JustCare

Tag: President Trump

  • Blame President Trump if people with pre-existing conditions lose their health insurance guarantee

    Blame President Trump if people with pre-existing conditions lose their health insurance guarantee

    In an op-ed for the New York Times, former Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Andy Slavitt, and Nicholas Bagley explain how President Trump will be to blame if the new Supreme Court overturns the Affordable Care Act. With Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, extra benefits for people with Medicare very well might fall away as might the guaranteed right to health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions.

    President Trump is supporting a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. His Supreme Court nominee easily could be the deciding vote eliminating the law. If overturned, nearly 15 million people who have Medicaid as a result of the ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid income limit would lose it. And, more than 11 million people who have coverage through the state health insurance exchanges would lose that. People with Medicare Part D would have to spend a lot more for their prescription drugs.

    All Americans with health insurance would lose the guarantee of preventive care services with no deductible or copay, a protection in the ACA. They would also lose the guarantee of no lifetime limits on their coverage. And, children would not be able to get coverage through their parents’ policies until the age of 26.

    The Supreme Court case challenging the ACA is based on the nonsensical claim that because people can no longer pay a penalty as an alternative to buying health insurance–a federal appeals court struck down the penalty provision in the law–the law forces people to buy health insurance, which is unconstitutional. The plaintiffs claim that without a penalty on people who don’t buy health insurance, the language in the law that says people “shall” buy health insurance has no meaning. Of course, eliminating the penalty actually makes it less costly to decide to go without health insurance and was never meant to force people to buy health insurance.

    Plaintiffs further claim that if one part of the law is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional. This is yet another ridiculous argument. But, President Trump stands behind it. In the meantime, he has made it harder for people to get and stay on Medicaid by requiring people to complete more paperwork.

    Congress could fix the ACA. It could put a $1 financial penalty on people who don’t get health insurance. Or, it could eliminate the “shall” language from the law, so that it can’t be argued that people must buy health insurance. But, these fixes are only possible if the Democrats win control of the Senate and the presidency.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Trump vows to lower Medicare drug costs but backs lawsuit that would raise them

    Trump vows to lower Medicare drug costs but backs lawsuit that would raise them

    President Trump has been unsuccessful at keeping pharmaceutical companies from raising prices, let alone enacting policies that lower them. So, he’s now claiming he is going to give $200 to millions of people with Medicare to help pay for the cost of their drugs. Even if he succeeds at this cockamamie plan, he is backing a challenge to the Affordable Care Act that would raise drug prices for people with Medicare considerably.

    To be clear, it’s not at all likely that this whacky idea has legs or would offer meaningful help. Trump is talking about giving away $200 “Trump cards” in order to try to get older Americans to support his candidacy for re-election. It’s his latest attempt to show he cares about them. But, his actions speak louder than his words, and his actions hurt older adults substantially.

    President Trump probably would need to take money from the Medicare Trust Fund to pay the $6.6 billion cost of this discount card idea. His authority to do so is questionable at best. He wants to use the Medicare waiver program, which requires that money spent on a new health care “innovation” come from health care savings. Trump claims savings from a proposed executive order to test pricing drugs for people with Medicare at the average of what other countries pay. Since that order is far from being implemented and will likely be challenged by the pharmaceutical industry, there are no savings.

    Pharma has no idea what Trump is trying to do. And, even Pharma does not believe these $200 Trump discount cards will be of much help to older people in getting their medicines. The biggest winner would likely be the pharmaceutical companies, as many older adults would use the cards to fill prescriptions they might otherwise leave unfilled. 

    And, if the Supreme Court strikes down the Affordable Care Act, as President Trump would like, older adults with Medicare Part D will be big losers. Their drug costs would rise significantly.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • President Trump blows drug deal with Pharma

    President Trump blows drug deal with Pharma

    In the past couple of months, President Trump has issued four executive orders, which he claims could lead to lower prescription drug costs. The proof is in the pudding, and there is none. Now, after blowing a deal with the pharmaceutical industry that would have put $150 billion in drug costs back in people’s pockets, President Trump is saying he wants to make drug importation from Canada legal in some instances. He is not likely to succeed at that either.

