.
New York, for example, saw levels of carbon monoxide drop over 50% compared to normal on March 13. Researchers have linked the decrease to a drastic reduction in traffic. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, vehicular emissions are over 29% of all emissions in the United States.
“We’ve never seen anything like the drop,” Roisin Commane, an assistant professor at Columbia University, told The New York Times. “We often see dips during weekends or over holidays, but this is completely different.”
Los Angeles is notorious for having some of the worst traffic in the country and also some of the highest levels of smog. The city has seen an unprecedented drop in nitrogen dioxide levels in recent weeks.
Traffic data firm INRIX shows that nationally, “car traffic dropped a shocking 30 percent at the end of last week compared to the same day of the week,” Streetsblog USA reported.
Of course, this doesn’t mean humanity should rely on a global pandemic as a mechanism for lowering emissions. But perhaps this crisis, as United National Environmental Program Director Inger Anderson pointed out recently to The Guardian, can serve as a wake-up call for people about the impact we are having on the planet.
Congress, however, still appears asleep at the wheel.
No Green Stimulus
Climate justice activists have called for a $2 trillion Green Stimulus in response to the ever-worsening recession COVID-19 has triggered in the United States. They see it as an opportunity, as with the Green New Deal, to tackle two crises at once: jobs and climate. When all is said and done, the United States could see six million jobs lost by the end of March.
The eight-pronged Green Stimulus proposal calls for building more green public housing, scaling up the US public transit system, more production and installation of green energy, financing of family and community sustainable farms, and a green foreign policy. It’s a comprehensive plan, and would plant the seeds of a Green New Deal. But it was dead on arrival in the Senate.
After extensive meetings between Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, the Senate and White House brokered a deal for a $2 trillion stimulus plan that got a unanimous 96-0 vote (including support from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren). House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she expected the bill to get a “strong, bipartisan vote” in that chamber, as well. It did, and Trump signed the stimulus bill on March 27.
The plan is the largest monetary stimulus in history. But it includes nothing from the Green Stimulus proposal except for $25 billion for public transit agencies. Climate activists had also called for the stimulus to leave out the aviation industry, which contributes 2.5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions, unless it came with environmental regulations attached.. None of that is in the Senate version of the bill.
Instead, the stimulus gives $58 billion to the aviation industry, $500 billion to megacorporations, and $350 billion to small businesses. The one-time cash payment to individuals of $1,200 per person, plus $500 per child, is estimated to cost only $300 billion—less than what’s allocated for industry and corporations, but more than what’s going to public health or food assistance.
Big Oil Gets The Deregulation It Wants
On March 26, the EPA announced a halt to civil enforcement laws during the coronavirus outbreak.
“EPA is committed to protecting human health and the environment, but recognizes challenges resulting from efforts to protect workers and the public from COVID-19 may directly impact the ability of regulated facilities to meet all federal regulatory requirements,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler in a press release. “This temporary policy is designed to provide enforcement discretion under the current, extraordinary conditions, while ensuring facility operations continue to protect human health and the environment.”
The oil industry has tried to use the coronavirus crisis to its advantage, seeking deregulatory policies and other favorable measures. Last week’s roundup tackled the Trump administration’s push to buy oil from distressed companies for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. At one point the coronavirus stimulus bill included money for buying up that oil, even though financial woes for those companies long pre-date the global pandemic. The money wasn’t included in the final stimulus breakdown, nor was the Strategic Petroleum Reserve proposal.
So Big Oil tried a new route, with some success. The industry’s most powerful lobbying group, the American Petroleum Institute, sent two separate letters to President Trump and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler, asking them to relax regulations around its activity.
The first letter asked for a slew of regulatory relaxations from agencies including the Department of Transportation, Department of Interior, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, and the EPA.
“[T]he oil and natural gas industry needs to maintain safe and reliable operations, taking into consideration that there may be limited personnel capacity to manage the full scope of the current regulatory requirements,” reads the letter. “As such, we will be requesting assistance in temporarily waiving non-essential compliance obligations from the relevant agencies and departments within your Administration and/or their state counterparts, and may include recordkeeping, training or other non-safety critical requirements.”
