Pritzker wants your vote – puts self in middle of political brawl over insurance

For those people who actually rely upon the Affordable Care Act (myself included) in order to have something resembling health insurance, Illinois Democratic gubernatorial candidate J.B. Pritzker is making what some might try to claim is a self-serving attempt to gain our votes.

PRITZKER: Buying our votes? Or taking interest?

Then again, those of us who are in need of the federal assistance in order to be able to afford health insurance may well be willing to give our votes to Pritzker because he seems to be one of the few officials willing to take an interest in the issue.

THE REALITY THESE days is that Republicans have always hated the idea of the Affordable Care Act, and not just because it was an accomplishment of former President Barack Obama.

They seriously want to believe that people make a conscious choice to go without health insurance. They want to believe that people who don’t have some sort of health plan are somehow too lazy to work a decent job or are otherwise incapable of providing for themselves.

In which case, it’s their own fault. It shouldn’t be a task of the government to help individuals come up with a medical plan.

I know in my case, I haven’t held a full-time job in 12 years. I have managed to earn income through assorted freelance work, which some people claim has the advantage of me being able to set my own work hours, get personal business taken care of during the weekdays and can also work from home.

TRUMP: Could care less about issue

I DON’T HAVE to show up at anyone’s office. Personally, I miss the newsroom atmosphere of past news outfits I’ve worked for. But also, it means nobody is providing me with a health insurance policy as a perk for my work.

Trust me, the cost of just about every health policy I ever looked into was above my freelance pay grade – particularly since one of the disadvantages of freelance work is that the pay can be irregular. The occasional week with a significant check, followed up by many weeks of piddling amounts of money – and the periodic time period for which my check resembles a strong resemblance to the kind of money I used to bring in when I was a kid reporter at the old City News Bureau of Chicago (grossing just under $10,000 per year back in those days).

IVES: Can she be viable Rauner option?

So yes, the stipends from Affordable Care are the reason I have been able to afford health insurance the past three years. It’s nice to know that the occasional doctor’s visit won’t put me further in debt.

Which is an issue the Republican partisans don’t want to be concerned with. They are the ones who have created so many bureaucratic messes that the financial stability of the Affordable Care Act is threatened. Considering they would just as soon see it go away, I don’t doubt they wouldn’t mind seeing it fail – they’ll refuse to take responsibility for the failure, so what do they care! Particularly our current president – who probably figures it won’t impact him at all.

THAT IS WHERE Pritzker is trying to gain himself some support, putting aside roughly $1 million to buy airtime across Illinois to remind people using the Affordable Care Act that we’re at that time of year (deadline is Dec. 15) in which we have to renew our participation.

I know in my case, I’ve been informed by the insurance company that has provided me insurance that the specific health plan I have used will no longer be offered. I have to find something new to cover me beginning in 2018.

I’m curious to see how much confusion the Republican partisans will try to create amongst those who actually have to make changes in our plans, and I’ll admit I’m dreading the process.

RAUNER: Wishes insurance issue would go away

So to learn there’s an official in the form of Pritzker who isn’t eager to see the whole process detonate is a bit of a relief.

IT’S ALMOST ENOUGH to sway me to cast a vote for J.B. come the March 20 Democratic primary. Sorry, but I’m not the type disgusted by Gov. Bruce Rauner that I’d actually consider a vote for Jeanne Ives – the woman who messed up her nominating petitions and now has to start over if she wants to get on the ballot for the ’18 election cycle.

Although I’m not deluded enough to think J.B. Pritzker has any personal interest in my case. With all the money he has in personal wealth he’s willing to spend on trying to become Illinois’ new governor, this $1 million for Affordable Care Act advertising may well be pocket change to him.

But his “pocket change” could wind up impacting the livelihoods of many of the rest of us across Illinois.

  -30-

EXTRA: ‘Pop tax’ shifts – you can buy cheaper pop in Cook Co. come Dec. 1

Cook County Board members voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to support an ordinance that repeals the penny-per-ounce tax on sweetened beverages – the tax that was enacted with a tie vote that had to be broken by board President Toni Preckwinkle herself.

SUFFREDIN: Lone remaining tax backer

Which means that the American Beverage Association’s “Can the Tax” lobbying effort was heard loud-and-clear.

IT DOESN’T MEAN that there was really a consensus of thought about this issue – which was supposed to raise some $200 million per year to balance out the budget and ensure that county-run healthcare programs and facilities would be fully funded.

All but one of the county board members who previously supported the tax (Larry Suffredin of Evanston was the lone 'no' vote) voted “aye” in favor of the ordinance to repeal the measure that came up Tuesday during a finance committee session.