    President Trump appears to believe that lowering drug costs could gain him reelection support, particularly from older adults whose support he has been losing. He recently spent a bunch of time negotiating for lower out-of-pocket drug costs with the pharmaceutical industry, including Medicare Part D copays, Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman report for The New York Times. But, to garner additional political support for his reelection, he told the pharmaceutical industry that he also wanted companies to provide everyone in the US with a $100 drug discount card, a “Trump card,” before election day. And, with that, the whole deal imploded.

    The pharmaceutical industry would not agree to this political maneuver in the weeks before the election. And, Pharma argued $100 in savings would be of little help to people. So, instead, Trump released an executive order, which would test the benefits of having Medicare Parts B and D pay the average prices other wealthy countries pay for prescription drugs. That order has little chance of implementation.

    Perhaps because President Trump wants to be known for having done something effective to lower drug prices and perhaps because he wants to do his state allies a favor, he is now talking about allowing states to import some prescription drugs from Canada, reports Phil Galewitz for Kaiser Health News. So far, six states are hoping to get the federal government to allow them to import Canadian drugs, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont. President Trump and Governor DeSantis of Florida are close allies, and this is something DeSantis wants; among other things, it would save the state $150 million a year.

    The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) is currently reviewing the Food and Drug Administration’s final plan. The plan addresses the drugs that could be imported and the ways in which states would oversee drug importation. It does not allow importation of injectable and biologic medicines.

    The plan might be so restrictive that it makes importation impossible. Even if OMB approves it, states might not be able to act on it. The pharmaceutical industry will challenge the plan in court, claiming it violates federal legislation and the US Constitution.

    The Canadian government, for its part, is none too happy about this plan and is not going to support it. It fears that it could keep Canadians from getting needed medicines. There are not enough medicines available in Canada to satisfy the need in both the US and Canada.

    So, the plan is dead on arrival. States would need to partner with the Canadian government if they wanted to import drugs from Canada.

    Americans who want less expensive drugs can import them for personal use, as millions do today. While it is illegal to import them, the federal government has never prosecuted anyone for importing prescription drugs for personal use. Indeed, retail stores in Florida are in business to help Floridians import drugs from Canada.

    For reasons beyond comprehension, neither the George W. Bush administration nor the Obama administration were willing to allow drug importation from Canada. They say they worry about “safety” issues when it comes to prescription drugs. It’s a strange claim given that they don’t worry about food importation safety issues and there are verified pharmacies around the world. Moreover, there is nothing safe about forcing people to forgo needed drugs they cannot afford because prices in the US are so high.

    Canada’s drug prices are considerably lower than prices in the US, though other wealthy countries have lower prices overall. Even still, through importation, estimates are that cancer drug prices would be cut in half and heart drugs would be a quarter of what they are today.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • President Trump’s executive order won’t lower drug prices

    President Trump’s executive order won’t lower drug prices

    President Trump finally issued his fourth prescription drug executive order, related to pricing drugs at the average of what other wealthy countries pay. Much like his first three executive orders, it does precious little. While it appears to take on high drug costs, the executive order language is so weak that it is not likely to lower drug prices.

    First, President Trump’s executive order only applies to the 20 percent of the population with Medicare. It does not apply to working people or children. Even for people with Medicare, the executive order includes language that allows for extreme delay in implementation, if in fact it will ever come to pass.

    While the executive order applies to drugs administered in a physician’s office as well as those purchased at a pharmacy, it targets a small number of drugs. It only applies to “some high-cost drugs and biological products.” Moreover, the executive order is only to “test” the value of pricing these drugs at a price similar to other wealthy countries.

    The executive order does not try to regulate the price of drugs developed with federal research or funding. In short, President Trump has not acted to lower or even freeze prescription drug prices, although he has promised to do so. And, he has said nothing about pharmaceutical company drug price hikes, which are happening.