Among other things, API requested a lessening of “nonessential inspections” and “nonessential training,” lowering the bar for “reporting and auditing requirements,” and less “routine testing.”
The second letter made more specific demands of the EPA. The industry lobbying hegemon wrote in that letter that it “remains committed to prioritizing safe and reliable operations” but that it might have “limited personnel capacity to manage the full scope of the current regulatory requirements” during this time of crisis.
“As such, we are requesting assistance from your agency in temporarily waiving non-essential compliance obligations, and we request coordination with your state agency counterparts as necessary,” API continued. “Industry is seeking temporary relief through enforcement discretion, waivers or revised compliance timeframes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The two letters were sent on March 20 and March 23. The EPA’s announcement was made on March 26.
Caroline Henderson, a senior climate campaigner for Greenpeace USA, denounced the EPA’s decision.
“We cannot let our government’s response in this moment be driven by lobbyists at the American Petroleum Institute looking to exploit a crisis for their own gain,” Henderson said in a press release. “The EPA should be focused on protecting the health of those most vulnerable in the middle of a pandemic, not easing requirements for corporate polluters.”
A Win And A Loss On The Dakota Access Pipeline
Lastly, a rare bit of good news for the climate justice movement. In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge James Boasberg ruled on March 25 that the environmental review that helped greenlight the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 2020 is the 50th birthday of NEPA, a bedrock environmental law that’s faced attacks from both the Obama and Trump administrations (you can watch TRNN’s story on Obama’s fight to weaken NEPA here).
The Dakota Access Pipeline, which opened for business in 2017, brings oil obtained from fracking in the Bakken Shale in North Dakota across four different states, ending in Illinois. Obama used a process called the Nationwide Permit 12 to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to separate the pipeline into smaller segments, avoiding a comprehensive environmental review for the entire proposed pipeline. In response the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe said the expedited review process violated its rights under NEPA, which covers both the protection of cultural heritage sites and potential water impacts. The anti-pipeline standoff and protest at Standing Rock has become iconic, the largest in United States history.
In essence, Judge Boasberg validated the Standing Rock movement’s grievances.
“The Court acknowledges that in projects of this scope, it is not difficult for an opponent to find fault with many conclusions made by an operator and relied on by the agency. But here, there is considerably more than a few isolated comments raising insubstantial concerns,” wrote Boasberg in his ruling. “The many commenters in this case pointed to serious gaps in crucial parts of the Corps’ analysis—to name a few, that the pipeline’s leak-detection system was unlikely to work, that it was not designed to catch slow spills, that the operator’s serious history of incidents had not been taken into account, and that the worst-case scenario used by the Corps was potentially only a fraction of what a realistic figure would be—and the Corps was not able to fill any of them.”
Boasberg has sent the review back to the Corps for a more thorough review. And he has said that there will be a follow-up hearing in April to determine whether the pipeline currently operating and open for business should be shuttered as the revamped environmental review takes place. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe called it a victory which ideally sets a new legal precedent.
“After years of commitment to defending our water and earth, we welcome this news of a significant legal win,” Mike Faith, Chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a press release. “It’s humbling to see how actions we took four years ago to defend our ancestral homeland continue to inspire national conversations about how our choices ultimately affect this planet. Perhaps in the wake of this court ruling the federal government will begin to catch on, too, starting by actually listening to us when we voice our concerns.”
Boasberg’s ruling was a win in the anti-pipeline fight. But two days later, Iowa approved a proposal to double Dakota Access’s capacity, one of many states that would need to do so for the plan to go forward. The increased capacity would be instrumental in bringing oil to the global export market.
That’s it for this week. Stay safe out there, and if you can, stay at home. Thank you for reading and please come back next week for another edition of the Climate Crisis News Roundup.
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-03-30--Spain Nationalized Private Clinics To Fight COVID-19—What Happens After The Pandemic?

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : It ’ s The Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Here at The Real News Network , we have been covering how different governments are dealing with the coronavirus pandemic , and whether the private or the public sector is better equipped to deal with such a large-scale crisis .
One government that is adopting a decidedly state-centered approach is Spain .
