Rodney Davis is trying to kill us all

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote Rep. Rodney Davis with the question I didn't get to ask at his latest tele-town hall. (I guess the question about phys ed in the state public school system, from a questioner in his home town, was too important.) My question was why not create Medicare For All and cover everyone in the country?

I got a response last week. He didn't actually answer the question about why a lower-cost system that covers more people isn't on his radar. Here is the relevant portion of the letter:

I believe we must pass healthcare reform that lowers and contains health care costs. Washington needs to compromise and come together to fix the disaster that is Obamacare and our flawed health care system. I support solutions that would implement meaningful medical malpractice reform and increase competition by allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines. I also support expanding access to Health Savings Accounts that individuals can use on their health expenses. Furthermore, we can protect those with pre-existing conditions by strengthening state-based risk pools. 

It's that last bolded section I wanted to point out. Davis has previously suggested he's in favor of keeping the ban on preexisting conditions, even introducing a pointless bill to ban them that died in committee. He never talks about health care for long without pointing out that his wife is a cancer survivor.

This passage says to me that Davis is abandoning all that in favor of the GOP "Better Way" plan to allow insurers to kick people with preexisting conditions off their insurance and onto state-run, high-risk pools.

High-risk pools are a great idea for insurance company profits but a terrible idea for health care. They're expensive, costing up to 150% of average premiums and had high deductibles and co-pays.

But it gets even worse, consider that combined with the ability to "purchase insurance across state lines." What that really means is that an insurance company can sell you a plan that doesn't meet your state's minimum coverage, but of the state they're headquartered in. That's going to create a race to the bottom where insurance companies flee to the states with the least amount of required care and the most protections for their bottom line.

So Rodney Davis trying to give us not only insurance that can force us off it if we get sick, but it will be the worst of any state in the country.

Oh, and he and his wife will be exempt.

Mayor Feinen's weak tea on immigration

Three weeks ago, Champaign mayor Deborah Feinen released a disappointingly tepid statement about immigration. Clearly driven by Trump's Muslim ban (the first iteration, since struck down), his promise to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Urbana's designation as a sanctuary city, she said in part:

I want to reassure our residents that the City of Champaign remains committed to fostering a friendly and welcoming community for all who choose to live here.  We are proud of our strong, diverse, and inclusive community – one that works together to improve the quality of life and promote equal opportunities for all.

OK, that's good and all, but missing from her statement is any discussion of actual city policy, especially as it pertains to undocumented immigrants. She does reference the City's Human Rights Ordinance, which does prohibit discrimination based on national origin, but doesn't mention immigration status.

This is most relevant when it comes to law enforcement. Trump is reactivating the ICE 287(g) program that deputized local law enforcement to act as immigration officers. It's not clear what Feinen's statement means for police interactions with Champaign residents. Champaign Chief of Police Anthony Cobb has placed the department's entire policy and procedure manual online, but it makes no real mention of immigration. (Let me note that I think it's great he has taken this step of transparency in local government.) Feinen's statement leaves me with even more questions than it answers.

• Are City agencies free to ask residents about their immigration status?
• Can they report that status to authorities?
• Can they use it as the basis to refuse City services to residents?
• Can Champaign police officers detain people solely because they think are undocumented?
• Can Champaign police question crime victims and witnesses, let alone suspects, about their immigration status?
• Will Champaign police refuse to partner with ICE in a 287(g) program? (Unlikely, as they didn't before.)

I can find no documented City policy regarding these matters.

Chicago also claims sanctuary city status and makes it very clear what this means and what they will not do. Personally, I don't want to see Champaign police resources taken away from dealing with local crimes to do federal immigration enforcement.

I encourage Mayor Feinen and the Champaign City Council to claim sanctuary city status like Urbana has done. Hell, just use the Chicago ordinance as a template.

Unless Mayor Feinen is willing to put official City policy behind her statement, this is very weak tea, indeed.

Rodney Davis Tele-Town Hall, February 15, 2017

Oh yeah, I have a blog... Anyway, I listened in on Rep. Rodney Davis's tele-town hall this evening. I wanted to be at home and had a question, but I was actually in Meijer for most of it, so I couldn't take notes. Fortunately, @AnUncivilPhD live-tweeted the whole thing. I've taken the liberty of creating a Storify of that here.