    For example, Noam Levy reports for the LA times that AstraZeneca has exercised its monopoly pricing power to hike up its prices dramatically this year. AstraZeneca’s drug prices have risen far faster than inflation, up as much as six percent when inflation is at about one percent. At the same time, it has benefited from $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.

    AstraZeneca is not alone. Many other pharmaceutical companies have raised the prices of some of their best-selling drugs far more than inflation. AbbVie raised the price of Humira by 7.4 percent, along with the price of other drugs. GlaxoSmithKline also raised some drug prices significantly.

    The leaders of other wealthy nations ensure medicines are affordable for everyone by negotiating prescription drug prices. President Trump has not even required the pharmaceutical companies that received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollar to develop a COVID-19 vaccine to commit to charging a fair price for their vaccine. How many millions of Americans will end up without a vaccine and remain at high risk for getting COVID-19 because of the vaccine’s cost?

    Here’s more from Just Care:
  • SSA actuary confirms Trump’s plan to terminate Social Security

    SSA actuary confirms Trump’s plan to terminate Social Security

    A couple of weeks ago, President Trump said that if he was reelected that he would end payroll contributions to Social Security, effectively promising to terminate Social Security, which we reported on August 12. If anyone had a doubt that Trump’s proposal would end Social Security, Jake Johnson reports for Common Dreams that the chief actuary for the Social Security Administration has now confirmed that the President’s proposal would end Social Security.

    In fact, Social Security’s chief actuary, Stephen Goss, said that it would take just three years to use up all the money in the Social Security Trust Funds. By 2023, without a payroll tax, both the disability and old-age trust funds would be void of money. There would be no way to pay Social Security benefits once those trust funds ran out of money.

    Goss wrote his findings in a letter responding to an inquiry from Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Senate Minority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Goss said that the Social Security Disability Trust Fund would be out of money by the middle of 2021 and the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund would be out of money by the middle of 2023.  These trust funds would be left “with no ability to pay” benefits afterward.

    As Goss explains, there is no provision in the Social Security legislation that permits the trust funds to borrow funds in order to pay out benefits. The trust funds only have limited ability to get an advance of payroll tax income for one month.

    “The law does not provide authority for the trust funds to borrow in order to pay benefits beyond the limited authority for ‘advance tax transfers…This limited authority allows all payroll tax income expected for a month to be advanced to the beginning of that month if needed to meet benefit obligations on a timely basis. Thus… benefit obligations could not be met after the depletion of the asset reserves and elimination of payroll taxes.”

    Goss effectively corroborates the claims of Democrats and Social Security advocates that Donald Trump’s reelection would lead to the destruction of Social Security if he followed through with his plan to end its dedicated funding. Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, warned:

    “Trump has shown himself willing to undermine the post office, the free press, and other institutions. If he’s reelected, our Social Security system is his next target. Everyone should listen to Social Security’s independent chief actuary and alert your friends and family: If Donald Trump wins reelection, Social Security will be at his mercy.”

    Trump is serious about moving forward with ending Social Security if he is reelected. Donald Trump Jr., on the first night of the Republican National Convention, spoke about his dad’s attempt to end the payroll tax using his executive authority, which would be illegal.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Trump promises to terminate Social Security

    Trump promises to terminate Social Security

    In a press conference last week, President Donald Trump promised to terminate Social Security if he is reelected. While he never said that he was ending the program, he called for ending the payroll contributions that fund Social Security. Without these contributions, Social Security cannot pay benefits.

    Donald Trump once made promises about Social Security that either were extremely misleading or that he is now breaking. As Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works writes: “We now know that what he meant is that cutting Social Security doesn’t go far enough for him: He wants to destroy Social Security.”