Currently , Spain has the second most number of infections in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths in the world .
Last week , the center-left government of Spain announced that all private hospitals and private healthcare companies will be managed by the government until the crisis is over .
Here ’ s how a Spanish nurse described the increasingly dramatic situation in Spain ’ s hospitals .
Speaker 2 : There are no waterproof gowns .
The colleagues protect themselves with garbage bags , and trying to get the protection that the hospital does not give them .
Waiting rooms have been set up to treat patients without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation is in chaos .
Greg Wilpert : And here is how Deutsche Welle correspondent , Jaime Velazquez , says the government is diverting resources to provide to emergency health services .
Jaime Velazquez : Yeah , well the government has just announced that they have bought 700 extra respirators and 240,000 rapid coronavirus tests .
They want to increase that number of tests up to 6 million in the coming days and weeks .
And also , as you said , in the Exhibition Center in Madrid , 5,000 beds hospital has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hotels are turned into hospitals a way to host some of the patients and those home health workers that are coming from other parts of Spain .
Well , we will still need to see exactly probably in these coming days how these new infections are building , how the things are building up .
Greg Wilpert : Joining me now to discuss how Spain has been dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic is Sebastiaan Faber .
He ’ s Professor of Hispanic Studies at Oberlin College , and author of the book Memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Welcome back to the Real News Network , Sebastiaan .
Greg Wilpert : So , how does Spain ’ s healthcare system first of all work more generally , , before the crisis broke out ?
And from the point of view of the patients , the families and the people who need to be tested for the coronavirus , how important is it to have even private facilities managed by the government ?
Sebastiaan Faber : Well , it ’ s important first to point out that Spain has long had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in part because in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 , access to good quality public health care is a right .
It ’ s a constitutional right in Spain .
So Spain has had a very strong healthcare system , often ranked in the top 10 of the world .
And , at the same time that there are also private hospitals and private clinics , but those make up about half of the country ’ s hospitals , about a third of the country ’ s available hospital beds , for about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Only 20 % of the population has a private health insurance .
Everybody else can get healthcare for free whenever they need it , in any of the country ’ s , hospitals .
This healthcare system is managed regionally , so the hospitals are funded by , and controlled by , regional governments .
Now what the state of emergency that was declared on March 14th did , I was not quite nationalize that private part of the healthcare system , but to put it under the direct control of the Ministry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those regional governments .
That is important to basically help coordinate the response to this incredibly overwhelming crisis .
Like you said , Spain is among the countries hardest hit by the spread of the coronavirus , and it was very important to coordinate available beds , available ICU beds , and to put the maximum amount of effort toward trying to curb this virus .
What the virus crisis has done , however , is to show to what extent this very robust system that Spain had , has been weakened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two big trends .
One has been basically cutbacks .
So in response to the great recession of 2008 , 2009 , 2010 , the Spanish government , both the central government and regional governments have cut back on healthcare funding , reducing the number of beds , reducing the number of personnel , surgeons , nurses , at all kinds of levels .
So that trend has really hurt the system , and it ’ s a crisis like this that brings that to the fore .
The second big trend that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Spain has been the constant steady push toward privatization , especially by conservative governments at the regional level , that have consistently pushed to take public facilities and privatize them , or to allow private for-profit companies to manage or take over public healthcare services .
And , what the crisis has done , it has revealed the weaknesses of the system .
The system has been currently , is overwhelmed .
One of the signals of it ’ s being overwhelmed is the high percentage of healthcare personnel that has come down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than in other countries in Europe .
And what it has also done as a result , is it has put back into public consciousness the awareness of the need for a robust , strong , fully-funded public healthcare system in Spain .
Greg Wilpert : Now , the government in Spain is headed by the Socialist Workers Party of Spain , the PSOE .
But in recent decades , that Party has been kind of part of the third-way , center-left trend in Europe , moving more and more towards the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ currently in a coalition or working together with the Juegos Podemos Party , which is much more leftist .
But it too has kind of abandoned some of its more radical positions .
So , how did the idea to nationalize or to actually manage the private health system come about ?
I mean , what was the debate , and do you think this will have a longer-lasting consequence once Spain gets out of this crisis ?
