vox--2020-03-02--Pence and Azar’s coronavirus media tour revealed that their main concern is protecting Trump

There ’ s really no defending the attempts President Donald Trump and his eldest son made over the weekend to weaponize a pandemic outbreak against their political opponents , including the president dismissing Democratic concerns about the administration ’ s coronavirus response as “ their new hoax.
” Nonetheless , on Sunday , both Vice President Mike Pence and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar gave it their best shot .
Three-plus years into the Trump presidency , there ’ s a long tradition of administration officials defending everything from Trump ’ s absurd misinformation about how wind energy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponents .
But that Pence and Azar — the top administration officials overseeing the coronavirus response — wouldn ’ t even disavow Trump ’ s use of the word “ hoax ” amid a possible pandemic is perhaps the strongest illustration yet that there ’ s nothing Trump ’ s top officials won ’ t defend .
During an appearance on CNN , Pence downplayed Donald Trump Jr. ’ s baseless accusation about Democrats hoping that Covid-19 ( the disease caused by coronavirus ) “ kills millions of people , ” characterizing his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ABC , Azar defended President Trump ’ s comments about concerns about his administration ’ s handling of the outbreak being a “ new hoax , ” saying , “ he ’ s talking about the partisan sniping that we ’ re seeing , and that ’ s just — it ’ s unnecessary.
” It should have been easy for Pence and Azar to distance themselves from those remarks .
It is simply not the case that Democrats want people to die , and with five American deaths already reported , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus is a “ hoax.
” But the fact that Pence and Azar instead defended the remarks shows the degree of loyalty Trump expects from those working for him .
In that regard , Pence ’ s and Azar ’ s performances Sunday demonstrated why Trump refused to appoint someone from outside the administration to oversee the coronavirus response effort .
He ultimately selected Pence , a choice that , according to a Washington Post report Saturday , was made as Trump was “ wondering whether such a person would be loyal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Azar proved that they are .
There are already many legitimate reasons to criticize the administration ’ s coronavirus response It is true that there has been some criticism of the administration ’ s response to the coronavirus , but it has been bipartisan and largely grounded in specific issues , such as GOP Sen. Richard Shelby and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ’ s concerns about the amount of anti-coronavirus money the administration has allocated being inadequate .
And as my colleague Matthew Yglesias detailed last week , there are good reasons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration is up for the task .
Trump has systematically dismantled America ’ s pandemic response capabilities since taking office , including getting rid of the National Security Council ’ s Director of Global Health Security position in 2018 and proposing massive cuts to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health as recently as last month .
So it ’ s not surprising that the administration ’ s response to the coronavirus has been dysfunctional at best .
On Sunday , Axios broke news about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus that have resulted in the US being far behind nations like China and South Korea when it comes to conducting large-scale testing .
Those problems make the Trump administration ’ s refusal to take the World Health Organization ( WHO ) up on its offer to provide testing kits look extremely questionable .
Axios reported that the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) now says it has full confidence in the testing kids , but the delay in rolling them out has already had consequences , as “ a slew of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus has spread throughout the country while the US government tested only a narrow subset of the population for it.
” As Dr. Matt McCarthy alluded to during a Monday morning appearance on CNBC , the Trump administration responded to the coronavirus threat by closing borders but was derelict about testing people within the country .
“ In New York state , the person who tested positive was only the 32nd test we ’ ve done in this state .
That is a national scandal , ” McCarthy said .
“ They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some countries , and we can ’ t get this off the ground .
I ’ m a practitioner on the firing line , and I don ’ t have the tools to properly care for patients today.
” The CDC came under fresh scrutiny Monday following news it mistakenly released a patient from the Texas Center for Infectious Disease who later tested positive for Covid-19 .
And That may not be the only major mistake that ’ s already taken place : A whistleblower claims Health and Human Services ( HHS ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protective gear or training .
Trump ’ s choice to put Pence in charge of the coronavirus response has also drawn criticism .
The vice president not only has no public health qualifications , but he turned a blind eye to an HIV outbreak in his home state of Indiana while he was governor .
As Judd Legum reported , Pence wasted no time misleading people about the administration ’ s coronavirus response .
During a Sunday morning appearance on Fox Business , Pence obfuscated the lack of Covid-19 testing that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing with the casual screening of people traveling through airports .
All of this is to say that pointing out legitimate concerns about the Trump administration ’ s response is not tantamount to politicizing a viral outbreak , despite the administration ’ s claims otherwise .
And it is worth noting the administration has not been clear about the source of their outrage — for example , when Pence was asked on Meet the Press to cite examples of rhetoric that he thought crossed a line , he struggled to do so .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to criticism , and he seems to view the coronavirus as mainly a public relations issue .
There ’ s a particular irony in Trump officials attacking Democrats for allegedly politicizing a public health crisis , seeing as how Trump himself was arguably the worst offender in whipping up Ebola hysteria and using it as a cudgel to attack Democrats in the lead-up to the 2014 midterms .
Unlike Trump , Obama responded to that crisis by appointing a czar from outside government to coordinate the response effort .
Ultimately , Ebola did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were only two deaths from the disease in the country , and both of them were people who contracted it in Africa .
It ’ s hard to argue that the Obama administration ’ s response was anything but competent and effective .
Trump ’ s coronavirus response efforts , by contrast , have not gotten off to a great start .
And instead of processing criticism constructively and using it to improve , Pence and Azar ’ s defense of the Trump family ’ s incendiary comments indicate that anybody who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a target for criticism themselves .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

There’s really no defending the attempts President Donald Trump and his eldest son made over the weekend to weaponize a pandemic outbreak against their political opponents, including the president dismissing Democratic concerns about the administration’s coronavirus response as “their new hoax.” Nonetheless, on Sunday, both Vice President Mike Pence and Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar gave it their best shot.
Three-plus years into the Trump presidency, there’s a long tradition of administration officials defending everything from Trump’s absurd misinformation about how wind energy works to his juvenile attacks on political opponents. But that Pence and Azar — the top administration officials overseeing the coronavirus response — wouldn’t even disavow Trump’s use of the word “hoax” amid a possible pandemic is perhaps the strongest illustration yet that there’s nothing Trump’s top officials won’t defend.
During an appearance on CNN, Pence downplayed Donald Trump Jr.’s baseless accusation about Democrats hoping that Covid-19 (the disease caused by coronavirus) “kills millions of people,” characterizing his sentiment as “understandable.”
On CNN, Mike Pence not only refused to disagree with Donald Trump Jr's assertion that Democrats are rooting for coronavirus to kill millions of people to hurt Trump -- but Pence even characterized Don Jr's sentiment as "understandable" pic.twitter.com/KwD624XGkq — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 1, 2020
And on ABC, Azar defended President Trump’s comments about concerns about his administration’s handling of the outbreak being a “new hoax,” saying, “he’s talking about the partisan sniping that we’re seeing, and that’s just — it’s unnecessary.”