    As it is, Donald Trump has issued an executive order, which will weaken Social Security, reducing the amount going into the Social Security Trust Funds. If implemented, that order would allow employers to put off transmitting their employees’ payroll contributions to Social Security. It would save nothing for people with jobs today, because their employers will simply hold onto the withheld funds until they are due. Allowing the postponement of payments to Social Security also will not help anyone who has lost his or her job.

    Paul Krugman explains it this way on Twitter: “payroll tax cuts are the hydroxychloroquine of economic policy. They won’t do anything to solve the employment crisis, but will have dangerous side effects. Yet, Trump remains obsessed with them as a cure.” You don’t help the fact that unemployment is high and employers have been forced to lay people off by temporarily deferring payroll contributions. It is what you do, though, if your goal is to undermine Social Security.

    Krugman further tweets that ending payroll contributions to Social Security and Medicare will: “undermine the finances of programs that are absolutely crucial to the lives of older Americans. If you measure the quality of policy ideas on a scale of 1 to 10, this is a minus 5 or worse.”

    Without Social Security’s dedicated revenue, retirees would not be able to depend on the retirement security Social Security offers, as the majority of them do today, many exclusively. With millions of older people losing their jobs prematurely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, these benefits are needed now more than ever. As it is, pension benefits on which many of our parents relied in retirement, are less and less available. And, 401k benefits, when people have them, tend to be small.

    If President Trump is reelected and succeeds at terminating Social Security funding, that will end Social Security as we know it. Americans would no longer be able to count on Social Security benefits in retirement. They would not be able to count on Social Security in the event of disability or in the event of the loss of a spouse or parent.

    Call your Representatives in Congress to ensure they oppose any plan to deplete the Social Security Trust Funds and leave Americans without Social Security benefits. Let them know that you expect them to speak out against terminating payroll contributions to Social Security. If they do not, assume they want to destroy Social Security. And, if you want Social Security to continue, be sure to vote for candidates who stand behind Social Security.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • President Trump’s prescription drug executive orders won’t bring down prices

    President Trump’s prescription drug executive orders won’t bring down prices

    For a long time now, President Trump has said that Americans should not be paying more for drugs than people in other wealthy countries, who generally pay prices that are half what we pay. Yet, Trump has done nothing to bring down prescription drug prices. On Friday, he signed three executive orders that are restatements of old intentions to address drug prices but won’t in fact do anything about drug prices.

    To be clear, no executive order on its own can bring down prescription drug prices. Trump’s executive orders are no more than pronouncements. Still, the pharmaceutical industry strongly opposes them. And, Trump is expected to kowtow to Pharma because he is depending on the pharmaceutical industry to get a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured and distributed quickly.

    The executive orders are Trump’s attempt to show Americans that he is doing something about prescription drug prices. He is in fact doing precious little. He held off releasing one prescription drug executive order that focused on bringing down the cost of some costly drugs for people with Medicare because he first wanted to meet with Pharma executives to hear whether they had an alternative proposal more to their liking. If implemented, the order would keep Medicare from paying more for drugs that doctors administer–such as chemotherapy and rheumatology treatments–than what other wealthy nations pay.

    To repeat, if signed, this executive order would only help people with Medicare. And, experts say that it would take many years to implement. Among other things, the federal government would most likely have to defend it from legal attacks by the pharmaceutical industry.

    Of the executive orders Trump signed, one allows insulin and some other drugs to be imported from Canada. That order is already in an FDA draft rule that came out in December. The order simply reiterates what’s in play.

    Another executive order would allow people to get low-cost insulin and EpiPens from Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC). FQHC’s are government-funded clinics that offer low-cost care throughout the country.

    And, a third executive order would preclude pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from keeping rebates from pharmaceutical companies for themselves. PBMs would need to give the discounts to people with Medicare if the secretary of HHS agrees that doing so would not lead to higher federal costs or higher premiums. But, the Congressional Budget Office has already declared that passing rebates onto consumers would increase federal costs and drive up premiums in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans.