Sebastiaan Faber : I think it ’ s good to see the state of emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the healthcare system in a larger context of the Spanish government ’ s response to the crisis , which mirrors really the response of many other countries in Europe and even the United States , which has been to think about the crisis as an opportunity , or just to see the need for a large-scale public investment in society , in response to the crisis , especially to soften the economic blow , which is a radical departure from the response to the 2008 , 2009 crisis , which was hysteria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the coalition partner of the Socialist Party , I think has helped this response , has helped the Spanish government to not forget groups of society , those groups of society that were hardest hit by the previous crisis .
So I think definitely in the debates , which reportedly were extremely intense in the Cabinet over the past month or so , the presence of Juegos Podemos has helped push the government in the direction of more support , a stronger social network , more unemployment funding , including this takeover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : And what has been the response in Spain that is in the general population to have this a change in the way the health system is being managed ?
Sebastiaan Faber : Generally in Spain , the crisis has hit very hard .
People are extremely concerned .
The number of deaths continues to grow every single day .
There is a lot of concern about all aspects of the care system , including , for example , elderly care .
Spain is among the countries , the second country in Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highest life expectancy .
So it has had a very low birth rate for many years , which means that the population is an average again , or it ’ s an elderly population .
So everybody knows people who are at risk or have been infected by the virus , and the situation in homes for the elderly have been also very alarming .
So there ’ s a widespread awareness of the sense of crisis , of the need for intervention .
At the same time that , as I said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis has revealed the erosion of what was once an extremely strong public healthcare system has convinced the general population of the need for strengthening again , that system properly funding it .
And among the touching details , it started in Spain and has now spread to other European countries , is the ritual of a daily public applause for the healthcare workers in the public system , where people go out on their balconies at 8:00 in the evening , and applaud the work done by these people on the front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Interesting .
Now , finally , do you think that this change in management will be reversed again ?
I mean clearly they have already stated that this is just temporary .
But what do you think will be the longer-term consequences , and will this situation go back to the way it was before ?
Sebastiaan Faber : I think in principle , it ’ s set to revert to the status quo before the crisis .
And there ’ s a couple of questions that have not been answered .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been for public healthcare services to be outsourced to private for-profit companies , which includes Spanish companies , multinational companies .
And in a way , taking over the management of the private part of the healthcare system in the crisis is kind of a forceful outsourcing of that same capacity .
But because the ownership of the private healthcare system is not put in question , so these multinationals are still the owners , they ’ re just now under management of the State government , means that it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the end of all this , present the central government with a bill for every patient , and every test , and every intervention , they have done .
And it ’ s not clear what kind of rates they might charge , and how this will be resolved .
So I think what ’ ll I need to happen once this is over , is another serious negotiation , or even fight , for the central government to defend the rights of patients and the right of the public system to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think , ultimately , it goes back to budget questions and policies , and there will , I think , be a push in Spain to at least , if not revert , then halt the trend toward cutbacks for public healthcare spending , and towards steady privatization of the healthcare system .
Because if one thing has become clear in this , is that having split systems where each part kind of takes care of its own purchasing of masks , or its own purchasing of the respirators , is chaotic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Nation States turn out to be not quite capable of producing their own healthcare supplies , including masks and respirators , has now turned out to be a real issue .
So I think in that sense , we ’ ll see changes in the way that people think about healthcare , and the way that governments think about healthcare .
Greg Wilpert : Okay .
Well , we ’ re going to leave it there for now .
I was speaking to Sebastiaan Faber , Professor of Hispanic Studies at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for having joined us today .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining The Real News Network .

Spain faced the second worst infection rate in Europe, and took control of the country’s private health care companies to improve its response. What does this mean for Spain’s public health care system going forward?
Story Transcript
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.
Greg Wilpert: It’s The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia. Here at The Real News Network, we have been covering how different governments are dealing with the coronavirus pandemic, and whether the private or the public sector is better equipped to deal with such a large-scale crisis.