It should have been easy for Pence and Azar to distance themselves from those remarks. It is simply not the case that Democrats want people to die, and with five American deaths already reported, it’s clear that nothing about the coronavirus is a “hoax.” But the fact that Pence and Azar instead defended the remarks shows the degree of loyalty Trump expects from those working for him.
In that regard, Pence’s and Azar’s performances Sunday demonstrated why Trump refused to appoint someone from outside the administration to oversee the coronavirus response effort. He ultimately selected Pence, a choice that, according to a Washington Post report Saturday, was made as Trump was “wondering whether such a person would be loyal to him.” Hours later, Pence and Azar proved that they are.
There are already many legitimate reasons to criticize the administration’s coronavirus response
It is true that there has been some criticism of the administration’s response to the coronavirus, but it has been bipartisan and largely grounded in specific issues, such as GOP Sen. Richard Shelby and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s concerns about the amount of anti-coronavirus money the administration has allocated being inadequate. And as my colleague Matthew Yglesias detailed last week, there are good reasons for folks to be worried about whether the administration is up for the task.
Trump has systematically dismantled America’s pandemic response capabilities since taking office, including getting rid of the National Security Council’s Director of Global Health Security position in 2018 and proposing massive cuts to both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health as recently as last month. So it’s not surprising that the administration’s response to the coronavirus has been dysfunctional at best.
On Sunday, Axios broke news about problems with government-made test kits for the coronavirus that have resulted in the US being far behind nations like China and South Korea when it comes to conducting large-scale testing. Those problems make the Trump administration’s refusal to take the World Health Organization (WHO) up on its offer to provide testing kits look extremely questionable.
Axios reported that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now says it has full confidence in the testing kids, but the delay in rolling them out has already had consequences, as “a slew of new cases announced over the weekend suggest the virus has spread throughout the country while the US government tested only a narrow subset of the population for it.”
As Dr. Matt McCarthy alluded to during a Monday morning appearance on CNBC, the Trump administration responded to the coronavirus threat by closing borders but was derelict about testing people within the country.
“In New York state, the person who tested positive was only the 32nd test we’ve done in this state. That is a national scandal,” McCarthy said. “They’re testing 10,000 a day in some countries, and we can’t get this off the ground. I’m a practitioner on the firing line, and I don’t have the tools to properly care for patients today.”
"In New York state, the person who tested positive was only the 32nd test we've done in this state. That is a national scandal. They're testing 10,000 a day in some countries." - ER Dr. Matt McCarthy pic.twitter.com/Yvwnp96E7d — Matt Novak (@paleofuture) March 2, 2020
The CDC came under fresh scrutiny Monday following news it mistakenly released a patient from the Texas Center for Infectious Disease who later tested positive for Covid-19. And That may not be the only major mistake that’s already taken place: A whistleblower claims Health and Human Services (HHS) staffers received coronavirus patients from Wuhan without protective gear or training.
Trump’s choice to put Pence in charge of the coronavirus response has also drawn criticism. The vice president not only has no public health qualifications, but he turned a blind eye to an HIV outbreak in his home state of Indiana while he was governor. As Judd Legum reported, Pence wasted no time misleading people about the administration’s coronavirus response. During a Sunday morning appearance on Fox Business, Pence obfuscated the lack of Covid-19 testing that’s occurred in the US by conflating medical testing with the casual screening of people traveling through airports.
All of this is to say that pointing out legitimate concerns about the Trump administration’s response is not tantamount to politicizing a viral outbreak, despite the administration’s claims otherwise. And it is worth noting the administration has not been clear about the source of their outrage — for example, when Pence was asked on Meet the Press to cite examples of rhetoric that he thought crossed a line, he struggled to do so.
PENCE: There's been a lot of irresponsible rhetoric among Democrats
TODD: Name some names
PENCE: There was a column in the New York Times by a prominent liberal journalist about "the Trump virus"
T: Does that apply to all people?
(Full interview here: https://t.co/YAfwbCIpzu) pic.twitter.com/GTo9aa8Mmp — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 1, 2020
Trump doesn’t view coronavirus concerns solely as a public health issue
Trump, as always, is hypersensitive to criticism, and he seems to view the coronavirus as mainly a public relations issue.
Gallup Poll numbers on the handling of this situation are outstanding, the best. Thank you! https://t.co/5Q9JI3Kh9R — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 2, 2020
There’s a particular irony in Trump officials attacking Democrats for allegedly politicizing a public health crisis, seeing as how Trump himself was arguably the worst offender in whipping up Ebola hysteria and using it as a cudgel to attack Democrats in the lead-up to the 2014 midterms.
Ebola is much easier to transmit than the CDC and government representatives are admitting. Spreading all over Africa-and fast. Stop flights — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2014
Unlike Trump, Obama responded to that crisis by appointing a czar from outside government to coordinate the response effort. Ultimately, Ebola did not spread in the United States. There were only two deaths from the disease in the country, and both of them were people who contracted it in Africa. It’s hard to argue that the Obama administration’s response was anything but competent and effective.
Trump’s coronavirus response efforts, by contrast, have not gotten off to a great start. And instead of processing criticism constructively and using it to improve, Pence and Azar’s defense of the Trump family’s incendiary comments indicate that anybody who dares to point out problems will become a target for criticism themselves.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.


vox--2020-03-02--Everything you need to know about the Supreme Court’s new Obamacare case

Obamacare is going back to the Supreme Court .
The justices announced on Monday that they would hear the ongoing lawsuit to overturn the health care law .
Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser went deep on the case and the background .
This is the third , and presumably last , in a trilogy of cases that have threatened the law ’ s future since President Obama signed it in 2010 .
But if you need a bite-size explanation ( or want an easy link to explain the case to friends who are wondering ) , let ’ s run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) What is this lawsuit about ?
In 2017 , Republicans in Congress passed their tax bill and President Trump signed it into law .
That law , among its many changes to the US tax code , repealed Obamacare ’ s financial penalty for failing to carry health insurance .
But it did not repeal the mandate itself .
The requirement that all Americans have health insurance is still technically on the books ; there is just no penalty for failing to meet it .
A group of Republican state officials , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limbo to challenge Obamacare ’ s constitutionality .
They have since been joined by the Trump administration .
Their argument goes something like this : • Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obamacare in 2012 by ruling that the individual mandate was a permissible use of Congress ’ s taxation power .
• After the GOP tax bill became law , there is no longer a “ tax ” for failing to satisfy the individual mandate , and so that rationale no longer holds up .
• The individual mandate must therefore be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so intrinsically important to Obamacare overall , if the mandate is unconstitutional , then so must be the entire law .
Democratic-led states and many legal experts disagree .
First , they don ’ t think anybody should be able to sue at all .
Who is being harmed by ... not being fined because they don ’ t have insurance ?
Where is the legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place ?
But they also reason that because Congress chose to repeal the mandate but nothing else , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law to stand without it .
Congress changes our laws all the time , and nobody usually argues that the underlying statute should be overturned .