    Alex Azar, the Secretary for Health and Human Services (HHS), has not said whether or how the administration plans to move forward to implement President Trump’s executive orders. The administration must comply with a formal rule-making process even to experiment with an executive order. Expansive programs generally require Congress to enact a law.

    For its part, Pharma has refused to meet with the President because industry executives so object to his executive orders. Pharma says that pegging drug prices to prices in other countries is “a radical and dangerous policy.”

    Earlier this year, the US House of Representatives passed HR3, which caps drug prices in the US for as many as 250 drugs at the average of what other wealthy countries pay. It covers drugs people buy at the pharmacy as well as drugs that doctors must administer. The Republican-led Senate has not taken up this bill.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Coronavirus: Trump demands Social Security cut in next stimulus bill

    Coronavirus: Trump demands Social Security cut in next stimulus bill

    Jake Johnson writes for Common Dreams about Trump’s plan to cut Social Security and Medicare. He is privately warning Republican members of Congress that he will not sign off on any new COVID-19 legislation that do not include cutting Social Security and Medicare payroll contributions. Republicans in the US US House of Representatives and Senate have signaled that they will do Trump’s bidding.

    Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, explains that Trump and his fellow Republicans are “hostage-taking.” They are refusing to act to address the horrifying conditions in the US–the evictions that millions of Americans are facing, the lack of COVID-19 testing, the dearth of personal protective equipment for health care workers, the 57,000 nursing home deaths–unless Congress weakens Social Security.

    Moreover, by the end of this week, 30 million Americans will lose the $600 a week additional unemployment benefit they received as a result of an earlier stimulus bill if Congress does not act immediately.

    To be clear, the Republicans’ proposed cut in the payroll tax is of no benefit to people who are unemployed. And, it will be of little benefit to people whose hours of work have been reduced. The tax is only paid by working people. And, a cut is of little value in boosting the economy, now in a deep recession.  Still, Trump said back in April that he “would love to see a payroll tax cut,” and “there are many people who would like to see it as a permanent tax cut.”

    Of note, a payroll tax cut would be a huge windfall to employers, particularly the biggest employers in the US. Employers match people’s payroll contributions dollar for dollar. Senate and House Democrats oppose a payroll tax cut.

    Because Senate Republicans are insisting on a payroll tax cut as part of the next stimulus legislation, it’s not at all clear that more stimulus money will pass in Congress. It is one of many big sticking points between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats also oppose protections from liability that Republicans want to give businesses. Other issues where there is not yet a meeting of the minds include whether Congress will continue to expand people’s unemployment benefits, how much aid cities and states will get, and the amount that Congress will give to support education.

    Update: Both the House and Senate Republicans are including provisions of The Trust Act, which allows Republicans to slash Social Security behind closed doors and quickly, in their stimulus legislation.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Coronavirus: President Trump’s immigration policy leaves many hospitals short-staffed

    Coronavirus: President Trump’s immigration policy leaves many hospitals short-staffed

    President Donald Trump’s recent change to US immigration policy is leaving many hospitals short-staffed, reports Dara Lind for ProPublica. Trump’s proclamation of June 22 bars most immigrants from entering the US on work visas. Many US hospitals, however, have been counting on foreign doctors to get these work visas and serve as medical residents.

    Literally hundreds of young doctors from abroad will not be able to begin their hospital residencies as planned. Highly skilled workers planning to enter the US on H1-B visas, including practicing doctors, have not been able to enter the country. Other doctors planning to enter the US on other visas cannot get their visa applications approved because the US consulates in their countries are closed.

    Trump did exempt doctors caring for hospitalized COVID-19 patients from his immigration ban. The Department of State and Homeland Security are charged with providing guidance on how to implement this exemption. To date, the exemption has been inconsistently applied.

    Only now after ProPublica questioned the State Department about the implementation of the exemption, have a number of consulates begun to approve doctors’ visas. Still, some have yet to do so. This is causing staffing crises at many hospitals.

