Election update: Ervin drops out, Haley defends confederate flag, the circus continues

Tom Ervin, Independent candidate for governor, has dropped out of the race and thrown his support to Democratic challenger Vincent Sheheen. I was genuinely surprised by this move, although some cynics believed this was the game plan from the beginning. Four million dollars of his own money, spent just to help Sheheen? I hardly think so, but then, stranger things have happened in South Carolina politics.

From Dennis at PoliticsUSA:

You all know the back story of the South Carolina governor’s race. The current governor, Nikki Haley, an American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) puppet, wants to continue the states abysmally low rankings in almost every social and practical category of meaning. As I’ve written many times before, in a highly competitive field, Haley is, based on these rankings alone, the nation’s most inept governor. But, in the Palmetto state all that’s required of a governor is hate.

....

Then there’s Haley’s arrogant disdain of human life in refusing to expand Medicaid to a certain group of low-wage earners. A move that is not only heartless, but will kill people. A Harvard study estimates as many as 1,300 annually in South Carolina alone. What kind of governor doesn’t care about killing people? We should throw her ‘hatred’ of environmental regulations into the mix. Regulations that minimize and control chemical releases that kill who knows how many of her fellow citizens.

This is not only a worthless, unfeeling governor; this is a worthless, unfeeling human being. And yet she commands comfortable double-digit leads in virtually every legitimate poll over her holdover opponent from her last gubernatorial run, State Senator, Vincent Sheheen.

Back to Ervinized and why that recent phenomenon is suddenly creating a modest opening for Sheheen in the governor’s race. Those who have followed this race are aware that there are five candidates. The two major parties, Independent Republican petition candidate, Tom Ervin and two political ciphers. The latter two are meaningless in terms of the outcome. Ervin is definitely meaningful, especially in light of recent developments. Tom Ervin is a 62-year-old former two-term state house member as a Democrat and a 14-year circuit court judge who currently practices law with his wife. He is philosophically still a moderate Democrat, though a few years ago, he declared himself a Republican to run for a couple of offices he craved. He lost both elections, but remained a Republican. Given that Haley won the Republican primary, Ervin was, by law, forced to run as an Independent in the general election.

He was a very effective candidate, giving both the major party candidates a dressing down on assorted issues. He was especially hard on Haley. His presence created vote switching that one would think would benefit Sheheen, the Democrat. As indicated earlier, while Ervin gained supporters, Sheheen lost them and Haley made a big move.

Now, all that could change. The ball, as they say, is squarely in Sheheen’s court. Ervin, who funded his own campaign to the tune of $4 million, suddenly dropped out of the race freeing roughly 8-10% of the total vote. I guess he felt he had made enough of an impression on the electorate and fully realized that, while certainly influential, he stood no chance of winning. One of his first post-dropout steps was to email an expression of strong support to Sheheen contributors under the Sheheen letterhead. The obvious question is, what difference will it make? Won’t Republican Ervin votes simply find a home in the Haley camp?

Maybe, but, as in TV reality shows, there’s a twist. Ervin has officially endorsed Sheheen. Some voters are now going to take a close look at why. In a local phone interview with reporter Jason Spencer, Ervin made the following statement, “It was a difficult decision, but I felt like it was time to put aside my personal ambition and try to do what’s best for our state.” Gee, what a novel approach to public service.

And Ervin has spelled out three reasons that it makes more sense to vote for the Democratic State Senator. According to the local press, those reasons are, ethics reform, domestic violence and economic development. He actually used the word “dishonest” in condemning Haley’s leadership on the issues.

Ouch! He actually called her DISHONEST?

Will any of this work? Haley is estimated to have a 10-point lead in the polls, or at least those are the figures I hear dutifully repeated everywhere, in most South Carolina media outlets. I heard it down at the coast, in Columbia, and here in the upstate. This is the OFFICIAL figure that the ruling class of SC has agreed upon.

Despite Sheheen's attack ads (which came FAR TOO LATE in the campaign to suit me and others in the opposition), it is a forgone conclusion that Sheheen will still lose, but probably by a lower margin than expected.

Unless, unless...

It would be great if we could get out the African-American vote for this election. In addition to her ongoing attempts to deny thousands of the state's black residents the right to vote, Haley has just defended the confederate battle flag. Is it possible that African-Americans will finally reach a boiling point? Or has all that creative gerrymandering in SC finally done its job and that simply can't happen now? (Note: This is the real reason Mark Sanford was handily elected in SC's District 1.)

