Former Luzerne County Judge Michael T. Conahan, along with another former judge, was accused of shutting down the county’s juvenile detention center and then receiving more than $2 million from for-profit detention facilities as part of a “kids for cash” scheme, according to The Citizens’ Voice.
…
People online were really not impressed by Conahan’s inclusion in Biden’s massive list.
“Wow. I think Biden’s commuting the sentence of this disgraced Pa judge is a big mistake. I covered this in my Pa media days. He was one of 2 judges receiving $$ to sentence kids to lengthy sentences in a for-profit juvenile prison,” wroteThe Washington Post’s Heather Long in a post on X. “He ruined a lot of kids’ lives.”
Protesters sing Christmas carols outside the Home Office, December 12, 2024Photo: Talia Woodin @taltakingpic
“AWAY in a police car” echoed outside the Home Office on Wednesday as campaigners belted out renditions of Christmas carols, calling for the government to repeal draconian anti-protest laws.
Dressed in Christmas jumpers and Santa hats, carollers from Amnesty International UK, Greenpeace and Liberty sang festive songs including The Twelve Days of Protest and Silent Protest.
They then handed in a petition to the Home Office, calling on it to scrap protest restrictions introduced by previous governments, alongside a letter to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper demanding an urgent meeting to discuss the state of protest rights in Britain.
A series of repressive laws have made the right to protest increasingly hard to exercise.
They include the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which allows police to ban or restrict “unacceptable” protests, and the Public Order Act 2023 which criminalised protesters “locking on” and fastening themselves to each other or objects.
Punitive jail terms handed out since their enactment include one Just Stop Oil protester being sentenced to six months for slow marching on a road for 30 minutes, while five others from the group received a combined 21 years for co-ordinating a non-violent action over Zoom.
Argentine President Javier Milei. Photo: Milei / X
At one year of Milei’s presidency, we take stock of his economic policies, the impact on the working class, and perspectives for the future
A year ago, what many considered unthinkable a couple of years ago happened: Javier Milei, the eccentric libertarian economist who was almost compulsively invited by the media to increase ratings, was sworn in as president of Argentina. Gone was the neoliberal and demure option of the Argentine right wing that managed to triumph with Mauricio Macri, as well as the always latent Peronist option, which could not overcome the obstacles that the government of Alberto Fernandez left in its path.
Milei became a celebrated outsider who confronted his adversaries directly (often insulting and humiliating them), promising to lift the country out of poverty through a radical liberalization of the economy, with bold, or absurd, proposals to dollarize the economy and the eliminate the central bank. Indeed, his style as a guest on television programs was not too far removed from his actions as president of Argentina.
Erika Giménez, social communicator and a journalist with ARG Medios told Peoples Dispatch that Milei arrived with a promise that he was going to “break the State” and end all state social programs and aid to impoverished sectors because they are “a waste of money that prevents Argentina’s resurgence as a great country.” Did he succeed in his grandiose vision? What did the “lion” of Argentina manage to accomplish in his first year of governance?
Falling inflation and rising poverty
One of Milei’s main obsessions was to reduce inflation at all costs. After several setbacks that ended up increasing inflation, in October it was recorded that inflation had risen by 2.3%, the lowest percentage in several years. To achieve this, he had no qualms about firing tens of thousands of state workers (almost 36,000 according to the National Institute of Statistics and Census) and aggressively cutting the number of ministries (from 18 to 9). Social programs that had been a bulwark of the Republic for several decades were eliminated. Of the state workers who survived the layoffs, almost all have seen a reduction in their purchasing power as a consequence of the economic retrenchment policies.
Similarly, despite the fact that year-on-year inflation stood at 193%, retirees’ pensions only increased by 105%, meaning that retired elderly workers today, thanks to Milei’s government, can buy fewer things than before, because their pension was not adjusted for inflation. This incongruity provoked several mobilizations by retirees.