So on the merits , once we get past the standing issue , this case is about Congress ’ s ability to amend laws after they ’ ve taken effect .
2 ) What do legal experts think about the Republican argument ?
Most of them are extremely dubious , for the reasons above .
This is how Millhiser summarized the legal consensus of conservatives : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some Republicans in Congress think the lawsuit is ridiculous too .
Sen. Lamar Alexander , the Republican chair of the Senate health committee , has criticized the Trump Justice Department for pursuing the litigation .
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine , one of the key Republican swing votes on the Senate tax bill , says she did not think she was voting to overturn Obamacare entirely ( and she had notably voted earlier the same year against the Republican repeal plans ) .
3 ) When will the case be heard and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Michigan ’ s Nicholas Bagley , a leading health care law expert , and he said he expects this to be the rough schedule : • The case will be heard in the fall of 2020 , possibly in the month before the presidential election • The justices will likely issue their decision in the spring or early summer of 2021 — June at the latest , Bagley says .
So this lawsuit will be hanging over the rest of the 2020 campaign .
But before we get to the politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stakes here .
4 ) What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare ?
It would be , in effect , the same as Congress repealing Obamacare without anything to replace it .
Everything would go : protections for preexisting conditions , subsidies that help people purchase insurance , the Medicaid expansion .
Even provisions unrelated to insurance , like nutrition requirements for food labels , would be gone .
The Urban Institute reviewed the likely consequences in grim detail : States that expanded Medicaid would get the worst of it : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double if the law were overturned .
The uninsured rate for black Americans would increase from 11 percent today to 20 percent without Obamacare ; there would also be a dramatic spike in uninsurance among Hispanics .
And considering we know health insurance protects people financially and helps them live longer , we would expect that increases in the uninsured rate would mean more people going into debt over medical bills and , yes , people dying because they lack coverage .
One thing to consider : It is possible the Court could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few other select provisions , like the preexisting conditions rules , which were very much linked to the mandate when the law was drafted .
But that ’ s not what the states or the Trump administration are asking for .
They want the whole law tossed out .
5 ) So is the Supreme Court going to overturn Obamacare ?
We should never presume we know how the Supreme Court justices are going to rule .
But it does seem unlikely they ’ ll overturn the law entirely so long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t change .
Roberts has rescued Obamacare twice from legal challenges that threatened its very existence .
Would he really choose this case , with its validity doubted even by conservative legal scholars , to pull the rug out from under it ?
But there is an important caveat above : “ so long as the court ’ s composition doesn ’ t change.
” It ’ s uncomfortable to mention , but liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has not been in good health .
From Bagley , writing in the JAMA Health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor may have less to do with law than with medicine .
In August 2019 , Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she had undergone treatment for a malignant pancreatic tumor .
Although she now says that she is cancer free , pancreatic cancer is a tough diagnosis at any age , much less at 86 years .
Can the liberal justices count on Justice Ginsburg to remain on the Supreme Court through the end of this year ?
If not , agreeing to hear the case now could be especially risky : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replace her with a conservative justice , who could in turn provide the fifth vote for ending the ACA .
Maybe it is better to wait and hope that a Democrat prevails in the coming election .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear he would fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the months before the presidential election .
If the Court ’ s ideological balance shifted from 5-4 in favor of the conservatives to 6-3 before the case is heard , then all bets are off .
6 ) Can Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some liberal scholars think so .
Bagley and his Michigan colleague Richard Primus laid out a few options in 2018 , shortly before Democrats took control of the House : • Increase the mandate penalty to a nominal amount ( even $ 1 ) • Pass a bill declaring that the rest of Obamacare should stand even if the mandate falls • Simply repeal the mandate entirely , as it is still technically on the books even though the penalty for not complying is $ 0 However , Democrats don ’ t agree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take those steps , and , to date , the House has not passed any such bills .
They fear , for one , that the Republican Senate would not act .
“ We take very seriously the threat we could have a worst of all worlds : A legislative fix does not become law and only serves to undermine the position of the House , which is that the ACA is constitutional as is , ” a House aide told me last year .
But Bagley finds that line of reasoning unconvincing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing as risk-free litigation , ” he told me previously .
“ You should do anything and everything you can to make this misbegotten lawsuit go away.
” 7 ) How is this going to affect the election ?
It ’ s hard to say !
After all , we don ’ t even know who the Democratic nominee is going to be .
But it seems likely the Trump administration ’ s support for a lawsuit that would lead to 20 million people losing their health insurance is going to be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling already shows voters trust Democrats over Trump on health care and that health care is a big issue for voters .
And now , the Justice Department is likely to be filing briefs over the coming months arguing on Trump ’ s behalf that Obamacare should be overturned .
Then we ’ ll have the very public drama of oral arguments at the Supreme Court , possibly in the month before voters head to the polls .
It ’ s going to be a big issue .
And remember , Obamacare is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been : Nevertheless , Republicans are still pushing to “ repeal ” the law by any means necessary .
They ’ ll get their next chance at the Supreme Court .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news .
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy ?
Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates .

Obamacare is going back to the Supreme Court.
The justices announced on Monday that they would hear the ongoing lawsuit to overturn the health care law. Vox’s Ian Millhiser went deep on the case and the background. This is the third, and presumably last, in a trilogy of cases that have threatened the law’s future since President Obama signed it in 2010.
But if you need a bite-size explanation (or want an easy link to explain the case to friends who are wondering), let’s run through the big questions here.
1) What is this lawsuit about?
In 2017, Republicans in Congress passed their tax bill and President Trump signed it into law. That law, among its many changes to the US tax code, repealed Obamacare’s financial penalty for failing to carry health insurance. But it did not repeal the mandate itself. The requirement that all Americans have health insurance is still technically on the books; there is just no penalty for failing to meet it.
A group of Republican state officials, led by Texas, used this legal limbo to challenge Obamacare’s constitutionality. They have since been joined by the Trump administration. Their argument goes something like this:
Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obamacare in 2012 by ruling that the individual mandate was a permissible use of Congress’s taxation power.
After the GOP tax bill became law, there is no longer a “tax” for failing to satisfy the individual mandate, and so that rationale no longer holds up.
The individual mandate must therefore be found unconstitutional.
And because the mandate is so intrinsically important to Obamacare overall, if the mandate is unconstitutional, then so must be the entire law.
Democratic-led states and many legal experts disagree. First, they don’t think anybody should be able to sue at all. Who is being harmed by ... not being fined because they don’t have insurance? Where is the legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place?
But they also reason that because Congress chose to repeal the mandate but nothing else, then lawmakers intended for the rest of the law to stand without it. Congress changes our laws all the time, and nobody usually argues that the underlying statute should be overturned.
So on the merits, once we get past the standing issue, this case is about Congress’s ability to amend laws after they’ve taken effect.
2) What do legal experts think about the Republican argument?