But some of the people who previously supported the pop tax made it clear they weren’t happy about feeling pressure to vote to repeal it come Dec. 1 – which is the date that a new budget for the upcoming fiscal year takes effect.

Jesus Garcia, D-Chicago, said government officials will have to deal with potential budget shortfalls when they give approval to that new budget sometime next month.

“RESIDENTS OF COOK County sent a strong message how they felt about this revenue measure we tried to utilize to balance out the budget,” the former mayoral candidate said. “This budget is a statement about our morality, values and compassion, or lack thereof. We still face a revenue challenge to provide services to the needy.”

While Stanley Moore, D-Chicago, said he thinks he should get credit for initially supporting the pop tax. “I have shown I will take the hard vote, if need be,” adding he fears there will be “cut, cut, cut, cut at the expense of the disenfranchised.”

Suffredin, the lone opponent of pop tax repeal, said he believes the county suffers financially because Illinois government is not providing the full amount of reimbursement it is supposed to provide for healthcare programs.

While Deborah Sims, D-Chicago, said she was bothered by being pressured to change her vote. “It’s not fair that nine of us (who supported the pop tax) take the heat, and everybody else walks away free.”

NOT THAT EVERYBODY was concerned about reductions in healthcare services by Cook County government. Jeffrey Tobolski, R-McCook, said he anticipates such cuts in spending.

“What we have (in revenue) is what we have to work with, there are some tough decisions that will have to be made,” he said.

As for the politicking, Richard Boykin, D-Oak Park, said he was “overjoyed and elated this tax is going to go away.” Although Tobolski was most blunt, saying, “I’m glad this damned thing is over.”

Of course, we’ll get to re-do the issue again Wednesday, as the county board will meet as a full board, rather than as a committee, which means that Jerry “Iceman” Butler, D-Chicago, will get his chance to add his thoughts for the record – assuming he shows up for the county board meeting rather than being absent, as he was on Tuesday for the finance committee session.

  -30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: The official info that Cook County government put forth to try to justify the pop tax they enacted Nov. 10, 2016 that took effect at the beginning of August of this year.

Cook County ‘pop tax’ upsets political structure’s sense of who matters

If you think about it, it’s really not surprising to learn that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, doesn’t think much of the penny-per-ounce pop tax being charged by Cook County government.

Is Preckwinkle's 'pop tax' really a threat ...

Republican political operatives are gloating at the very notion that Madigan, who usually is supportive of Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, is trying to concoct measures by which the pop tax would go away.

WHETHER THAT MEANS Madigan putting the strong-arm tactics to certain members of the Cook County Board to get them to shift their support from the tax that, in part, is supposed to help the county cover the cost of maintaining its hospitals and health care programs.

Or by having the General Assembly pass a law that would supersede the county’s ability to impose such a tax.

It could be either tactic. We’ll have to wait and see by which means Madigan attempts to undermine the county’s ability to use its taxing authority to raise money for itself.

In one sense, it could be perceived as the state meddling in county government business. But the reality is that all the layers of government do wind up getting intertwined. And other officials are now deciding to get involved in the pop tax because they’re fearful voters determined to vote “no” on the tax will wind up voting “no” on everything and anything.

IT WAS KIND of like a few years ago when then-county board President Todd Stroger tried balancing out the Cook County government budget with a boost in the county’s share of the sales tax.

... really a threat to Madigan majority?

Which combined with the state tax and any local taxes charged by municipalities. As many critics were quick to point out, the county’s increase drove the whole sales tax within the Chicago city limits to just over 10 percent.

Since the local political perception is that Chicago city government is most important and that Madigan’s long-time influence puts state government at a next rung, it means that the county had to assume a position of lesser importance.

Its sales tax hike had to go in order to get the overall sales tax in Chicago below 10 percent.

JUST AS NOW Madigan is fearing that his rank-and-file legislators in suburban Cook County might have their lives complicated when they run for re-election next year, IF the pop tax remains in place.

How quickly would Wrath of Rahm reign down on Toni?

So Cook County government, as an entity, may have to sacrifice its tax, because the carbonated beverages lobby (I refuse to use the label “Big Soda,” it just sounds so lame) doesn’t like the idea of anyone else making money off their products. People are just as offended by the 7-cent-per-plastic bag at stores in Chicago, yet nobody's telling the city they have to drop it!

I have to admit the pop lobbying effort appears more successful than that of the healthcare advocates, including former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who failed to take on pop in his own city by restricting the sale of those 32-ounce cups of pop – which really are vulgar is you think seriously about such a portion.