And my God, Haley is utterly shameless in pandering to the white vote.

From Talking Points Memo:

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said that voters should not be concerned that the statehouse flies a Confederate flag because she has gotten no complaints from the CEOs.

During the Tuesday night gubernatorial debate, Democratic candidate state Sen. Vincent Sheheen called for the state government to no longer display the Confederate flag, noting that many young people leave South Carolina "all too often."

Haley retorted by claiming that the Confederate flag has not kept companies from coming to the state.

"What I can tell you is over the last three and a half years, I spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state. I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag," she said.

She also said that she herself has helped combat the state's image problem.

"But we really kind of fixed all that when you elected the first Indian-American female governor," Haley said. "When we appointed the first African-American U.S. senator, that sent a huge message."

Libertarian candidate Steve French said that while he doesn't mind if individuals display the Confederate flag, he doesn't think businesses should be able to.

"So, if you want to paint your house in the Confederate flag, I am completely fine with that," he said.

She has totally forgotten that in 2001, on her voter registration, she claimed she was white. Oh wait, she wasn't running for office back then. Never mind. She's back to being an Indian-American now.

Outside of making her a laughingstock (which she never seems to mind), will the confederate flag comment hurt her chances?

At least she is honest that the continuing racist insult to black people doesn't concern her, only what the rich say and do.

Sums her up perfectly, doesn't it?

~*~

Stay tuned, sports fans.

SC funds other states' health care, instead of our own

Yes, you read the title correctly.



From The State:

COLUMBIA — Imagine someone offered to give you $4.1 billion over three years, and if you did not take it, your neighbors would get the money instead.

That is the situation South Carolina is in with the federal government, according to S.C. House Democrats who are pushing for the state to expand Medicaid – the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled.

We covered this today on Occupy the Microphone, if you want irate, anti-Republican rants from me and my co-hosts.

The SC House rejected the expansion of Medicaid:

COLUMBIA, SC — House lawmakers refused to expand Medicaid in South Carolina on Tuesday after hours of debate that echoed the conflicts of class, race and religion.

For nearly five hours on Tuesday, Democrats quoted statistics and scripture in arguing for an amendment to the state’s $22.7 billion spending plan that would make 500,000 more poor people eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance. They even proposed an amendment that would require any lawmaker voting against the expansion to forfeit their own taxpayer-funded health insurance.

But Republicans – who control the state House of Representatives – said the plan would cost too much and questioned if it would improve the health of South Carolinians. Amendments were defeated with a series of votes along party lines.

"If more money and more government produced healthier citizens, Americans should be the healthiest population on the planet – but we’re not,” House Speaker Bobby Harrell said in a news release. “The current system is clearly broken but instead of trying to fix this broken system, Obamacare simply makes it bigger.”

The expansion is an optional part of what’s formally called the Affordable Care Act. Expanding Medicaid would provide health insurance to anyone in South Carolina who makes 138 percent or below the federal poverty level. That’s about $15,000 a year for a single person and $32,000 a year for a family of four.

The federal government would pay 100 percent of the cost of the expansion for the first three years – about $4.1 billion. After that, the state would gradually start paying for a small part of the expansion while the federal government continued to cover most of it.

But even covering that small part of the expansion would cost South Carolina between $613 million and $1.9 billion by 2020 – depending on how many people signed up for the program and how much the state had to pay doctors.

Democrats tried to make expansion a moral issue. Rep. Leon Howard, D-Richland, said it was “a common thing” for seniors in his district to decide between paying their utility bill or buying their medication. Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, showed lawmakers how a person making $15,000 a year does not make enough to cover their expenses.

And Rep. Mandy Powers Norrell, D-Lancaster, told lawmakers how a man came to her law office carrying four grocery bags filled with $500,000 worth of medical bills for his wife, who has breast cancer. She said 60 percent of bankruptcies in the U.S. are because of medical debt.

“It is our moral obligation, it is a duty that all of us are bound, because we are Christians, we believe in God and God tell us to treat the least of these as you would him,” House Minority Leader Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, said from the House floor. “Denying them access to health care, denying them insurance, is not how anyone should be treated.”

House Republicans were notably silent during Tuesday’s debate, not once challenging the Democrats who were speaking. At various times during the morning, House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, posted to his Twitter account that House Republicans were “prepared to stand strong & defeat all budget amendments opting SC into Obamacare expansion.”