Most of them are extremely dubious, for the reasons above. This is how Millhiser summarized the legal consensus of conservatives:
Jonathan Adler, a conservative law professor — and a leading evangelist for an earlier lawsuit seeking to undercut the Affordable Care Act by reading a poorly drafted provision of the law to cut off much of the act’s funding — labeled many of the red states’ arguments “implausible,” “hard to justify,” and “surprisingly weak.” The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board labeled this lawsuit the “Texas Obamacare Blunder.” Yuval Levin, a prominent conservative policy wonk, wrote in National Review that the Texas lawsuit “doesn’t even merit being called silly. It’s ridiculous.”
They aren’t alone, either. Some Republicans in Congress think the lawsuit is ridiculous too. Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican chair of the Senate health committee, has criticized the Trump Justice Department for pursuing the litigation. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the key Republican swing votes on the Senate tax bill, says she did not think she was voting to overturn Obamacare entirely (and she had notably voted earlier the same year against the Republican repeal plans).
3) When will the case be heard and decided?
I checked with the University of Michigan’s Nicholas Bagley, a leading health care law expert, and he said he expects this to be the rough schedule:
The case will be heard in the fall of 2020, possibly in the month before the presidential election The justices will likely issue their decision in the spring or early summer of 2021 — June at the latest, Bagley says.
So this lawsuit will be hanging over the rest of the 2020 campaign. But before we get to the politics, let’s remember there are real stakes here.
4) What would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare?
It would be, in effect, the same as Congress repealing Obamacare without anything to replace it. Everything would go: protections for preexisting conditions, subsidies that help people purchase insurance, the Medicaid expansion. Even provisions unrelated to insurance, like nutrition requirements for food labels, would be gone.
The Urban Institute reviewed the likely consequences in grim detail:
The number of uninsured people would increase by approximately 20 million, or 65 percent nationally, [and] the increases in uninsurance would be most heavily concentrated among people with the lowest incomes (below 200 percent of the federal poverty level), young adults, families with at least one full-time worker, and residents of the South and West. These subpopulations of the United States have experienced the largest gains in insurance coverage under the ACA and consequently would be hit the hardest if the law were repealed.
States that expanded Medicaid would get the worst of it: Urban projected their uninsured rates would nearly double if the law were overturned. The uninsured rate for black Americans would increase from 11 percent today to 20 percent without Obamacare; there would also be a dramatic spike in uninsurance among Hispanics.
And considering we know health insurance protects people financially and helps them live longer, we would expect that increases in the uninsured rate would mean more people going into debt over medical bills and, yes, people dying because they lack coverage.
One thing to consider: It is possible the Court could choose to overturn the mandate and only a few other select provisions, like the preexisting conditions rules, which were very much linked to the mandate when the law was drafted.
But that’s not what the states or the Trump administration are asking for. They want the whole law tossed out.
5) So is the Supreme Court going to overturn Obamacare?
We should never presume we know how the Supreme Court justices are going to rule. But it does seem unlikely they’ll overturn the law entirely so long as the Court’s composition doesn’t change.
Roberts has rescued Obamacare twice from legal challenges that threatened its very existence. Would he really choose this case, with its validity doubted even by conservative legal scholars, to pull the rug out from under it?
But there is an important caveat above: “so long as the court’s composition doesn’t change.” It’s uncomfortable to mention, but liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has not been in good health.
From Bagley, writing in the JAMA Health Forum:
Oddly enough, the deciding factor may have less to do with law than with medicine. In August 2019, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she had undergone treatment for a malignant pancreatic tumor. Although she now says that she is cancer free, pancreatic cancer is a tough diagnosis at any age, much less at 86 years. Can the liberal justices count on Justice Ginsburg to remain on the Supreme Court through the end of this year? If not, agreeing to hear the case now could be especially risky: President Trump might have a chance to replace her with a conservative justice, who could in turn provide the fifth vote for ending the ACA. Maybe it is better to wait and hope that a Democrat prevails in the coming election.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made clear he would fill a Supreme Court vacancy in the months before the presidential election. If the Court’s ideological balance shifted from 5-4 in favor of the conservatives to 6-3 before the case is heard, then all bets are off.
6) Can Congress do anything to stop the lawsuit?
Some liberal scholars think so. Bagley and his Michigan colleague Richard Primus laid out a few options in 2018, shortly before Democrats took control of the House:
Increase the mandate penalty to a nominal amount (even $1) Pass a bill declaring that the rest of Obamacare should stand even if the mandate falls Simply repeal the mandate entirely, as it is still technically on the books even though the penalty for not complying is $0
However, Democrats don’t agree at all on whether they should actually take those steps, and, to date, the House has not passed any such bills. They fear, for one, that the Republican Senate would not act.
“We take very seriously the threat we could have a worst of all worlds: A legislative fix does not become law and only serves to undermine the position of the House, which is that the ACA is constitutional as is,” a House aide told me last year.
But Bagley finds that line of reasoning unconvincing.
“There’s no such thing as risk-free litigation,” he told me previously. “You should do anything and everything you can to make this misbegotten lawsuit go away.”
7) How is this going to affect the election?
It’s hard to say! After all, we don’t even know who the Democratic nominee is going to be. But it seems likely the Trump administration’s support for a lawsuit that would lead to 20 million people losing their health insurance is going to be a focus for Democrats’ messaging.
The polling already shows voters trust Democrats over Trump on health care and that health care is a big issue for voters. And now, the Justice Department is likely to be filing briefs over the coming months arguing on Trump’s behalf that Obamacare should be overturned. Then we’ll have the very public drama of oral arguments at the Supreme Court, possibly in the month before voters head to the polls.
It’s going to be a big issue. And remember, Obamacare is more popular today than it ever has been:
Nevertheless, Republicans are still pushing to “repeal” the law by any means necessary. They’ll get their next chance at the Supreme Court.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter VoxCare Dylan Scott guides you through the fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic and the health care policies that matter most. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Join the conversation
Are you interested in more discussions around health care policy? Join our Facebook community for conversation and updates.


vox--2020-03-02--Iran’s coronavirus outbreak has hit the highest levels of government

The coronavirus has hit the highest levels of Iran ’ s government .
Mohammad Mirmohammadi , a member of a top council that advises Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei , died Monday of Covid-19 , the disease caused by the coronavirus .
His death follows those of two other Iranian leaders — a former ambassador and newly elected member of Parliament — who also succumbed to the illness .
Reports indicate there are a total of about seven top officials who are sick , including Iraj Harirchi , the head of the regime ’ s coronavirus task force , and Iranian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ebtekar ’ s illness last week was particularly troubling for Iran ’ s leadership , as it came only one day after she attended a Cabinet meeting where she was in close proximity to regime officials , including the 80-year-old Khamenei .
That he and other Iranian leaders are elderly means they are at increased risk of dying from the disease , though there is currently no evidence to show Khamenei is sick .
Still , it ’ s clear the Iranian government is in crisis even as it contends with nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country .