My own thought is that, while I agree with the premise of the tax and think that trying to benefit a public health goal is noble, seeing vending machines reading “kidney failure” and “Type 2 Diabetes” is just a bit too phony – and just as lame as the “Big Soda” label.

SO NOW MADIGAN is going to get involved, for his usual reason – self-preservation. There have been many noble concepts throughout the years that have died political deaths because Madigan felt his Illinois House leadership would be threatened by such efforts. Although there is some legitimacy to the converse position -- you can't accomplish anything if you lose the prior election.

How phony Illinois GOP rhetoric can be at times

Of course, I found it somewhat ridiculous to read the Republican response Friday to this issue – they want us to believe that any Democrat who NOW votes against the pop tax is merely being “Madigan cronies simply following the leader.”

Not that I ever expect Democrats (or any Chicago interests) to be worthy in the minds of the Illinois Republican Party. It’s usually best to ignore the perception of GOPers who, at times, seem embarrassed to be from the “Land of Lincoln.”

All I know is that it is just as likely that if this tax does die a month or so from now and does result in county funding cuts for health care services, I fully expect many of those same people will shift their ire to the health care cuts! Some people are just determined to complain – no matter what the issue.

  -30-

The compromisin’ court? Or should we think of them as do-nothings?

I thought for sure we’d hear the whining and screaming from people all upset that the Supreme Court of the United States, bogged down in a politically-partisan tie due to being a member short, failed to uphold a provision of the Affordable Care Act.

That the ideologues who don’t want President Barack Obama to have a political victory by providing access to health insurance for the masses would be upset that the 4-4 tie would result in a lower court being upheld in its decision to strike down parts of the act.

BUT THAT’S NOT what wound up happening. In fact, I could see how it would be the conservative ideologues who were counting on the court’s partisan split and shortfall of a member to result in a positive ruling by default.

Instead, the nation’s high court wound up issuing about as sensible a ruling as could be achieved. They unanimously issued an order saying the lower courts need to come up with a compromise situation. One that would appease all.

Although when it comes to Barack Obama and abortion, there probably is no such thing as something for everyone.

The issue at stake in this case was that certain entities don’t want to have to include medical coverage in the health insurance packages they offer their employees that would cover a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.

THEY WANT TO think that if people work for them, then they somehow forfeit their access to what has been a fully legitimate and legal medical procedure since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling of 1973.

Appeals courts with a partisan leaning had ruled those companies could get away with such narrow-minded thinking.

Had the court given in to the 4-4 split caused by the death earlier this year of Justice Antonin Scalia, that ruling would have been upheld by default. The lower court’s ruling would have stood.

Instead, the high court came up with their idea of a compromise, which shows a willingness to not let partisan politics become the cause of creation of the rule of law.

IF ANYTHING, THIS court decision affirms my basic faith in government. Because I have come to believe that while our government officials are always capable of doing something incredible stupid, shallow and narrow-minded, every now and then they will be capable of doing the right thing.

If anything, it is the reason why people who talk about throwing out our government and issue penny-ante talk of revolution (including many of those how talking about backing Bernie Sanders for president) usually strike me as being fairly shallow thinkers.

It will be interesting to see how the appeals courts wind up resolving this issue.

Because they’re going to have to figure out what constitutes compromise. They’re going to have to come up with the way of letting religious organizations express their opposition to abortion without actually interfering with a woman’s right to decide for herself what she should do with her body.

BELIEVE IT OR not, that is a very radical thought for some of those religiously-motivated people. Then again, for many of them they just want to use “God” as an excuse to tell women (and all other people) what they can or cannot do.

I don’t know how this situation will resolve itself, or what the compromise will look like. For all I know, the appeals courts may wind up failing, and it will come down to a Supreme Court of the future ultimately having to make the decision.

If it does turn out that way, let’s hope the court shows as much responsibility in the future as it did on Monday.

Even though I’m sure if it does happen that way, the conservative ideologues of our society will wind up reviling such a decision the way the masses of our society still sneer at the way the high court resolved the 2000 election voter count.

  -30-

How sleazy is Bruce Rauner? Really!!!

During my time as a reporter-type person, I have done my share of stories that hinted on inappropriate conduct toward the residents of nursing homes or other facilities for the elderly.

RAUNER: Corporate exec? Or sleaze?

I am more than capable of coming up with disgusting anecdotes about mistreatment of people. Although I’m also aware there are facilities that operate properly and give respectable care to their residents.

BUT THE OPPOSITION to gubernatorial hopeful Bruce Rauner is counting on people to have the image of the sleazy, crooked nursing home in their heads.

And they’re hoping we’re more than willing to buy into the idea that the venture capitalist (it means he puts his money into anything he thinks he can make a buck off of) is somehow connected.