    A few foreign doctors who had planned to serve as medical residents in the US treating COVID-19 patients have told ProPublica that they are still waiting approval from the federal government. The Department of Homeland Security arranged emergency consulate appointments for them. But, at their in-person meetings, they learned that the US would not approve their visas.

    Recently, the State Department told ProPublica that it was still working with the Department of Homeland Security on how to implement the visa ban and exemption. Shortly thereafter, several foreign doctors whose visa applications had been rejected received approvals. But, in many countries, consulates are not approving visa applications as of yet. They apparently are still awaiting State Department guidance.

    As a rule, doctors care for thousands of patients a year. So, thousands of patients are at risk for each doctor that has not succeeded at getting his or her visa approved. Hospitals serving poorer populations and in rural areas are more likely to feel the effects of President Trump’s immigration policy. These hospitals rely more heavily on foreign doctors than urban hospitals and other hospitals serving patients who are better off.

    At one New York City hospital serving people with less means, foreign doctors represent a huge number of its first-year medical residents. Right now, almost half of these new residents are not able to enter the US. The same is true for a big Midwestern hospital.

    Many foreign physician specialists are also currently unable to enter the US.

    When there aren’t enough incoming residents to replace departing third-year residents, staffing crunches result. Short-staffing at hospitals means longer hours and less sleep for new medical residents. It also means greater stress and exhaustion. Some hospitals are relying on fourth-year medical students to take the place of foreign medical residents.

    Hospitals also are in need of residents to treat a surge in patients who need non-COVID care. Non-COVID-19 patients with serious chronic conditions are scheduling much needed care that they had put off because of the pandemic.

    President Trump’s ban on foreign immigrants does not apply to people who already hold visas. So, in many cases, it is foreign medical residents already in the US who are doing the heavy lifting at the hospitals. But, they might not be able to come back to the US if they leave. And, they must leave the US in order to get visa approval if they change jobs.

    The majority of foreign medical residents have J-1 visas, and Trump’s proclamation did not bar them from entering the US. But, they still need consular approval. Because of the pandemic, it can be challenging to get appointments. Many of them have visa applications that remain in “administrative processing,” who knows for how long.

    Whether doctors come on a J-1 or H1-B visa, they do exactly the same work. Their visa type is irrelevant. Medical residents with H1-B visas, however, have met more qualifying criteria, having completed all three phases of the US Medical Licensing exam. They also have practiced medicine in their native countries.

    Here’s more from Just Care:

  • Blame Donald Trump for the nursing home Covid-19 crisis

    Blame Donald Trump for the nursing home Covid-19 crisis

    The very first COVID-19 outbreak in the US took place in a Kirkland, Washington nursing home more than four months ago, at the end of February. At least 37 people died. That first outbreak should have been the impetus for the Trump administration to launch a coordinated national response to the COVID-19 pandemic, centered around protecting nursing home residents and workers. Instead, they’ve focused on protecting nursing home corporations from lawsuits.

    When the White House brings up the nursing home crisis at all, it’s to seek to shift the blame to Democratic governors. Trump is desperate to deflect from the truth: Over 54,000 nursing home residents and workers are dead. Those deaths were preventable. Their deaths are Donald Trump’s fault.

    A new report from the Senate Aging Committee lays out the Trump administration failures that led to the nursing home crisis. Trump never had a plan to protect nursing home residents. In fact, the actions his administration did take put seniors and people with disabilities directly in the path of the deadly pandemic.

    For months, as nursing home workers faced a devastating shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tests, Trump refused to invoke the Defense Production Act. Nor did he leverage FEMA’s response capabilities to target supplies to nursing homes.

    An opaque and corrupt program, run by the president’s inexperienced, unqualified son-in-law, tasked to deliver critically needed PPE not surprisingly failed miserably to help anybody, except perhaps Trump’s political donors. FEMA continues to deliver broken and unusable equipment to nursing homes even as the unrelenting death toll in nursing homes grows.