Likewise, Milei has refused to increase the public education budget so as not to affect the much-desired “fiscal balance”, which has led to a decline in the quality of education in the country. Also, hospital workers (doctors, nurses, and others) have reported that they have lost almost 104% of their purchasing power, which puts the country’s health care system at risk.
In addition, according to Erica Giménez, inflation is currently decreasing, among other things, because people are not able to buy goods, which causes stores to reduce prices to sell more. This can lead to a distorted view of inflation as the only measure of economic improvement because, in reality, it is actually masking a more serious problem: people have lost purchasing power. “[The decrease in inflation] is quite a deceptive figure because people cannot consume because their salary is not enough to do so…The macroeconomic meters improve (as Milei wants) by not generating fiscal deficit, but this happens at the cost of the increase of unemployment, of retirement pensions, of the most needy, and of so many who are nowadays below the poverty line,” Giménez affirms.
One of the cases which shone a light on the ridiculous nature of his radical adjustment was what happened with the social kitchens, soup kitchens run oftentimes by left and progressive community organizations. Milei’s government and his Minister of Human Capital Sandra Pettovello were involved in a serious controversy when it was shown that, while the kitchens were subjected to serious budget cuts as part of the fiscal adjustment which made it impossible to feed the increasing number of hungry people, several tons of food were rotting in State warehouses. The Argentine courts had to order the immediate distribution of the food.
The defunding of university education
Probably the most important internal challenge faced by Milei during this first year was the massive demonstrations of students, professors, and university workers against the Executive’s refusal to increase the university budget. The Legislature had passed a law allowing for the budget increase, but Milei refused to comply with it and vetoed it completely. This generated a lot of discontent among Argentine students who took to the streets against the austerity policies of Milei’s libertarian government, and even went so far as to take over dozens of universities and hold university classes in the streets as a form of protest.
Giménez says in this regard, “Those who lose the most with [the veto of the law] are the professors of public universities who today are within the poor population…According to several surveys, the majority of the population agrees with the public character of health, education, etc., and of the Argentine State as protector and benefactor of these areas, so Mieli’s discourse against universities did not work because…public university education has great popular support.”
International relations
Milei has repeatedly stated that Argentina was, at some point in its history, the first world power. Therefore, what his government should do, according to his rhetoric, is to turn it into a great world power again. This “messianic” bet is synthesized in the often-used slogan “Make Argentina Great Again”, which evidently is reminiscent of Trump’s MAGA. “But Argentina never had a geopolitical weight that Milei says it once had as a first power,” Giménez tells us.
During the vote on whether or not to lift the US economic blockade of Cuba, Argentina voted along with almost all countries to call for an end to the blockade. In retaliation, Milei fired his foreign minister for this vote. According to Giménez, Argentina has historically voted against the blockade and supported other progressive international issues because it hopes that other countries will support its intention to recover the Malvinas Islands, which are currently under British control. Milei however, has wanted to assume a Trumpist international logic, says Giménez, and has assumed a fight against LGBTIQ+ groups and measures to curb climate change, while manifesting strong support in favor of Israel and the United States.
That is why the discussions at the UN on the prevention of violence against girls and women, the ceasefire in Palestine, and the withdrawal of the Argentine delegation from COP29, show the rejection of certain political causes which the president himself calls “the Cultural Battle”. As part of this battle he has attacked journalists, politicians and intellectuals, and founded the new think tank Faro Foundation whose objective is to: “To promote the ideas of economic liberalism and the historical values of Argentine culture, in order to contribute to the economic and social development of our Nation, fighting the cultural battle.” This confrontational attitude has led him to have several impasses with regional political leaders such as Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
But this confrontational attitude, more typical of a media commentator, has its limits. For example, Giménez reminds us that after announcing before his presidency that he would never negotiate with China because they are communists, Milei eventually had to negotiate with Beijing because of the importance of that country for the Argentine economy.