The Illinois Freedom political action committee is taking credit for a new campaign spot; one that says Rauner’s company “was accused of draining money” from nursing homes, with residents “suffer(ing) from malnutrition and dehydration” as a result of Rauner being more interested in having his investment make a respectable financial return.

Rather than let some of that money be put back into the facility to maintain proper care.

OR AT LEAST that’s the line of reasoning we’re supposed to come to about Rayner.

How else to explain a campaign ad that ends with the line; “His companies’ nursing homes made over a billion dollars while seniors paid the ultimate price.”

Yes, death!

The Illinois Freedom PAC, in a prepared statement, cites lawsuits in which juries found that a company founded by Rauner’s investment firm (called Trans Healthcare) bought nursing homes, boosted their profitability by cutting staff and other treatment, and also piled on debt and did other financial maneuvers to try to get around legal liability from any lawsuits that might result.

IT’S JUST THE kind of legal action that puts enough distance (in a technical sense) between Rauner himself and the activities at the nursing homes. Which is why I’m sure it is truthful that Rauner himself never did anything inappropriate.

Which also is why Rauner, the candidate, responded with a statement that lambasts Gov. Pat Quinn for putting out the ad and calling it “desperate” and “disgusting.”

Of course, it can be argued that the Illinois Freedom PAC is not the Quinn re-election campaign. In exactly the same way it can be argued that Rauner himself did nothing inappropriate with those nursing homes.

I learned a long time ago that campaign ads are not to be taken literally. Which is the mistake most people make.

SO DO I think Quinn is “desperate” and “disgusting?” Not really. Just as I don’t think Rauner literally is responsible for killing elderly people by having them live in substandard housing – just so he can make a buck! Although it should be noted that there always is an element of truth from all the sides involved in any campaign spot.

Are the people who would like to see Quinn re-elected to another term as governor willing to play hardball by trying to turn Rauner (the only GOP campaign thus far that has gained any traction amongst the public) into some sort of sleaze that they’re hoping the Republicans will regret nominating come November?

And are the business exec types like Rauner (who when you ask them “What do you do for a living?” come up with an answer that sounds like gobbledygook to 99 percent of the populace) so focused on the financial bottom line that bad things can often happen because they’re not focused on the actual output of their business interests?

It’s sad to say that the answer to both is most likely “Yes!”

  -30-

Will Walgreens become the Preferred Drug Store for cigarette smokers?

Will Walgreen's lengthy Chicago-area history help it keep business if tobacco products actually become an issue?

I have to admit to being somewhat amused this week by the announcement by CVS that they will stop selling cigarettes and other tobacco products later this year.

It has me wondering if the business battle between newcomer CVS and long-time Chicago-area pharmaceutical retailer Walgreen’s will now turn to trying to gain a business advantage concerning those people who need to have their daily dose of “smokes.”

WILL CVS NOW try to claim a high moralistic attitude because they won’t sell cigarettes? Will they be the start of a trend in which the sight of all those racks of cigarette packs and cartons behind the cash register will become obsolete?

Or something you only see in a seedier sort of business?

Is that what Walgreen’s is destined to become? Since the Deerfield-based retailer indicated this week they do not plan to follow suit on cigarettes.

They’re adopting the line of logic used by convenience stores, gasoline stations and other businesses that include tobacco products on their shelves – they add to the financial bottom line in a way that can make the difference between being profitable or going out of business altogether.

HOW FAR WILL Walgreen’s be prepared to carry this decision out? Because they certainly want to be taken seriously in terms of health care issues.

In fact, there are those industry analysts who contend that CVS’ decision to drop cigarettes from their stores is less about a high-minded moral statement and more about a bottom-line business decision.

As in they can make more money ultimately by having various clinics, vaccination services and other health care options in their stores – services with which the sight of cigarette cartons would just be too much of a clash!

Personally, I don’t smoke. I never have. Just something about the smell was always so unappealing that I never felt compelled to try.

WHICH MAKES ME not so much appreciate a business that doesn’t encourage smoking, as much as dislike a business that does.

I have way too many memories of getting stuck in lines waiting to make a purchase because the person right ahead of me either can’t make up their mind what brand of cigarettes they want, or (more often) are getting all worked up into a frenzy that demands to see a store manager because the sales clerk can’t figure out which of the variety of brands it is that the customer wants.

Invariably, it winds up being a small purchase I was making (sometimes, as little as purchasing a newspaper or two – yes, I still prefer ink on paper to this format).

Which makes such a purchase a bigger deal than it has to be!

THERE’S ALSO THE case that I currently live at a place with both a Walgreen’s and a CVS store within three blocks of me. I can’t say I favored either one of them in the past.

But I may well have to start spending more money at the CVS if this tobacco sales issue actually becomes a controversy.

Because I’m sure the people who want to view their cigarettes as some sort of civil rights issue (never mind the real issues of our society) will be more than willing to make a stink about this – and not just because their clothes and breath reeks of inhaling too much tobacco fumes throughout their lives.

There are times when I wonder if people are willing to “fight to the death” for their cigarette habit as intensely as those who are making an issue of “concealed carry. Perhaps it’s the same people – a cigarette pack in the shirt pocket and pistol tucked in the hip.

OR MAYBE A cigarette pack and pistol tucked in the purse?

While the rest of us consider fighting for issues that really matter in our daily lives. Including which place might help us look out better for our health.

Could that now be CVS?

  -30-

Who decides for whom?

Remember the political struggle we went through in Illinois when Catholic-affiliated groups that deal with adoption and foster care decided they didn’t want to have to comply with state laws that make it clear gay couples can’t be excluded from consideration just because of their orientation?

OBAMA: Get this man a political backbone!



The same principle is what has been at work during the past week with regards to the idea of the cost of contraceptives being covered by insurance programs.

THE COURTS THUS far in Illinois have decided that if these religious-affiliated groups want to be involved in finding adoptive and foster parents for abandoned children, they must comply with the laws.

Or else, get out of the business.

I can’t help but think that the same line of logic ought to be used on the contraceptives matter – except that it would be the federal laws of the United States that would need to be complied with.

It also seems that the Catholic Church seems to want to fight this issue out, just as they are with regards to the child care issue – even though courts thus far have upheld the viewpoint of Illinois state government.

I ONLY WISH President Barack Obama weren’t so eager/willing/capable of giving in on this issue – as he appears to have on Friday when he said he would allow for changes in a health insurance mandate to let the church feel like it is getting its way (which is to say that they won’t make such contraceptives available to people who could use them).

Then again, it’s not like the Catholic Church is behaving in any manner that would make you think they are ahead in this political fight. In the Chicago Archdiocese, Cardinal Francis George took actions to ensure that Catholic parishes across the metropolitan area heard a statement condemning Obama’s actions.



Which means Obama gets no credit for his “concessions,” which as far as I’m concerned, he shouldn’t have had to make in the first place.

So what’s at stake here?

OBAMA HAD WANTED a health insurance mandate that would require employers to offer plans to their workers that would cover contraceptives at no cost.

But the Catholic Church is taking up its rhetorical line about birth control somehow being one step short of murder, and claiming they shouldn’t have to offer it up.

We’re not just talking about people working for a church proper. We’re also talking about many of the organizations that often get significant amounts of their backing from churches and religious organizations, such as hospitals.

In short, this could have the ability to create confusion and chaos, along with preventing some people from getting something they could use for medical purposes.

NOW LET ME make one point clear. I don’t object to any individual Catholic having such beliefs about contraception – even though I believe they are wrong.

If there are Catholic women out there who want to believe that it is somehow wrong – if not outright sinful – to use contraception, that is their right. That is their choice. I would not advocate anyone forcing a pill of any kind down their throats for any reason.

The problem becomes when the Catholic bureaucracy starts thinking that their views are to be forced onto others – regardless of their religion. Because that ultimately is what actions like these become.

“Mother Church” thinks it is here to impose its will upon us – and cast off to Hell those people who might choose another faith. It is that kind of attitude that winds up creating hostility against the Catholic Church (of which I myself was baptized in as a mere baby).

IT IS TIMES like this that I get ashamed to have to admit to being Catholic, because it is moments like this that the church turns itself into the equivalent of a schoolyard bully who is all too eager to validate himself by forcing everybody else to go along with his nonsense.

If anything, moments like these show just how much our society has changed during the past five decades. For the John F. Kennedy who became the first Catholic elected U.S. president had to convince the electorate that he would not let his policy decisions be dictated by the church.

Now, Obama is making concessions to the church – which whines that it is not enough.

And what is more embarrassing is that such behavior does serve to anger entities against the church.

FOR I NOTICED a report in the weekend newspapers about a proposed strip club that wants to locate in west suburban Stone Park – on property right next to a missionary filled with nuns.

The nuns are trying to claim the strip club doesn’t belong there. But the potential owner is taking the attitude that the nuns are trying to impose their views on the populace.

Which strikes me as the ultimate in arrogance, coming from a guy who wants to make his money from “Girls, Girls, Girls!” But after seeing and hearing the church’s attitude on more serious matters, I can’t help but wonder if a part of him is dead-on accurate!

  -30-