February 16-18, 2016::End of the day round-up

Trump and Hitler

While I have great difficulty in making such a comparison, it has been done by many. Myself included. Muholland makes an interesting point, "I realized why globalism is such a good thing. A world connected economically and electronically is a much safer place. I’m glad to live in a world where the death of fourteen in San Bernardino is a national tragedy and the words of Trump are scandalous. Perhaps Trump’s biggest mistake is to point us backwards. As long as we can still see the smoke rising from Auschwitz and Dresden, there is little attraction to the past or to people like Donald Trump."

When one asks me whom I will vote for, I can confidently state it won't be for a GOT/P party member or Donald Trump. But it does not mean that I will automatically vote for Hilliary. It does not mean I will automatically vote for Sanders. I really am undecided.

You see this election is mega important for ideological reasons. We have the status quo versus the theocrats. (And there is some argument as to what camp Clinton actually stands in.) We have the one percent versus 99 percenters.
All other issues aside, it boils down to this, a point Morton makes well.

When you ask me to vote for Hillary

If this doesn’t make sense to you — if you think it is reasonable to fear the opposition more than to hope for having a better life — then I’m guessing you live a fairly comfortable life and don’t feel strong motivation to change it. Perhaps it’s been a long time since you had to decide not to take your spouse to the emergency room because you were worried it would wipe out what little savings you have. Maybe you don’t have full-blown anxiety attacks every time you see that your medical insurance company has sent you something in the mail. Do you remember the last time you cried thinking about how you can’t afford to get a job, because it will knock you off of the meager insurance assistance you have and put you even further behind than you started? Would your place of employment and the welfare of hundreds of employees be ensured if only we could sort out the insanity that is private insurance? Has there been a time in your life when nearly all of the stress you experience in life comes, one way or another, from trying to navigate the private medical-industrial complex?

As sad as it may sound, the morass I have had to navigate since my stroke has become the biggest deciding factor in choosing a possible candidate. How either candidate handles this will be a major factor. Right now, the advantage is Sanders, though it is still early and I have a month to decide in regards to primaries.

One point not touched on but still important, insurance issues aside, what about recovery,,,hmmm? You see, I went back to work way sooner than I should. I had to rely on the generosity of others to survive the three months (and then some) I couldn't work. Insurance is nice, but there are other issues not being looked at. 

A financial update for those that have asked,,,

I never was in the best shape financially prior to my stroke, I'll be honest. I lived very simply and as frugally as possible. My job choice due to pre-existing issues forced that decision upon me. I can live with that.

My stroke, on the other hand, has caused major issues. Thanks to the generosity of many I was able to battle through those issues (primarily rent) and seven months out, I am beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. My tax refund has helped immensely and if things continue, I will be able to put a wee bit away for a rainy day.

I don't know if I am out of the woods, at minimum wage one never is, but my bills are paid. Right now my focus is off the financial and back on to where it should be - my physical recovery.

I am back to working my "normal" 6 days/week, though reduced hours and responsibility, but still struggle. I have some decisions to make in that regard but from what many have told me, "it's still early". Thursday's eye appt (and possible follow-up) will go a long way in deciding the future; as will my neuro appt in March. [My surgeries have finally  been scheduled - 4/27 and 5/11]

That, in a nut shell, is where I am at!! BTW, post-stroke depression suks donkey dick,,, but that too is lifting!

 
I am well aware that numerous laws and legislation have come forth concerning the Syrian refugee debacle. The constitutionality of which is questionable at best. Florida's 1095 is just another example.

FL Bill Would Give Rick Scott The Right To Use Military Force On ‘Invaders’

Florida Republicans voted to pass HB 1095, the “Prevention of Acts of War,” through a committee on Wednesday and the bill is so outrageous it looks like Donald Trump wrote it. It would allow Governor Rick Scott to use military action on all immigrants or refugees who attempt to seek safe haven in the state:

[People who] are organized or affiliated with armies presently holding and administering territories outside the United States and insurgencies engaged in capturing such territories… the State Constitution and Florida law fully empower the Governor, as commander-in-chief of all military forces in Florida not in active service of the United States Armed Forces, including the general militia, to defend the state against the entry and actions of such persons.

The bill even goes as far as to call refugees “invaders”:

“Restricted person” means a foreign refugee or immigrant for whom there is reasonable cause to believe that he or she originates from, or has been in close proximity to, any location in which invaders or prospective invaders are known to originate or organize or train for violent acts of war.

The bill also states that any person or group helping the “invaders” must turn their infomation [sic] over to the state government so that authorities can monitor them. It also gives Rick Scott the right to sue the federal government if they try to place the refugees in the state. This part is especially interesting because states do not have the right to pass this law and FLORIDA KNOWS IT.

H/T:: Danielle Muscato for this article, well said.

Hillary Clinton Gets $13 Million From Health Industry, Now Says Single-Payer Will “Never, Ever Come To Pass­”

The crux of the matter for me is this point,,,

Only Bernie Sanders supports single-payer, universal health care (and has for a LONG TIME). Hillary used to support it—she even wrote a letter to Bernie Sanders in 1993 praising his efforts fighting for it—but she changed her mind after receiving $13,200,000 in donations from health insurance companies and related organizations. Further, a December '15 scientific poll found that 58 percent of Americans support expanding Medicare to cover everyone. So why aren't we already doing this?