It ’ s gotten so bad that Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif has tweeted out calls for assistance , asking for medical equipment to help treat the nation ’ s outbreak .
On Monday , three European countries offered about 5 million euros in support , but it ’ s unclear if that will make a big difference at this point .
The US has also offered to help , though its sanctions on the country remain .
That the virus has been able to spread to the highest levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence of the country ’ s astonishing failure to manage the outbreak so far .
“ It ’ s symptomatic of the revolutionary state ’ s highly ideological and often inept approach to governance , ” Suzanne Maloney , an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution , told me .
“ What ’ s maddening is that Iran has enormous scientific capabilities and a well regarded public health system .
So this is entirely a leadership failure.
” Indeed , as the number of confirmed infections ticked upward in recent weeks , Tehran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the problem or , more likely , quashed evidence of the outbreak altogether .
The lack of alarm allowed hundreds to go untreated in Iran , while millions of workers , religious pilgrims , and others who travel to and from the country every day likely continued to spread the disease .
Which means Iran ’ s problems — as bad as they are — are only likely to get worse .

The coronavirus has hit the highest levels of Iran’s government, and it seems to be spreading rather quickly.
Mohammad Mirmohammadi, a member of a top council that advises Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, died Monday of Covid-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. His death follows those of two other Iranian leaders — a former ambassador and newly elected member of Parliament — who also succumbed to the illness.
Reports indicate that about 8 percent of Iran’s Parliament tested positive for the virus, while a total of about seven top officials have fallen ill. They include Iraj Harirchi, the head of the regime’s coronavirus task force, and Iranian Vice President Masoumeh Ebtekar.
The disclosure of Ebtekar’s illness last week was particularly troubling for Iran’s leadership, as it came only one day after she attended a Cabinet meeting where she was in close proximity to regime officials, including the 80-year-old Khamenei. That he and other Iranian leaders are elderly means they are at increased risk of dying from the disease, though there is currently no evidence to show Khamenei is sick.
Still, it’s clear the Iranian government is in crisis even as it contends with nearly 1,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the country. It’s gotten so bad that Minister of Foreign Affairs Javad Zarif has tweeted out calls for assistance, asking for medical equipment to help treat the nation’s outbreak. On Monday, three European countries offered about 5 million euros in support, but it’s unclear if that will make a big difference at this point. The US has also offered to help, though its sanctions on the country remain.
That the virus has been able to spread to the highest levels of Iran’s government is further evidence of the country’s astonishing failure to manage the outbreak so far.
“It’s symptomatic of the revolutionary state’s highly ideological and often inept approach to governance,” Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, told me. “What’s maddening is that Iran has enormous scientific capabilities and a well regarded public health system. So this is entirely a leadership failure.”
Indeed, as the number of confirmed infections ticked upward in recent weeks, Tehran either didn’t understand the severity of the problem or, more likely, quashed evidence of the outbreak altogether. The lack of alarm allowed hundreds to go untreated in Iran, while millions of workers, religious pilgrims, and others who travel to and from the country every day likely continued to spread the disease.
Which means Iran’s problems — as bad as they are — are only likely to get worse.


vox--2020-03-02--A court ruled that Ken Cuccinelli’s appointment at US Citizenship and Immigration Services wasn’t le

A court ruled that Ken Cuccinelli’s appointment at US Citizenship and Immigration Services wasn’t legal

A federal judge in Washington , DC , ruled on Sunday that Ken Cuccinelli , now acting deputy homeland security secretary , wasn ’ t lawfully appointed to his previous position at US Citizenship and Immigration Services .
The ruling represents the culmination of a months-long legal fight over Trump ’ s decision to sidestep the Senate confirmation process to install Cuccinelli first as the acting director of USCIS , a position he held from June through November 2019 , and then as the second-most senior official at DHS .
But it likely doesn ’ t mean that Cuccinelli , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Donald Trump ’ s hardline immigration policy , will lose his job — merely that two asylum directives he rolled out at USCIS must be set aside .
A group of asylum seekers and organizations that offer them legal aid who have been affected by those directives had brought the lawsuit .
One directive reduced the amount of time that asylum seekers can consult with attorneys before their preliminary interviews from 48 hours at minimum to only a single calendar day following their arrival at a detention center .
The other prevented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to prepare for those interviews except in the “ most extraordinary of circumstances.
” “ [ T ] he Court concludes that Cuccinelli was not lawfully appointed to serve as [ USCIS ] acting Director and that , as a result , he lacked authority to issue the reduced-time-to-consult and prohibition-on-extensions directives , ” US District Judge Randolph Moss wrote in the decision .
The ruling doesn ’ t say anything about Cuccinelli ’ s appointment at DHS , but it could invite additional legal challenges .
On Fox News on Monday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ outlier ” and that USCIS will reissue the policies that he presided over as a “ precautionary measure.
” The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether it will appeal the ruling .
Cuccinelli has become the de facto spokesperson for Trump ’ s immigration policy , even when it technically goes beyond his job description .
Most infamously , he proposed an amendment to Emma Lazarus ’ s famous poem on the Statue of Liberty in an interview with NPR : “ Give me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stand on their own two feet.
” Taking cues from Trump , he also tweets prolifically , lambasting the “ radical left ” and reporters he accuses of misquoting him .
The Constitution mandates that the president has to seek the “ advice and consent of the Senate ” through a confirmation process before installing an official as the head of an executive agency like USCIS and DHS .
But Trump has largely avoided that process by instead appointing temporary acting officials , which he says he prefers because it gives him more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 1998 ( FVRA ) establishes requirements for an official to be able to serve in an acting capacity .
The law allows the president to fill a vacancy temporarily with anyone who is the “ first assistant ” to the open position , holds a Senate-confirmed position in the administration , or has served in the same agency as the open position for a minimum of 90 days prior to the opening of the vacancy , regardless of whether they have been confirmed by the Senate .
Prior to his appointment at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any of those requirements .
And getting Cuccinelli confirmed likely would have been a difficult task in the Republican-led Senate , where he has made powerful enemies .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in April 2019 that he had expressed his “ lack of enthusiasm ” about Cuccinelli to the president .
( Cuccinelli previously used to lead the Senate Conservatives Fund , a group that fundraised to unseat incumbent Republican senators , including McConnell . )
Administration officials found what they thought was a workaround : they appointed Cuccinelli to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ principal deputy director of USCIS.
” They then rearranged the line of succession at the agency such that the principal deputy director became the most senior successor to the vacant USCIS director position , allowing Trump to then promote Cuccinelli to the acting director position in June 2019 in compliance with FVRA requirements , the government has argued .
But the court wasn ’ t satisfied by that scheme on Sunday .
“ [ Cuccinelli ] never did and never will serve in a subordinate role—that is , as an ‘ assistant ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the decision states .
“ For this reason alone , [ the government ’ s ] contention that his appointment satisfies the FVRA can not be squared with the text , structure , or purpose of the FVRA.
” Cuccinelli ’ s appointment at DHS , which he assumed in November , has also been controversial .