Republicans are notoriously bad Christians, though, so I don't know why Rep. Rutherford thought an appeal to their religion would help.

Where is Governor Haley?

Even Gov. Nikki Haley, who canceled her appointments on Tuesday to spend time with her mother who had been admitted to the hospital, issued a news release thanking House Republicans for “fighting to protect South Carolina from the looming public policy nightmare and fiscal disaster that is ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion.”

Does Haley's mother, Ms. Raj Randhawa, have health insurance? Apparently so. I say, let's take it away. Not a problem, right? I mean, if that is considered acceptable for the poor and disabled of South Carolina, I am sure it's acceptable for Governor Haley's mother. After all, according to the Governor's 'biography'--the USA is the land of equality! (maybe she didn't even read her own biography)

Let's subject the Haley family to the same conditions 500,000 poor South Carolinians are subjected to and see how Haley feels about that.

Then again, since she has no heart, she probably won't feel a thing.

As of today, Governor Haley is crazy busy hobnobbing with rich people in Florida, instead of dealing with pressing issues at home--whether it is her mother or the rest of us. She is auditioning for future lobbying-gigs at the National Association of Manufacturers Board of Directors dinner in Boca Raton. God knows, those dinners are far more important than either a sick mother or the people of South Carolina getting our hard-earned taxes sent to other states, which is what will now happen. (To my out-of-state readers: you're welcome. Send your thank-you cards to Governor Haley, who has generously given you OUR earmarked tax money.) After all, if she was HERE AT HOME (which she so rarely is), she'd have to face the music and actually answer questions... and Haley is so inept and incompetent, she can't even give local interviews, preferring to talk to THE VIEW and VOGUE.

If this dinner was in a less-photogenic, less high-profile or more wintry location, bank on it, Haley wouldn't be there. Free trips to FLORIDA during winter! (Last week, Haley spoke in Orlando to 4,000 representatives of companies that supply Walmart stores.) Good work if you can get it.

Haley denies 500,000 people health care, but be assured, she denies herself NOTHING.

Years added to Daisy's life!

The health care act has been UPHELD by the US Supreme Court. I did not expect this and thought I would faint.

More:

Actual text of decision (San Francisco Chronicle)

Key Quotes from Ruling (Politico)

Obama health-care law: Supreme Court upholds it in entirety (Christian Science Monitor)

Supreme Court upholds health care mandate (CBS News)

Obama wins big in Supreme Court health care ruling (Politico)

Ginsburg: "Congress Followed Massachusetts' Lead" (Mother Jones)

Legal Scholars React: 'Many People Were Stunned' (NPR)

Why The Individual Mandate Is Not A ‘Massive Tax Hike’ On The Middle Class (Think Progress)

Conservatives Freak Out Over Health Care Decision (Mother Jones)

PHOTO: John Roberts’ Wikipedia Page Vandalized: ‘Chief Traitor (Talking Points Memo)

Obama praises Supreme Court health care ruling (Politico)

Tune in tomorrow!

I am very pleased to announce we will be talking with Dr Margaret Flowers of Physicians for a National Health Program, tomorrow morning on the Daisy Deadhead Show.

We are on bright and early at 9-10am, 1600AM and/or 94.9FM on your radio dial here in upstate South Carolina. (Broadcast note: The AM station can be heard all the way into downtown Greenville, although the FM station flags a bit and tends to break up as you approach the central regions of Greenville County.) You can also listen through livestreaming on the WFIS radio website. Our show is usually available later on Saturday afternoons through Black Talk Radio Network and Talk Shoe, which I highly recommend for optimal sound quality. You can also listen via your phone by calling 724-444-7444. The caller ID is 112747#, and the password is 1#. (NOTE: As a high-tech-challenged grandma who still finds certain apps dazzling, let me confess, I find the fact that you can listen to talk radio on a phone to be pretty incredible!)

Dr Flowers is a doctor, activist and Occupier, an innovative and fascinating combination; I am interested in how she integrates these roles in her professional life. Physicians for a National Health Program is a single-issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 18,000 members and chapters across the United States.

I have been particularly obsessed with the universal health care issue ever since our Occupy film series, where we viewed and discussed the comprehensive documentaries Sick Around America and Sick Around the World. Specifically, I hadn't known about the systems in Japan and Switzerland, and how they manage their health care program. Once I realized that this IS doable, and HAS BEEN done (despite Republican propaganda to the contrary) -- I wondered why we are the last industrialized Western nation to get it done?