    Simply telling nursing homes to test workers and residents more often, as the administration has done, is meaningless. What’s needed is an actual plan to procure additional tests and get them to the facilities that need them. This late in the pandemic, that plan is still missing.

    In March and April, Congress allocated $175 billion in emergency funding for health care providers in the front lines of the pandemic. It was the Trump administration’s responsibility to distribute that funding as quickly and efficiently as possible. But it took two months for the administration to distribute any of the funding to nursing homes—and then only a paltry $19.5 billion.

    Nursing home workers are at the front lines of the crisis. Across the country, nursing homes have seen staffing shortages, forcing them to hire part timers who work in multiple facilities. Employees who remain are often forced to work while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, further spreading the disease. This is exacerbated by the fact that even before COVID-19, private equity barons had seized on the long term care industry as a sector they could hollow out, carve up and destroy for profit.

    We need to increase staffing levels by providing premium hazard pay. We must guarantee paid sick leave for all nursing home workers. Workers who need to quarantine should be provided with temporary housing so they don’t infect their families. The Trump administration has proposed none of this, because their anti-worker ideology takes precedence over public health.

    The right-wing deflection operation is well underway. The Trump White House and Senator Mitch McConnell understand that the nursing home crisis is political kryptonite. They don’t care about the lives lost; indeed, they never mention them. Instead, they care only about the bad headlines and the plummeting support among seniors for Trump and Republicans.

    Starting with the official propaganda organ of the Trump White House, FOX News, and filtering down through shadowy networks of dark money used to spread unchecked lies on Facebook, their playbook is clear: Deflect responsibility, blame Democratic governors, and lie about the failures of the president and his administration.

    Chief White House strategist and mouthpiece Sean Hannity can be seen in this clip laying out the whole strategy for “dealing with” the nursing home crisis. Hannity heaps praise on Florida Republican Governor DeSantis while blaming, among others, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for her state’s nursing home crisis. He goes so far as to say that the media needs to apologize to Gov. DeSantis for criticizing his rush to “reopen” the state.

    Like so much else Trump does, this strategy is based on a lie. Public health experts and local senior advocacy groups agree that Whitmer did a very effective job in a terrible situation, while Gov. DeSantis’s state of Florida is ineffectively confronting an explosion of new cases and dwindling hospital beds.

    To end the nursing home crisis, we need a robust system of testing and tracking. We need a system in place to make sure that every facility has PPE, tests, and adequate staffing. We need measures in place to reduce the overall spread of COVID-19, including a national mandate to wear masks in public places. Most of all, we need an administration that values the lives of people over the profits of corporations.

    Recently, one of Trump’s top economic advisors, Stephen Moore, suggested that we should allow every business (including high risk environments like bars and gyms) to reopen. He insisted this would be safe so long as we “keep older people in quarantine because they’re the ones susceptible from dying.” While Dan Patrick, Trump ally and Lt. Governor of Texas, another state with an exploding epidemic, said that seniors should sacrifice themselves to protect the economy.

    It’s this cavalier attitude towards seniors’ lives that led to the nursing home crisis. Older people should not have to quarantine themselves forever, cut off from their families and friends, because the Trump administration is too incompetent to contain the pandemic. Nor would it even work for them to do so. Over 64 million Americans live in multi-generational households. And even if no nursing home patient ever left, or had visitors, workers still go in and out.

    What Moore and Patrick are saying, and the philosophy behind Trump’s entire response to the pandemic, is that he thinks that seniors’ lives—as well as the lives of people with disabilities, people who are immunocompromised, and others who are at high risk from COVID-19— are disposable.

    Trump’s failure to contain the nursing home crisis is a product of his values. He values nursing home corporations, which don’t want to get sued. He values Wall Street billionaires, who are demanding that every business reopen regardless of public health. He does not value seniors’ lives. He is more than happy to volunteer them to be sacrificed on the altar of Wall Street’s greed.

    This is all Donald Trump’s fault. The blood is on his hands.

    Here’s more from Just Care: