Step aside, WWII vets; House Republicans have found their newest government shutdown prop: children with cancer. On Wednesday, having caught wind of the news that about 200 patients—including 30 children—would not be admitted for clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health, the House quickly passed a bill to fund the NIH. (It passed similar resolutions for the National Park Service, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the District of Columbia.) On Twitter, Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) synthesized the new conservative talking points as only he could: "President Stompy Feet now says he'll kill funding for children's cancer treatment. Will the media still cover for him?" On Thursday morning, House Republicans who worked previously as doctors and nurses held a press conference on Capitol Hill to call once more for full funding of the NIH.
But missing from all of this is any explanation of what the Republicans' continuing resolution would actually do: Enshrine the severe cuts imposed on the institute by sequestration. NIH lost 5 percent of its budget—or $1.7 billion—when the cuts included in the Budget Control Act went into effect last spring. It has adjusted by eliminating at least 700 research grants, and slowed down priorities such as developing a universal flu vaccine. As NIH director Dr. Francis Collins told the Huffington Post in August, "God help us if we get a worldwide pandemic." (Making a bad situation worse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said it will be unable to effectively monitor flu vaccination programs and virus outbreaks during the shutdown.) In September, Collins suggested that the cuts to research could put "the next cure for cancer" on ice.
None of this should come as news to House Republicans. When Rep. Dennis Ross (R-Fla.) visited a cancer center in his district, he got alecture from researchers, who said the NIH cuts had thrown their budget into flux and made it harder to treat patients. (Ross told the researchers he'd work to restore that missing funding.)
This being American politics in 2013, there's no easy way out for NIH. House Democrats have already said they'd be okay with a "clean" continuing resolution that merely extends sequestration and preserves the steep NIH cuts, embracing the notion that reduced NIH funding is better than no NIH funding at all. Senate Democrats have also signaled that they've accept the lower funding levels in order to end the impasse.
There's another part of the shutdown fight, though, in which the differences between Republican and Democratic positions are quite clear—and the effects much further reaching. It's the Affordable Care Act, a sprawling new law that takes concrete steps to expand insurance coverage, eliminate lifetime and yearly insurance caps, and allow people (including children) with preexisting conditions to enroll in health insurance. The ACA, which in a rare moment of foresight Congress elected to fund separately from the annual appropriations process, is the reason the government is shut down—and the reason it will stay shut down for the near future. There is a battle on Capitol Hill right now over helping sick kids, but it's not the one Republicans are grandstanding about
Does the Government Shutdown Delay the Debt Ceiling Indefinitely?
We're spending less money, so has the debt level stopped increasing?30 Ways the Shutdown Is Already Screwing People
The government shutdown is bad news for children, children with illnesses, and people who care for children with mysterious illnesses. Also: unemployed goats.House GOPer on Government Shutdown Strategy: "I Don't Know That There Is a Plan to Win"
Rep. Devin Nunes says his fellow Republicans are like suicidal lemmings.48 Ways a Government Shutdown Will Screw You Over
Who is affected when the government doesn't show up for work? Poor people, people with immune systems…basically everyone.How Republicans Blocked a Key Obamacare Benefit—Without the Shutdown
By rejecting Medicaid expansion, 22 states are leaving millions of Americans—mostly people of color—out in the cold.http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/10/no-house-gop-isnt-standing-kids-cancer
Sen. Angus King: Far-right Obamacare opponents 'guilty of murder'
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) has some harsh words for those who would tell young people that a political principle is more important than having health insurance.Sen. Angus King
“That’s a scandal—those people are guilty of murder in my opinion,” Sen. Angus King, a Maine Independent who caucuses with Democrats, told me in a Friday interview. “Some of those people they persuade are going to end up dying because they don’t have health insurance. For people who do that to other people in the name of some obscure political ideology is one of the grossest violations of our humanity I can think of. This absolutely drives me crazy.”
King speaks from experience.
Forty years ago, when King was 29 years old, he was provided health insurance as a staffer for then-Sen. Bill Hathaway, D-Maine, and for the first time in a decade went to a clinic for a checkup.
You know that none of the guys at Heritage Action or FreedomWorks would tell their own children to go without health insurance. They know as well as Sen. King that it's foolish to go without that protection when you can afford otherwise. But. They. Don't. Care.“I had a health policy that included in it a free annual physical as a part of the policy and they had evening clinic hours. And I wouldn’t have taken the day off — and if that hadn’t been covered under the insurance there’s no doubt in my mind that I wouldn’t have gone to have the checkup,” King said.“It was a routine checkup and the doctor found this mole, and I went in a week later to have the stitches out. The doctor told me I’d better sit down and that I had melanoma…. A month later I found myself having every cancer test you could imagine. Ultimately I had a fairly major surgery. The point of the story is that without the surgery I would have died.”
As far as they're concerned, the people they're telling to burn their fake Obamacare cards could live or die. It doesn't really matter. They're not likely to be voting Republican any time soon. That's why they don't particularly care about the people who they would allow to go hungry with their massive food stamp cuts. They're not voters. And they sure won't be campaign contributors. As far as Republicans are concerned, most of America is expendable.
No comments:
Post a Comment