And why ARE we?

This is what we will be discussing with Dr Margaret, so tune in!

~*~

Please contact me or my consigliere, Gregg Jocoy (daisyshow@yahoo.com and/or greggjocoy@yahoo.com), if you have progressive opinions, events, concerns, etc that you would like us to cover. If you are a wit, or if you are as eloquent as last week's guests (Chris Harris, Traci Fant and Amelia Pena), then you belong on radio, and we'd love to hear from you.

In addition, some of the people we have been privileged to interview on the air so far:

Ross Levin, Green Party member, college student and Occupier, who called us directly from Occupy Wall Street and commented on what he saw there.
Lisa Simeone of World of Opera.
Joni LeCompte, writer, mother, local Occupier extraordinaire.
Uma Seaman, spiritual blogger, yogini, massage therapist, Occupier.
Jeff Sharlet, author of C-Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy and Sweet Heaven When I Die.
Sheila Jackson, local powerhouse activist, fundraiser and MoveOn member, also commented on her experiences as an Occupier in Zuccotti Park in New York. (I think Sheila has been on 3 or 4 times, and currently holds the record!)
Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President.

And yes, we almost added Noam Chomsky to this illustrious list, but we weren't quite ready for prime time!

I am probably missing some people, and for that I apologize. But if you would like to be added, as I said, contact one of us. We are currently into our 8th month of the show, and I haven't collapsed from stagefright (radiofright?) yet.

Stay tuned, sports fans.

~*~


EDIT 4/21/12: Scotty's internet connection was lost and we only got about 25% of the show for the podcast, I think it was the last 25%. This is NOT our fault, for once, you can blame Time Warner Cable! But it was a great interview and I regret we couldn't save it all. We are going to start recording the show on CDs, old-school style, in case this happens again. Argh!

Aside: I went on something of a rant (what? me?) for the first 20 minutes of the show, so maybe it was ME who shorted out the cable connection. Perhaps this was divine intervention--saving me from the further ire of the "Democrats" --although I am disappointed so many people will miss Gregg's NPR-voice, which is just a marvel. He sounds just like one of them! We have decided to make Gregg's boilerplate NPR-liberal a permanent feature of the show, just like my Arianna Huffington impersonation (which was really my old impersonation of Eva Gabor on GREEN ACRES, updated with politics), which has proven to be unexpectedly popular.

At the least, yall can listen to Jello Biafra's LOVE ME, I'M A LIBERAL, which is how we closed the show.

Thanks to everyone for bearing with us anyway!--DD

US Blues, update

What does one make of people who are poor and aging, yet apparently don't believe they will ever need health care that is currently priced way beyond their means? Is this garden-variety old-age denial or Tea Party-Republicanism run amok? Why would people be against their own interests? Is a party principle really more important than your life, or the lives of your loved ones?

As I see it, this is the crucial difference in the political debate right now. We are now arguing over our own lives, not some hypothetical situation that may or may not arise. And yet, here in the conservative south, poor people who consistently vote Republican continue making all manner of theoretical right-wing noise instead of fully comprehending that the wolf is at the door.

Example: I used to get out there and protest other people being unemployed, and now I am the one who is unemployed.

And maybe tomorrow, you will be.

This isn't academic. Not for me. It was, once, and now it is an immediate reality. What to do with people who refuse to see it that way? Who smugly believe they will stay employed, and receive the Social Security that they don't want other undeserving people to receive?

For instance, two people who made money off the GOVERNMENT, now say nobody else should: Michele Bachmann, ex-IRS stooge fattened off of farm subsidies (i.e. welfare) and our congressman, Trey Gowdy, who made his living as a prosecutor (with starring roles on FORENSIC FILES and DATELINE, for catching bad guys). How can Trey have a career in government while railing against the government that has fed and clothed him very well? Why does Michele want to cut off welfare for actual poor people, but she is allowed to rake in $251,973 of OUR hard-earned money? (screams)

I think this is called, talking out of both sides of your mouth. As Rand Paul treated patients funded through Medicaid, and made MONEY off of Medicaid, but now wants to limit/abolish it for others. (He's made his money, so now he's through with it. Nice work if you can get it!)

And Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa straw poll. (screams again for emphasis)

I'd love to hear some opinions about this rather twisted southern phenomenon, if you got any. For one thing, I'd like to know, is this sorry situation a purely southern one? Do any poor people besides southern whites consistently vote against themselves?