After former acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan resigned in October , Trump had reportedly wanted to tap Cuccinelli as his successor , a move that would have given the president an acting secretary who appears to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance .
But Trump ’ s legal advisers reportedly told him that appointing Cuccinelli as acting DHS secretary would likely run afoul of the FVRA .
Cuccinelli didn ’ t fulfill any of the requirements , legal experts have argued : He wasn ’ t second in command at DHS , he hadn ’ t been confirmed by the Senate in his role at USCIS , and he was not a senior DHS employee for the 90 days before former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen , the last person to hold the position on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 10 .
After weeks of deliberation and confusion , Trump eventually decided to pick Chad Wolf , a former top aide to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen , and appointed Cuccinelli to the second-most senior position in the agency instead .

A federal judge in Washington, DC, ruled on Sunday that Ken Cuccinelli, now acting deputy homeland security secretary, wasn’t lawfully appointed to his previous position at US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The ruling represents the culmination of a months-long legal fight over Trump’s decision to sidestep the Senate confirmation process to install Cuccinelli first as the acting director of USCIS, a position he held from June through November 2019, and then as the second-most senior official at DHS.
But it likely doesn’t mean that Cuccinelli, who has become the public face of President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy, will lose his job — merely that two asylum directives he rolled out at USCIS must be set aside.
A group of asylum seekers and organizations that offer them legal aid who have been affected by those directives had brought the lawsuit.
One directive reduced the amount of time that asylum seekers can consult with attorneys before their preliminary interviews from 48 hours at minimum to only a single calendar day following their arrival at a detention center. The other prevented asylum officers from granting migrants extensions on time to prepare for those interviews except in the “most extraordinary of circumstances.”
“[T]he Court concludes that Cuccinelli was not lawfully appointed to serve as [USCIS] acting Director and that, as a result, he lacked authority to issue the reduced-time-to-consult and prohibition-on-extensions directives,” US District Judge Randolph Moss wrote in the decision.
The ruling doesn’t say anything about Cuccinelli’s appointment at DHS, but it could invite additional legal challenges. On Fox News on Monday, Cuccinelli said that the ruling was an “outlier” and that USCIS will reissue the policies that he presided over as a “precautionary measure.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether it will appeal the ruling.
Cuccinelli has become the de facto spokesperson for Trump’s immigration policy, even when it technically goes beyond his job description. Most infamously, he proposed an amendment to Emma Lazarus’s famous poem on the Statue of Liberty in an interview with NPR: “Give me your tired and your poor who can stand on their own two feet.” Taking cues from Trump, he also tweets prolifically, lambasting the “radical left” and reporters he accuses of misquoting him.
Why Cuccinelli’s appointment was contested
The Constitution mandates that the president has to seek the “advice and consent of the Senate” through a confirmation process before installing an official as the head of an executive agency like USCIS and DHS. But Trump has largely avoided that process by instead appointing temporary acting officials, which he says he prefers because it gives him more flexibility.
The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) establishes requirements for an official to be able to serve in an acting capacity. The law allows the president to fill a vacancy temporarily with anyone who is the “first assistant” to the open position, holds a Senate-confirmed position in the administration, or has served in the same agency as the open position for a minimum of 90 days prior to the opening of the vacancy, regardless of whether they have been confirmed by the Senate.
Prior to his appointment at USCIS, Cuccinelli hadn’t fulfilled any of those requirements. And getting Cuccinelli confirmed likely would have been a difficult task in the Republican-led Senate, where he has made powerful enemies.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters in April 2019 that he had expressed his “lack of enthusiasm” about Cuccinelli to the president. (Cuccinelli previously used to lead the Senate Conservatives Fund, a group that fundraised to unseat incumbent Republican senators, including McConnell.)
Administration officials found what they thought was a workaround: they appointed Cuccinelli to a newly created position called the “principal deputy director of USCIS.” They then rearranged the line of succession at the agency such that the principal deputy director became the most senior successor to the vacant USCIS director position, allowing Trump to then promote Cuccinelli to the acting director position in June 2019 in compliance with FVRA requirements, the government has argued.
But the court wasn’t satisfied by that scheme on Sunday.
“[Cuccinelli] never did and never will serve in a subordinate role—that is, as an ‘assistant’—to any other USCIS official,” the decision states. “For this reason alone, [the government’s] contention that his appointment satisfies the FVRA cannot be squared with the text, structure, or purpose of the FVRA.”
Cuccinelli’s appointment at DHS, which he assumed in November, has also been controversial. After former acting DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan resigned in October, Trump had reportedly wanted to tap Cuccinelli as his successor, a move that would have given the president an acting secretary who appears to agree with him on both style and substance.
But Trump’s legal advisers reportedly told him that appointing Cuccinelli as acting DHS secretary would likely run afoul of the FVRA. Cuccinelli didn’t fulfill any of the requirements, legal experts have argued: He wasn’t second in command at DHS, he hadn’t been confirmed by the Senate in his role at USCIS, and he was not a senior DHS employee for the 90 days before former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, the last person to hold the position on a permanent basis, stepped down on April 10.
After weeks of deliberation and confusion, Trump eventually decided to pick Chad Wolf, a former top aide to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and appointed Cuccinelli to the second-most senior position in the agency instead.


vox--2020-03-03--You should prepare for the coronavirus — but don’t buy more than you need

When news of the novel coronavirus first took hold in the US , American shoppers went on the hunt for face masks and hand sanitizer , clearing the shelves of their local pharmacies and grocery stores .
As the number of coronavirus cases in the US has grown , some worried customers are stocking up even further — on nonperishable food , bottled water , over-the-counter medication , and household necessities , from toilet paper and cleaning wipes to pet food and alcohol — in case they have to self-quarantine .
As of Monday , there were six deaths and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
This news has alarmed many Americans ; some have congregated on Facebook groups , Twitter threads , and online forums to discuss the best preparation and prevention methods for the potential of a nationwide outbreak .
Residents in Hawaii and Minnesota were urged on by their state health departments to buy additional supplies , and big-box retailers and supermarkets are preparing for a surge in demand for staple foods and cleaning supplies .
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 43 percent of people surveyed are concerned that they or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual spread of the illness is hard to predict at this point ) , but nearly 70 percent of Americans think that US officials are doing enough to prevent the spread .
The majority of coronavirus cases are still in China , but as the virus spreads overseas — making it look more and more like a pandemic — the consensus among public health experts is for individuals to prepare , not panic .
While preparation is a good thing , it doesn ’ t necessarily translate to hoarding a 90-day supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper precautions can be “ one of the most pro-social , altruistic things ” you can do to benefit your loved ones and fellow community members , Zeynep Tufekci wrote in Scientific American .
As Vox ’ s Kelsey Piper wrote on preparing for Covid-19 , “ You don ’ t need to take major steps to survive without electricity or water ( both should keep working just fine ) , but changing your habits and shopping patterns and planning ahead can protect you and others.