One government that is adopting a decidedly state-centered approach is Spain. Currently, Spain has the second most number of infections in Europe, and the second most number of deaths in the world. Last week, the center-left government of Spain announced that all private hospitals and private healthcare companies will be managed by the government until the crisis is over. Here’s how a Spanish nurse described the increasingly dramatic situation in Spain’s hospitals.
Speaker 2: There are no waterproof gowns. The colleagues protect themselves with garbage bags, and trying to get the protection that the hospital does not give them. Waiting rooms have been set up to treat patients without oxygen, neither respirators, and the situation is in chaos.
Greg Wilpert: And here is how Deutsche Welle correspondent, Jaime Velazquez, says the government is diverting resources to provide to emergency health services.
Jaime Velazquez: Yeah, well the government has just announced that they have bought 700 extra respirators and 240,000 rapid coronavirus tests. They want to increase that number of tests up to 6 million in the coming days and weeks. And also, as you said, in the Exhibition Center in Madrid, 5,000 beds hospital has been put in place. Also, hotels are turned into hospitals a way to host some of the patients and those home health workers that are coming from other parts of Spain. Well, we will still need to see exactly probably in these coming days how these new infections are building, how the things are building up.
Greg Wilpert: Joining me now to discuss how Spain has been dealing with the Coronavirus pandemic is Sebastiaan Faber. He’s Professor of Hispanic Studies at Oberlin College, and author of the book Memory Battles of the Spanish Civil War. Welcome back to the Real News Network, Sebastiaan.
Sebastiaan Faber: Great to be back, Greg.
Greg Wilpert: So, how does Spain’s healthcare system first of all work more generally,, before the crisis broke out? And from the point of view of the patients, the families and the people who need to be tested for the coronavirus, how important is it to have even private facilities managed by the government?
Sebastiaan Faber: Well, it’s important first to point out that Spain has long had a very robust single-payer public healthcare system, in part because in the Spanish Constitution of 1978, access to good quality public health care is a right. It’s a constitutional right in Spain. So Spain has had a very strong healthcare system, often ranked in the top 10 of the world. And, at the same time that there are also private hospitals and private clinics, but those make up about half of the country’s hospitals, about a third of the country’s available hospital beds, for about only 20% of the population. Only 20% of the population has a private health insurance. Everybody else can get healthcare for free whenever they need it, in any of the country’s, hospitals. This healthcare system is managed regionally, so the hospitals are funded by, and controlled by, regional governments.
Now what the state of emergency that was declared on March 14th did, I was not quite nationalize that private part of the healthcare system, but to put it under the direct control of the Ministry of Health. So under direct control of those regional governments. That is important to basically help coordinate the response to this incredibly overwhelming crisis. Like you said, Spain is among the countries hardest hit by the spread of the coronavirus, and it was very important to coordinate available beds, available ICU beds, and to put the maximum amount of effort toward trying to curb this virus. What the virus crisis has done, however, is to show to what extent this very robust system that Spain had, has been weakened over the past decade or so by two big trends. One has been basically cutbacks.
So in response to the great recession of 2008, 2009, 2010, the Spanish government, both the central government and regional governments have cut back on healthcare funding, reducing the number of beds, reducing the number of personnel, surgeons, nurses, at all kinds of levels. So that trend has really hurt the system, and it’s a crisis like this that brings that to the fore. The second big trend that has weakened the public healthcare system in Spain has been the constant steady push toward privatization, especially by conservative governments at the regional level, that have consistently pushed to take public facilities and privatize them, or to allow private for-profit companies to manage or take over public healthcare services.
And, what the crisis has done, it has revealed the weaknesses of the system. The system has been currently, is overwhelmed. One of the signals of it’s being overwhelmed is the high percentage of healthcare personnel that has come down with the virus. This is higher than in other countries in Europe. And what it has also done as a result, is it has put back into public consciousness the awareness of the need for a robust, strong, fully-funded public healthcare system in Spain.
Greg Wilpert: Now, the government in Spain is headed by the Socialist Workers Party of Spain, the PSOE. But in recent decades, that Party has been kind of part of the third-way, center-left trend in Europe, moving more and more towards the political center. Now, the PSOE is currently in a coalition or working together with the Juegos Podemos Party, which is much more leftist. But it too has kind of abandoned some of its more radical positions. So, how did the idea to nationalize or to actually manage the private health system come about? I mean, what was the debate, and do you think this will have a longer-lasting consequence once Spain gets out of this crisis?