It's enough to make you tear your hair out.

~*~

Great introductory animation on this one! Enjoy!

US Blues - Grateful Dead



~*~

And just listen to this! I have no idea where or when it was recorded, but I would say from the looks of their hair (touch of gray, ha) that it was late 80s/early 90s.

Star Spangled Banner - Grateful Dead



Jokey comments about how they couldn't let Phil sing for this one, LOL.

Anti-Republican picket in Spartanburg

... this evening in front of the Spartanburg Municipal Building. Singled out for considerable ire is our congressman, Trey Gowdy, who has all kindsa wacko Tea Party ideas (warning: link is odious)... such as keeping most of South Carolina uneducated. (Hey, voter-ignorance has worked very well for the SC GOP so far, hasn't it?)

We had a pretty good turnout, over 30 people. For upstate South Carolina, that's excellent. (I don't think Greenville County could do as well.)

~*~

Never Say Die: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age by Susan Jacoby

First of all, I want to make it clear that it is sheer coincidence that I am criticizing another atheist today; this makes two-in-a-row, and I realize that looks bad. As I have said many times, I love the atheists for keeping us honest and forcing us (okay: me) to cut the perpetual starry-eyed routine. However, I have just read a very good book by an atheist, but I'm afraid her atheism has compromised the book, so I have to say so.

Susan Jacoby's fascinating NEVER SAY DIE: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age, is one of those books I have been waiting for, and didn't quite realize it until I found myself hungrily turning pages and consuming it all in one afternoon. Interestingly, I finished it right after my doctor-visit and a lecture (not the first) about my cholesterol.

Do I see the numbers? Yes.

My weight and glucose are way down... but that damn LDL number creeps up and up. "If diet and exercise are not enough..." echo those damn TV ads from evillll BigPharma. Yes, they mean ME, now.

My 35-40 lb weight loss over the past 18 months, coupled with my devoted Swamp Rabbit Trail hiking, was supposed to magically make my cholesterol number go down and... (stares uncomprehendingly at the printed lab results that announce my HDL/LDL) well, it didn't work. I am pleased I am no longer a diabetes risk, but... well, shit, it's always something.

And that is a very good description of aging, "it's always something"... in this hard-nosed book that debunks and deconstructs the various Hallmark-greeting-card myths of aging, Jacoby plows right in. As one of those dedicated atheist-rationalists that takes no prisoners, she decimates several of the major aging myths, and not a few of the minor ones. For example, if you are an asshole in your youth, there is no reason to think you will age gracefully into a nice person with appropriate old-age "wisdom" -- and vice versa. As evidence, she offers (on one hand) Henry Kissinger, who is ancient but still defending genocide with aplomb. On the other hand, she offers Jimmy Carter, who continues to contribute to and enrich our world in so many ways. Certainly, these are excellent examples, and she has no argument from me. My grandmother always said old age simply made you "more of what you are"--and Jacoby seems to agree.

Jacoby is careful to use the terms "young old" (which would be me) and "old old"--which are people in their 80s-90s. She believes the "young old" are used for propaganda purposes, so that (basically young and middle-aged) people can point to them/us with relieved sighs and reassure themselves they can "stay active" while growing old and spry. By contrast, nobody puts the "old old" in TV commercials and nobody seems very glad to see them. They are carefully segregated from the rest of us. She writes at length about the problem of loneliness in old people, as their friends and loved ones die off all around them.

One thing I found disturbing in Jacoby's book, is the casual way she accepts this. She does NOT accept other states-of-affairs as unchanging (in fact, she tells us she intends to go out as an "angry old lady"), without thorough questioning--so why is this particular fact just offered as a given? Perhaps because she simply states that she would not change her life for her aging mother, just as her mother had not changed her lifestyle for her aging mother. However, she does note that her grandmother DID take care of her great-grandmother. Somewhere along the way, "we" (there's that famous punchline: "Whatcha mean We?") stopped doing that. We did? (Did someone mention economic class?) Actually, lots of people didn't. The professional classes, the educated class to which Jacoby belongs, people who have book contracts and write regular columns for the Washington Post, did that first. People with important careers found that they could not (would not) be bothered with aging relatives. That was a deliberate choice that Jacoby made, but it is in no way a given.