” In short , preparation for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce the overall risk for others in society .
And yet , people appear to be “ preparing for the worst , ” as one West Texas resident told USA Today .
On social media , users have pointed to the school closures in Japan , city shutdowns in China , and viral photos of empty supermarket shelves in Italy and Australia ( An Aussie virologist told the public to consider buying “ a few extra things ” and getting extra prescriptions “ just in case ” ) as a reason to purchase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In Milan , Italy , Bloomberg News reported that food staples like meat , bread , and pasta were in short supply after the local government imposed a city-wide shutdown , closing schools and museums , canceling sporting events , and imposing a curfew at bars .
There are varying opinions among health experts as to the extent of the preparation individuals should take on .
The Department of Homeland Security recommends that Americans have a two-week supply of water and food before a pandemic , and generally have on hand basic health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest picking up refillable prescriptions ahead of time to reduce the burden on local pharmacies if the virus gets worse .
Others think Americans should , for the most part , go about their daily lives as usual , and be mindful of getting a flu shot , washing their hands frequently , and staying home if they ’ re sick .
There are varying opinions among health experts as to the extent of the preparation individuals should take on Timothy Brewer , an epidemiology professor at the University of California Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stay calm before rushing out to buy weeks of supplies they probably won ’ t need , comparing the sudden stockpiling to something that happens right before a snowstorm .
Brewer ’ s advice to anyone concerned , he told me , is to follow basic disease prevention guidelines : washing your hands thoroughly and consistently , covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing , and staying home if you feel ill. “ The steps that you take to prepare for a pandemic are exactly the same regardless of the type of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu or coronavirus , ” Brewer said .
Terri Gerstein , a Brooklyn resident , told Vox that she ’ s trying to be guided by reliable medical information in her preparation process , not fear .
Gerstein , who said she plans to follow the guidance listed in Scientific American , considers herself a non-panicky person ; still , she wants to be responsible , especially when it comes to caring for her older family members .
( Elderly and sick people , in addition to medical workers , are at greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ve emailed with them about getting a decent supply of their needed medications , about 3-4 months worth , so that they will have access if there are disruptions in supply chains , ” she wrote to Vox in a Twitter message .
“ I may go buy some extra Purell , Advil , and a couple of thermometers but no stockpiling of cans of beans or liters of water.
” Gerstein added that she has no room for a huge stockpile of goods , considering how her family lives in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an epidemiology professor at Harvard , told Vox ’ s Kelsey Piper that people should get ready “ for the possibility that people will want to stay at home or be asked to stay home.
” That means picking up a few extra food items or household necessities during your weekly grocery run , in case you can ’ t leave your house for a brief period of time .
Health officials still maintain that the coronavirus risk for Americans is low , and the CDC said that healthy Americans shouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That hasn ’ t prevented some people from buying more than they need .
Pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens and online sellers have seen an increased demand for face masks and respirators , which aren ’ t helpful in preventing the spread of coronavirus when worn by healthy people .
“ The kind of things you should not be doing is going out and stocking up on face masks , gloves , and basically hunkering down for Armageddon , ” Brewer said .
“ That ’ s not going to help you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the N95 respirators , aren ’ t effective in protecting a healthy person from acquiring a respiratory virus , he added .
Plus , Brewer said , “ There ’ s no evidence ” suggesting that gloves are helpful , since they can get contaminated like fingers , and people constantly touch their face and mouth regardless of gloves .
Basic medication , cleaning supplies , and hand sanitizers are reportedly selling out quickly at supermarkets like Costco and Walmart .
Some shoppers are worried about a potential shortage in basic necessities ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial analysts have predicted a supply chain slowdown with items made in China .
In Hawaii , where much of the state ’ s food and goods are imported , local news reports showed residents heading to big-box retailers to stockpile necessities .
Rose Mulet , a student at Arizona State University , recently bought 10 cases of bottled water , writing on Twitter : “ Stockpiling water just in case the coronavirus gets really bad .
Gon na stockpile on some food tomorrow.
” Hundreds if not thousands of people appear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congregating on social media to share the essentials of what to buy .
Mulet told Vox in a Twitter message that she doesn ’ t see her actions as alarmist , but predictive of the coronavirus ’ s spread in the US .
“ Read what the CDC is saying , look at what ’ s happening to Italy , ” she wrote .
“ It ’ s not a conspiracy theory ; trusted individuals are saying that it ’ s only a matter of time before it gets really bad in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was asthmatic growing up , said she “ can ’ t afford to put [ her ] immune system at risk ” and would rather “ be safe than dead , ” adding that she ’ s not the only one on her campus mass-buying goods .
She said the person who delivered her cases of water said some students at ASU were also buying some 40 to 50 cases apiece .
“ We want to stay ahead of the curve and make sure we have water to drink and food to eat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time the World Health Organization declared a pandemic was in 2009 for H1N1 influenza , the so-called swine flu that was first detected in Mexico .
Should the novel coronavirus become a pandemic in the US , Brewer said officials could encourage social distancing , which may include closing down some schools and recommending people not to attend crowded events , like football games or concerts .
That ’ s already happening in countries like Italy , Japan , South Korea , and Saudi Arabia , where governments are taking a range of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread .
While the CDC warned that school closures might be a possibility if the outbreak worsens , no US city was ordered to shut down ( although schools did close ) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic , Brewer said , meaning that Covid-19 has to get significantly worse to trigger that level of response .
“ There was nothing in the US to the extent of what Mexico did [ to curb the spread of the swine flu in 2009 ] or what the Chinese government is doing in the Hubei province @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Regardless of where you are on the spectrum of worried-and-stocking-up , know that if the novel coronavirus does take a turn for the worse in the US , it won ’ t affect the population equally .
The worst-case scenario for those who can afford to mass-purchase goods and take time off work looks significantly better than for those who can ’ t .
Sign up for The Goods ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Editor’s note, March 25: This article was last updated on March 3. For our recent coverage of the pandemic, including how to prepare, visit our guide to coronavirus.
When news of the novel coronavirus first took hold in the US, American shoppers went on the hunt for face masks and hand sanitizer, clearing the shelves of their local pharmacies and grocery stores. As the number of coronavirus cases in the US has grown, some worried customers are stocking up even further — on nonperishable food, bottled water, over-the-counter medication, and household necessities, from toilet paper and cleaning wipes to pet food and alcohol — in case they have to self-quarantine.
As of Monday, there were six deaths and 96 cases of Covid-19 in the United States. This news has alarmed many Americans; some have congregated on Facebook groups, Twitter threads, and online forums to discuss the best preparation and prevention methods for the potential of a nationwide outbreak. Residents in Hawaii and Minnesota were urged on by their state health departments to buy additional supplies, and big-box retailers and supermarkets are preparing for a surge in demand for staple foods and cleaning supplies.
A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 43 percent of people surveyed are concerned that they or a family member will contract the virus (the actual spread of the illness is hard to predict at this point), but nearly 70 percent of Americans think that US officials are doing enough to prevent the spread.