Sebastiaan Faber: I think it’s good to see the state of emergency and the taking over the management of the healthcare system in a larger context of the Spanish government’s response to the crisis, which mirrors really the response of many other countries in Europe and even the United States, which has been to think about the crisis as an opportunity, or just to see the need for a large-scale public investment in society, in response to the crisis, especially to soften the economic blow, which is a radical departure from the response to the 2008, 2009 crisis, which was hysteria, cutbacks. The fact that Juegos Podemos is the coalition partner of the Socialist Party, I think has helped this response, has helped the Spanish government to not forget groups of society, those groups of society that were hardest hit by the previous crisis.
So I think definitely in the debates, which reportedly were extremely intense in the Cabinet over the past month or so, the presence of Juegos Podemos has helped push the government in the direction of more support, a stronger social network, more unemployment funding, including this takeover of the healthcare industry.
Greg Wilpert: And what has been the response in Spain that is in the general population to have this a change in the way the health system is being managed?
Sebastiaan Faber: Generally in Spain, the crisis has hit very hard. People are extremely concerned. The number of deaths continues to grow every single day. There is a lot of concern about all aspects of the care system, including, for example, elderly care. Spain is among the countries, the second country in Europe with the European Union, with the highest life expectancy. So it has had a very low birth rate for many years, which means that the population is an average again, or it’s an elderly population. So everybody knows people who are at risk or have been infected by the virus, and the situation in homes for the elderly have been also very alarming. So there’s a widespread awareness of the sense of crisis, of the need for intervention.
At the same time that, as I said earlier, the extent to which the crisis has revealed the erosion of what was once an extremely strong public healthcare system has convinced the general population of the need for strengthening again, that system properly funding it. And among the touching details, it started in Spain and has now spread to other European countries, is the ritual of a daily public applause for the healthcare workers in the public system, where people go out on their balconies at 8:00 in the evening, and applaud the work done by these people on the front lines of the crisis.
Greg Wilpert: Interesting. Now, finally, do you think that this change in management will be reversed again? I mean clearly they have already stated that this is just temporary. But what do you think will be the longer-term consequences, and will this situation go back to the way it was before?
Sebastiaan Faber: I think in principle, it’s set to revert to the status quo before the crisis. And there’s a couple of questions that have not been answered. As I said earlier, the trend has been for public healthcare services to be outsourced to private for-profit companies, which includes Spanish companies, multinational companies. And in a way, taking over the management of the private part of the healthcare system in the crisis is kind of a forceful outsourcing of that same capacity. But because the ownership of the private healthcare system is not put in question, so these multinationals are still the owners, they’re just now under management of the State government, means that it’s quite possible that those private companies will at the end of all this, present the central government with a bill for every patient, and every test, and every intervention ,they have done. And it’s not clear what kind of rates they might charge, and how this will be resolved.
So I think what’ll I need to happen once this is over, is another serious negotiation, or even fight, for the central government to defend the rights of patients and the right of the public system to be treated properly in this situation. I think, ultimately, it goes back to budget questions and policies, and there will, I think, be a push in Spain to at least, if not revert, then halt the trend toward cutbacks for public healthcare spending, and towards steady privatization of the healthcare system. Because if one thing has become clear in this, is that having split systems where each part kind of takes care of its own purchasing of masks, or its own purchasing of the respirators, is chaotic. And even the fact that national, the Nation States turn out to be not quite capable of producing their own healthcare supplies, including masks and respirators, has now turned out to be a real issue.
So I think in that sense, we’ll see changes in the way that people think about healthcare, and the way that governments think about healthcare.
Greg Wilpert: Okay. Well, we’re going to leave it there for now. I was speaking to Sebastiaan Faber, Professor of Hispanic Studies at Oberlin College. Thanks again, Sebastiaan for having joined us today.
Sebastiaan Faber: My pleasure, Greg.
Greg Wilpert: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Andrew Corkery
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.