"Old old" people are more segregated than ever, and that is because advanced capitalism demands total mobility from everyone, so we end up moving all over the world to get and keep jobs. Of course old people are warehoused, who else is going to look after them? (A possible good side effect of the economy tanking, might be that fewer people are forced to move around so much, and old people might actually be able to stay in real homes.)

One of Jacoby's chapters is alarmingly titled, Women: Eventually the Only Sex. Women overwhemingly overpopulate the "old old" ... social and political concerns about aging are basically about the future of women and how we will live in our final decades; as we all know, the guys check out earlier. Jacoby echoes my own feelings in how modern feminism, profoundly uncomfortable with aging, does not see the economic debates over Social Security and Medicaid to be directly concerned with women, even though WE are primarily who these programs are about... young feminists are preoccupied with sex, reproduction and other youthful pursuits, and it is unlikely we will get them to understand that this is THEIR future too. And that reminds me of another thing I disliked in the book, Jacoby's request that we lay off older men who prefer younger women, using some half-baked pseudo-Darwinian excuse about how men are visual and require more and more to turn them on as they age. Excuse me, but so? It takes me more and more too. If I can refrain (as most women do) from pinching boys on the ass and/or asking them to get married, I think most older men can show some restraint as well. The fact that they don't is because men don't need to exercise restraint... RESTRAINT is not masculine, after all. I am not sure why feminist Jacoby found it necessary to cut men slack in this one area in which they decidedly DON'T NEED ANY, but ... (yeesh)

From Jacoby's website, a summary of the book:

The author offers powerful evidence that America has always been a “youth culture” and that the plight of the neglected old dates from the early years of the republic. Today, it is urgent to distinguish between marketing hype and realistic hope about what lies ahead for more than 70 million Americans who will be over 65 in just twenty years. This wide-ranging reappraisal examines the explosion of Alzheimer’s cases, the uncertain economic future of aging boomers in a shaky economy, the predicament of women who make up an overwhelming majority of the oldest—and poorest—old; and the absence of control over dying in a society that devotes a huge proportion of its health care resources to medical intervention in the last year of life—even when there is no hope that the person will ever recover.

One amazing fact she offers is that even among Catholics, a majority support assisted suicide.

Since I am giving this book a (mostly) good review, where do I think Jacoby got it wrong? Exactly where an atheist would get it wrong: In not covering the role of religion in the lives of very old people. ESPECIALLY when she discusses depression and loneliness and other negative emotional states. Does religion help with these? (they do in young people) She totally avoids the question. I realize the answer may well be "no"--but I would like to see an honest airing of the question, preferably accompanied by some stats (which I realize would be difficult to obtain; like a nice meal, religion is a subjective experience, pleasant for some and pure hell for others)... but I am intelligent and self-aware enough to know that *I* will become a religious fanatic of some sort in my old age. I am trying to work it out so that I will not be an annoying type of religious fanatic, but a benign presence or (at best) one that people might take some comfort from. But I know already, that religion is my opiate, and at the end of my life, I will be administering opiates (all kinds) in spades.

What does atheism offer? I think yall might consider "atheist congregations" of one kind or another, for the social needs of atheists. Sweet Mormon, Baptist and Catholic ladies will come to visit you when you are old... In fact, I visited the late Monsignor Baum myself, about a week before his death (he gave me a blessing in Latin, he seemed to have forgotten the words in English, which I actually found charming) --even though I barely had time to wipe my butt in those days. But I made visiting him a religious priority.

Question: Do the atheists have ladies with angel-food cakes standing ready to visit the old atheists? (If not, yall really need to get to work on that.)

And if the atheists say, fuck angel-food cakes, we don't need people to visit us when we're old, well, maybe that is the major difference between them and the rest of us. They expect us all to be as hard-assed as they are, and we just can't do it.

Does religion make old age better or worse? And I don't simply refer to the religious practices of the old person in question, I also refer to religion as a social force; do not underestimate the importance of hundreds of Sunday School classes going to visit the old people and sing them songs.

I know I'll just love seeing them, when it's my turn.

Disabled sue South Carolina over Medicaid cuts

Because my local newspaper is attempting to make me pay for news (((laughs ruefully!))), it has been far more difficult than usual to get the required information to blog decently about this sordid state of affairs, but hopefully, this is complete enough for now.

I got this from the Myrtle Beach Sun--although it was originally published in the Greenville News. (cheapskates! greedheads!)