• I knew the tele-town hall was coming today, but there was no indication of what time. So it's a matter of stay by the phone all evening and you might get to listen.
• There's no indication of when or even whether a recording of the town hall will be available. 
• About half the TTH was spent talking about repealing and replacing Obamacare. Presumably, that's why Davis had Texas Rep. Michael Burgess on for about half of it. 
• It's pretty clear Davis and the GOP have no clear replacement plan for Obamacare. There were two questions about how the replacement would pay for its provisions and they were mostly evaded. There was some vague talk about increasing competition (no indication of how) would cause rates to plummet.
• They intend to repeal the individual mandate. I think it was Burgess that said this would cause individual enrollments to increase, which doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. He claimed that requiring people to sign up for health insurance increases costs? 
• Davis is clearly proud of his bill requiring insurers to not discriminate against pre-existing conditions, but again, no indication of how he will pay for it.
• Several times Davis plugged the GOP's "Better Way" health reform framework. Republicans have had seven years to come up with a replacement for Obamacare, so I expect actual policy and analysis, not a framework.
• When asked about the repeal of the Stream Protection Rule, Davis's answer was basically: coal, more coal, coal jobs, oh and maybe some nuclear, in an obvious mention of the Clinton nuclear plant. No mention of the fact that it's cheap natural gas that's coal's main competitor, not poisoned streams.
• He did say that he wanted to see an investigation of the Russian interference in the election and that he was happy to see Flynn get fired. That's easy to say since none of his committees would have anything to do with such an investigation.
• When asked if there would be any in-person town halls, his response was basically, tele-town halls are great! Come on Rodney, we all know why you're doing this via telephone: because you don't want to give your constituents an opportunity to embarass you face-to-face.

This is a bit disjointed, but I wanted to get my thoughts down quickly.

Exactly who does Deb Feinen intend to work for?

I've been a lazy blogger and haven't pontificated about the upcoming mayoral election much. (On Twitter, now that's a different story.)

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, Deb Feinen got the endorsement of the Business Empowered PAC, which is basically the Champaign County Chamber of Commerce. One thing in the PAC's endorsement really stood out to me like a sore thumb:

we believe Mrs. Feinen to have the most solid record of being a pro-business advocate and has been the most active candidate to embrace the business community for their expertise in forming policy for city government for the past several years.

 So in other words, this "pro-business" group is endorsing Feinen because they think she is going to let them determine government policy for Champaign. That doesn't sit right with me.

Is "thug" the modern day n-word?

It seems the cops have been killing a lot of people lately. Every time that happens, I've noticed if the victim is black, it's only a matter of time until someone call him a "thug." It seems to be a word that conotes "violent black man whose life is of no value."

Maybe this has been obvious to everyone else, but I've only just noticed it and now that I have, I can't stop seeing it. I thought maybe it was just my imagination, so I did some quick Google comparisons and the idea that this word is applied disproportionately to black men seems to hold true. These numbers are from doing Google News searches. I tried the same just using regular Google web searches; the numbers there were larger, but the trend remains.

Take these three high-profile cases, for example:

• "michael brown" "thug" -- 8140 hits
• "eric garner" "thug" -- 5960 hits
• "trayvon martin" "thug" -- 4100 hits
• "Tamir Rice" "thug" -- 694 hits (12 years old with a toy gun, shot within 2 seconds)
• "John Crawford" "thug" -- 223 hits (man buying a BB gun, shot by police in Walmart)

Now compare it to these:

• "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev" "thug" -- 342 hits
• "anders breivik" "thug" -- 93 hits
• "scott peterson" "thug" -- 42 hits
• "Elliot Rodger" "thug" -- 75 hits
• "Jerad Miller" "thug" -- 9 hits (one of the two Bundy Ranch protesters that killed two cops)

So even when white men commit mass murder they are not thugs (accused, in the case of Tsarnaev). When black men are killed as a result of police violence, they are thugs. 

This is Karl Rove on Hannity talking about Common, a hip-hop artist, invited to perform at the White House in 2011:

President Obama last week said he wanted to recapture that special moment we had after 9/11. And here week later, we have an example of how this White House can recapture that moment by inviting a thug to the White House... And whose lyrics are sexually explicit and misogynist. This guy is a thug... If he believed last week that he wanted to reestablish the great tone in the country after 9/11, why would he invite a thug to the White House who said, he wanted to kill President Bush for having taken the country to war in Iraq.

I'm not saying Common's lyrics about Bush II weren't controversial or even appropriate. But Ted Nugent has threatened to kill the President multiple times and he is a regular guest on Hannity. Why isn't he a thug?

I'm not even going to mention Nugent's reference to "Ferguson thugs." I think we all know who he means.

Is anybody still out there?

Wow, been almost a year since I made that last post. I keep thinking of stuff I should post, but never getting around to writing anything. Should I bother? Is anyone paying attention?

Because I'm busy, that's why!

(Not really, I have a couple of things rolling around in my head that I might get around to blogifying, shortly.)

Meanwhile, Glock21 is blogging again. Go. Read.