The majority of coronavirus cases are still in China, but as the virus spreads overseas — making it look more and more like a pandemic — the consensus among public health experts is for individuals to prepare, not panic. While preparation is a good thing, it doesn’t necessarily translate to hoarding a 90-day supply of food in your basement. Taking proper precautions can be “one of the most pro-social, altruistic things” you can do to benefit your loved ones and fellow community members, Zeynep Tufekci wrote in Scientific American.
As Vox’s Kelsey Piper wrote on preparing for Covid-19, “You don’t need to take major steps to survive without electricity or water (both should keep working just fine), but changing your habits and shopping patterns and planning ahead can protect you and others.” In short, preparation for a pandemic is a form of cooperation to reduce the overall risk for others in society.
And yet, people appear to be “preparing for the worst,” as one West Texas resident told USA Today. On social media, users have pointed to the school closures in Japan, city shutdowns in China, and viral photos of empty supermarket shelves in Italy and Australia (An Aussie virologist told the public to consider buying “a few extra things” and getting extra prescriptions “just in case”) as a reason to purchase what’s available in stores. In Milan, Italy, Bloomberg News reported that food staples like meat, bread, and pasta were in short supply after the local government imposed a city-wide shutdown, closing schools and museums, canceling sporting events, and imposing a curfew at bars.
There are varying opinions among health experts as to the extent of the preparation individuals should take on. The Department of Homeland Security recommends that Americans have a two-week supply of water and food before a pandemic, and generally have on hand basic health supplies and nonprescription drugs. Some experts suggest picking up refillable prescriptions ahead of time to reduce the burden on local pharmacies if the virus gets worse. Others think Americans should, for the most part, go about their daily lives as usual, and be mindful of getting a flu shot, washing their hands frequently, and staying home if they’re sick.
There are varying opinions among health experts as to the extent of the preparation individuals should take on
Timothy Brewer, an epidemiology professor at the University of California Los Angeles, stressed that the public should try to stay calm before rushing out to buy weeks of supplies they probably won’t need, comparing the sudden stockpiling to something that happens right before a snowstorm. Brewer’s advice to anyone concerned, he told me, is to follow basic disease prevention guidelines: washing your hands thoroughly and consistently, covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing, and staying home if you feel ill. “The steps that you take to prepare for a pandemic are exactly the same regardless of the type of virus, whether it’s the flu or coronavirus,” Brewer said.
Terri Gerstein, a Brooklyn resident, told Vox that she’s trying to be guided by reliable medical information in her preparation process, not fear. Gerstein, who said she plans to follow the guidance listed in Scientific American, considers herself a non-panicky person; still, she wants to be responsible, especially when it comes to caring for her older family members. (Elderly and sick people, in addition to medical workers, are at greater risk of being infected.)
“I’ve emailed with them about getting a decent supply of their needed medications, about 3-4 months worth, so that they will have access if there are disruptions in supply chains,” she wrote to Vox in a Twitter message. “I may go buy some extra Purell, Advil, and a couple of thermometers but no stockpiling of cans of beans or liters of water.” Gerstein added that she has no room for a huge stockpile of goods, considering how her family lives in a New York apartment.
Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiology professor at Harvard, told Vox’s Kelsey Piper that people should get ready “for the possibility that people will want to stay at home or be asked to stay home.” That means picking up a few extra food items or household necessities during your weekly grocery run, in case you can’t leave your house for a brief period of time. Health officials still maintain that the coronavirus risk for Americans is low, and the CDC said that healthy Americans shouldn’t need to stock up on supplies.
That hasn’t prevented some people from buying more than they need. Pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens and online sellers have seen an increased demand for face masks and respirators, which aren’t helpful in preventing the spread of coronavirus when worn by healthy people.
“The kind of things you should not be doing is going out and stocking up on face masks, gloves, and basically hunkering down for Armageddon,” Brewer said. “That’s not going to help you in any way.” Masks, even the N95 respirators, aren’t effective in protecting a healthy person from acquiring a respiratory virus, he added. Plus, Brewer said, “there’s no evidence” suggesting that gloves are helpful, since they can get contaminated like fingers, and people constantly touch their face and mouth regardless of gloves.
Basic medication, cleaning supplies, and hand sanitizers are reportedly selling out quickly at supermarkets like Costco and Walmart. Some shoppers are worried about a potential shortage in basic necessities (which could trigger price increases) since financial analysts have predicted a supply chain slowdown with items made in China. In Hawaii, where much of the state’s food and goods are imported, local news reports showed residents heading to big-box retailers to stockpile necessities.
Rose Mulet, a student at Arizona State University, recently bought 10 cases of bottled water, writing on Twitter: “Stockpiling water just in case the coronavirus gets really bad. Gonna stockpile on some food tomorrow.” Hundreds if not thousands of people appear to share the same mindset as Mulet, congregating on social media to share the essentials of what to buy.
Stockpiling water just in cause the Coronavirus gets really bad. Gonna stockpile on some food tomorrow.
Listen to @Timcast be safe, and worst case scenario you’re still gonna have food to eat. pic.twitter.com/ckGz37YVgp — Rose Mulet (@rosemulet) February 26, 2020
Mulet told Vox in a Twitter message that she doesn’t see her actions as alarmist, but predictive of the coronavirus’s spread in the US. “Read what the CDC is saying, look at what’s happening to Italy,” she wrote. “It’s not a conspiracy theory; trusted individuals are saying that it’s only a matter of time before it gets really bad in the US as well.”
Mulet, who was asthmatic growing up, said she “can’t afford to put [her] immune system at risk” and would rather “be safe than dead,” adding that she’s not the only one on her campus mass-buying goods. She said the person who delivered her cases of water said some students at ASU were also buying some 40 to 50 cases apiece. “We want to stay ahead of the curve and make sure we have water to drink and food to eat,” Mulet concluded.
The last time the World Health Organization declared a pandemic was in 2009 for H1N1 influenza, the so-called swine flu that was first detected in Mexico. Should the novel coronavirus become a pandemic in the US, Brewer said officials could encourage social distancing, which may include closing down some schools and recommending people not to attend crowded events, like football games or concerts. That’s already happening in countries like Italy, Japan, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, where governments are taking a range of measures to prevent the virus’s spread.
While the CDC warned that school closures might be a possibility if the outbreak worsens, no US city was ordered to shut down (although schools did close) during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, Brewer said, meaning that Covid-19 has to get significantly worse to trigger that level of response. “There was nothing in the US to the extent of what Mexico did [to curb the spread of the swine flu in 2009] or what the Chinese government is doing in the Hubei province with Wuhan,” he said.
Regardless of where you are on the spectrum of worried-and-stocking-up, know that if the novel coronavirus does take a turn for the worse in the US, it won’t affect the population equally. The worst-case scenario for those who can afford to mass-purchase goods and take time off work looks significantly better than for those who can’t.
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.