Disabled sue state over Medicaid cuts
By Eric Connor
The Greenville News

Lawyers for a group of disabled people are suing the state over its move to cut benefits for those who rely on government-funded home care, a decision they say violates the patients' civil rights and threatens to force people into institutions who don't belong in them.

On Tuesday, lawyers for the group and for the state will argue in U.S. District Court in Greenville over whether a preliminary injunction should be granted preventing state agencies from limiting the federal Medicaid funding the patients receive for community-based care.

The agencies responsible for administering the care - the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs - argue that tough economic times require cuts in services and that other options to prevent institutionalization are available.

Several Upstate residents with mental disabilities have sued the governor and two state agencies in Greenville federal court over controversial cuts to their in-home care, claiming the devastating reductions are forcing people into institutions in violation of federal law.

The residents, identified by first name and last initial, allege in the suit that Gov. Mark Sanford and the state Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, as well as the agency that administers its Medicaid programs, have discriminated against them by cutting off their social life and causing their isolation in residential facilities that will ultimately cost more taxpayer money.
DDSN spokeswoman Lois Park Mole and Sanford spokesman Ben Fox said they couldn't comment on pending litigation.

A North Carolina advocacy group argues a state agency's plans with personal care service benefits would violate the rights of patients and discourage them from independent living.

Disability Rights North Carolina wrote to federal Medicaid regulators asking them to reject proposals by the state Department of Health and Human Services and to the U.S. Justice Department asking it ensure the state complies with federal law.

A plan approved by the Legislature directs health officials to replace programs that give recipients living at home help bathing, cooking and other needs. Group executive director Vicki Smith wrote last week more than 20,000 patients could lose their services without appeals

Families of the disabled across South Carolina are carrying an added burden, facing with considerable fear the prospect that lifelines they have come to depend on will be cut in state government's deep reduction in services.

And they are concerned about government secrecy and that the agency largely responsible for controlling how they live their lives goes through an open process of deliberation with full transparency.

"There are a lot of us that are going to be right on top of them constantly to make sure that these things get out in public," said Greenville resident Leanne Hopkins, who has a son with cerebral palsy.

Scores of people convicted of crimes such as rape, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon are permitted to care for some of California's most vulnerable residents as part of the government's home health aide program.

Data provided by state officials show that at least 210 workers and applicants flagged by investigators as unsuitable to work in the program will nonetheless be allowed to keep their jobs or begin employment.

State and county investigators have not reported many whose backgrounds include violent crimes because the rules of the program, as interpreted by a judge earlier this year, permit felons to work as home care aides. Thousands of current workers have had no background checks.

The state's troubled mental health system faced another setback Monday when an advocate for the mentally ill named last week to run the agency withdrew from the post due to a flap over some tax problems at the group he ran.

John Tote, who until recently was the executive director of the Mental Health Association in North Carolina, and Health and Human Services Secretary Lanier Cansler announced that he won't become the next state mental health director. Tote's departure came on the same day he was slated to report to work for the state. Cansler and Tote said public discussion about payroll tax issues was too distracting at a time when the focus needs to be on helping patients and their families.

Gov. Mark Sanford has also been sued, but he has argued that he doesn't have direct control over the allocation of funds.

In court filings, the three Upstate plaintiffs allege that the DDSN claimed to suffer budget shortfalls but in fact had a $7.8 million "excess funds" account and used $2.6 million to buy real estate for support agencies in West Columbia and in Beaufort and Horry counties.

In addition, plaintiffs' attorney Patricia Harrison argues in court filings that talks about cutting services first occurred in 2008, when a budget crisis existed.

However, the federal government in February 2009 provided more than $195 million in stimulus funding to prop up Medicaid services, Harrison wrote, and when the decision to cut home-care services was made the DDSN was holding $34 million in stimulus funds and paid $30 million of it into a "rainy day" fund."

Also, Harrison wrote, the cost of providing home care to disabled people costs less than putting their care in the hands of an institution - $320 per day in an institution, $138 per day for home care.

The cuts - which are manifested in the form of a cap on the number of hours of home care a person can receive - will result in four times the amount of home-care patients being admitted into institutions, she wrote.

A lawyer for the state agencies, Kenneth Woodington, told a judge in court filings that lawyers didn't intend to file a response to the plaintiffs' "vast majority of new claims" but would do so if the judge wanted in relation to the injunction.

U.S. Magistrate Bruce Hendricks ordered that the hearing should particularly focus on whether the plaintiffs could suffer irreparable harm if services are cut.