Not the money mind you, it's politics what do you expect, but the fact that Clinton has change her mind. I remember the 1993 battle, the ACA as we have it today is a direct result,,,but, she changed her mind.

ADDENDUM::Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion | www.palmbeachpost.com

My previous post concerning Rick Scott of Florida and drug testing brought a we bit of a flurry of activity to my twitter. To wit the attached article from 2011 was shared (TY @LeChatNoire4 @JessieFlagg1 @BexaRaven).

I vaguely remember reading of this "concern" at the time the legislation was proposed though it appears any concern of ethical violations may have been dealt with (see sidebar). If I am incorrect in that view please correct me as my interest in this issue is from a different angle, potential problems with implementation and who will ultimately be denied services:

• Inadvertently denying assistance to poor families simply because they are unable to comply with its complex paperwork
• The policy is based on the false perception that large numbers of welfare recipients are using illegal drugs
• A logistical headache, where is the money coming from to implement this "program"
• What about people that are homeless or live in transitional housing

Gov. Rick Scott's drug testing policy stirs suspicion | www.palmbeachpost.com

Rick Scott's Drug Testing Schemes Have Cost Florida Taxpayers Nearly $400,000

The Florida government started making welfare applicants and state workers pee in cups to prove they weren't on drugs in 2011, only to have both programs quickly halted by federal courts on constitutional grounds. In response to a records request from the Florida ACLU, the Scott administration disclosed it has spent $381,654 appealing the unfavorable rulings.

"Every court that has heard Gov. Scott’s argument that the state has the power to compel people to submit their bodily fluids for government inspection without suspicion of wrongdoing has rejected it as a violation of the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches,” said Shalini Goel Agarwal, staff attorney for the ACLU in Florida.

"It’s become a costly and embarrassing boondoggle for Floridians," Agarwal added.

Scott argued that drug testing welfare applicants would save the state money. But in the few months the state screened all those seeking aid under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the rate of positive results was so low the cost of the tests likely outweighed the savings of denied benefits.

Republicans in many other states have also sought to drug test welfare applicants, but following Scott's losses in federal court, they opted for suspicion-based testing programs rather than testing everyone who asks for help. Scott's latest welfare testing appeal is still pending.




Rick Scott's Drug Testing Schemes Have Cost Florida Taxpayers Nearly $400,000

Supreme Court Shoots Down Rick Scott's Appeal On Drug Testing

At first I thought this was an update concerning this story, but there is a twist that I missed at first read:

The Supreme Court on Monday shot down Florida Gov. Rick Scott's request to review a lower court ruling that struck down his DRUG TESTING PROGRAM FOR STATE EMPLOYEES.

Supreme Court Shoots Down Rick Scott's Appeal On Drug Testing

Florida Law Mandating Drug Tests For Welfare Struck Down By Federal Judge

A U.S. judge on Tuesday struck down a Florida law requiring drug screening for welfare recipients, saying that it violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches.

Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Republican who campaigned on a promise to expand drug testing, said he would appeal the ruling.

The law took effect in July 2011 and required parents to undergo and pay for urine tests for illegal drugs when they applied for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal-state program that helps poor people with children pay for food, shelter and necessities.

The testing fee of $25 to $45 was to be repaid by the state if the test came back negative, but applicants who tested positive would have been barred from receiving benefits for a year.
__________

Here is the "problem" with this law that Scott (and others) is so eager to push:

• Inadvertently denying assistance to poor families simply because they are unable to comply with its complex paperwork
• The policy is based on the false perception that large numbers of welfare recipients are using illegal drugs
• A logistical headache, where is the money coming from to implement this "program"
• What about people that are homeless or live in transitional housing

And according Tampa Tribune only 2% of welfare recipients had tested positive under the newly implemented law:

Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.

Ninety-six percent proved to be drug free — leaving the state on the hook to reimburse the cost of their tests.

The initiative may save the state a few dollars anyway, bearing out one of Gov. Rick Scott's arguments for implementing it. But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs.

Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants.

The savings assume that 20 to 30 people — 2 percent of 1,000 to 1,500 tested — fail the drug test every month. On average, a welfare recipient costs the state $134 in monthly benefits, which the rejected applicants won't get, saving the state $2,680-$3,350 per month.

But since one failed test disqualifies an applicant for a full year's worth of benefits, the state could save $32,200-$48,200 annually on the applicants rejected in a single month.

Net savings to the state — $3,400 to $8,200 annually on one month's worth of rejected applicants. Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800-$98,400 for the cash assistance program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Florida Law Mandating Drug Tests For Welfare Struck Down By Federal Judge

Meet The Eligible Florida Voter Gov. Scott Just Purged From The Rolls

I would say no fraud but trying to destroy the democratic process more like it,,

Meet The Eligible Florida Voter Gov. Scott Just Purged From The Rolls