One man in the original complaint against the agencies suffers from cerebral palsy and can only move by way of a wheelchair operated by his mouth, according to court filings.

On a given day, it can take from 8 a.m. until noon to get him out of bed, groomed and prepared to move, according to court filings.

The federal government's Medicaid program allows for a waiver so that funds that would have been used to care for a disabled person in an institution can be applied to caring for the person in a home or community setting, according to court filings.

The state is responsible for determining, through medical professionals, whether a person would benefit more from being cared for from home, according to filings.

A cut in services, Harrison wrote in her motion, would likely have the man leave behind a life as a productive member of the community and instead have him "forced to sit in an assigned seat around a table in a SCDDSN workshop with persons who have mental retardation, where the revenue from his labor will be paid to SCDDSN."

The man "lives in absolute terror of his worst nightmare coming true - being forced out of his home and moved into a congregate residence in order to receive the care he requires," Harrison wrote.

The services the man has been receiving during 2010 cost about $39,424, Harrison wrote, while institution-based services would cost about $116,000 a year.

In another case, a woman suffering from severe mental retardation is unable to speak and is subject to outbursts that put pressure on caregivers who aren't accustomed to her behavior, Harrison wrote.

The woman was once housed in an institution in Laurens County but was removed after she received unexplainable physical injuries, Harrison wrote.

The federal government's American with Disabilities Act requires that disabled people not be discriminated against and segregated from society, Harrison wrote.

"The right of persons who have mental retardation and related disabilities to live, work and play alongside their non-disabled neighbors, friends and family is no less important a civil right than the right of children of all races to attend integrated public schools," she wrote.

Attorneys for the agencies argue that the plaintiffs haven't proven that they would have to enter institutions with some cuts in their home services and in fact have other options they haven't explored.

"These plaintiffs argue that if they are not offered the richest items on the menu, they will starve," Woodington wrote. "In fact, however, there are many other possible services that could fill any gaps left by the reductions in their services, which are relatively minor in any event."

In court filings, Woodington argues that states are in compliance with the ADA if individual considerations could hurt the care of a larger population.

"The immediate relief for the plaintiffs would be inequitable," he wrote, "given the responsibility the state has undertaken for the care and treatment of a large and diverse population of persons with mental disabilities."

This is a pretty shoddy situation and I am curious what our new Wonder-Gal, the Governor-in-Waiting, Nikki Haley, has to say about it.

(Never mind, I can guess.)

South Carolina cuts disability funds to families

I think we can blame this on Governor Sanford too, can't we?


Families lose bid to save disabled services

State disabilities agency say programs will be restored if funds become available

By Liv Osby • HEALTH WRITER • June 6, 2009
Greenville News

The state Department of Disabilities and Special Needs Commission voted unanimously Friday to go ahead with cuts to in-home services for mentally disabled clients, but to restore them if funding becomes available.

The commission has until June 25 to submit a proposal for the program to the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said department spokeswoman Lois Park Mole. Medicaid funds part of the program.

The decision was made over the pleas of family members and caregivers to maintain the in-home services program at a meeting in Columbia Thursday. The program serves about 5,700 disabled people.

Those services include adult companions, respite care, diapers and liquid nutrition. And family members said they are the only way many of them can keep a job and that their loved ones would wind up in more expensive institutions without them.

Faced with losing $74 million – including $41 million in state funds – the department was forced to cut costs, said Mole.

Mole said commissioners decided to submit the proposal as is by the deadline, and then review expenditures and make amendments if additional funds become available. If the proposal is not submitted in time, she said, funding for the whole program is at risk.

“Because of the state budget problems, the money was there, and then it was not there,” she said of the delay in developing a proposal. “The problem was not knowing about the availability of funding.”

Columbia lawyer Patricia Harrison, who attended Friday's commission meeting, said the decision to submit amendments later, putting some families at risk of losing services, was “nonsensical.” She added that the commission failed to do an analysis of what cutting in-home services will wind up costing the state in the long run.

“This will be devastating to many of these families,” she said.

Mole said some services will be limited, some replaced and some eliminated, and that the cuts were designed to have the least amount of impact on clients.

“No one wants to have their services cut, and that's understandable,” she said.

If nothing changes, Mole said the cuts could take effect as early as Oct. 1.

I assume all the Republicans have enough money to hire private-duty nurses and attendants? If not, won't this impact the lives of some who voted Republican, particularly in the rural areas?

We need to get the word out and let everyone know who is responsible.