Likewise, Milei has openly positioned himself behind the geopolitical line of US President-elect Donald Trump, attending several select meetings organized by the US president. Milei, according to Giménez, intends to position himself, unsuccessfully, as an international leader who will inspire a global political transformation. Perhaps that is why he has made more trips abroad than within the country, especially to the United States. Likewise, his closeness with the International Monetary Fund stands out.
His revisionist ideological struggle
Milei has also had a significant impact on the ideological dispute in Argentina with his bizarre and aggressive speeches.
For example, he said that he would be delighted to drive the last nail in the coffin of former Peronist president Cristina Fernández, who is the subject of a judicial process that seeks to disqualify her politically and put her in prison.
He has also questioned the figures of human rights organizations on the number of dead and disappeared caused by the last military dictatorship in Argentina. His vice-president, Victoria Villarruel, is a descendant of a military family and before his death, had paid a personal visit to Rafael Videla, head of the last military dictatorship. Milei wants Argentines to forget the dictatorship as if it’s something that can be left behind, says Giménez. In order for Milei to advance his political and ideological project to “make Argentina great again”, he must break certain established and socially consensual notions “and generate other discourses closer to capitalism, revisionist, discuss the importance of the university and public employment…and that includes relativizing one of the darkest periods of Argentine history such as the military dictatorship,” Giménez explains.
Milei has vigorously gone after his ambitious goals of economic liberalization and austerity, without asking “at what cost?” The significant rejection of such policies by broad sectors of the population and the deepening of social conflict will continue and intensify. Milei still has three years left in his presidency, so the future of his government is uncertain. What is certain is that he does not seem to be slowing down his pretensions, but rather accelerating the radical neoliberal program that he defends to the hilt.
Zeynep Tufekci (New York Times, 12/6/24) “can’t think of any other incident when a murder in this country has been so openly celebrated.”
The early morning murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was met on social media with a “torrent of hate” for health insurance executives (New York Times, 12/5/24). Memes mocking the insurance companies and their callous disregard for human life abound on various platforms (AFP, 12/6/24).
Internet users are declaring that the man police believe to be the shooter, 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, is certifiably hot (Rolling Stone, 12/9/24; KFOX, 12/10/24). A lookalike contest for the shooter was held in lower Manhattan (New York Times, 12/7/24).
If so many people are unsympathetic at best in response to such a killing, that might be a reason to revisit why health insurance companies are so loathed. The rage “was shocking to many, but it crossed communities all along the political spectrum, and took hold in countless divergent cultural clusters,” the New YorkTimes (12/6/24) noted. Mangione was reportedly found with an anti-insurance manifesto that stated “these parasites had it coming” (Newsweek, 12/9/24), echoing a resentment largely felt by a lot of Americans, and targeted fury at UnitedHealthcare specifically.
UnitedHealthcare has always stood out for exceptionally high rate of claims denial generally in the industry (Boston Globe, 12/5/24; Forbes, 12/5/24). For example, a Senate committee found that “UnitedHealthcare’s prior authorization denial rate for post-acute care jumped from 10.9% in 2020 to 22.7% in 2022” (WNYW, 12/7/24).
The Times (12/5/24) reported that the Senate committee found that “three major companies—UnitedHealthcare, Humana and CVS, which owns Aetna—were intentionally denying claims” related to falls and strokes in order to boost profits. UnitedHealthcare “denied requests for such nursing stays three times more often than it did for other services.”
Increasing dissatisfaction
The perception of the quality of US healthcare has been on the decline since 2012 (Gallup, 12/6/24).
On top of that, Americans generally believe their insurance-centered system is a mess. Gallup (12/6/24) reported that “Americans’ positive rating of the quality of healthcare in the US is now at its lowest point in Gallup’s trend dating back to 2001.”
It continued:
The current 44% of US adults who say the quality of healthcare is excellent (11%) or good (33%) is down by a total of 10 percentage points since 2020 after steadily eroding each year. Between 2001 and 2020, majorities ranging from 52% to 62% rated US healthcare quality positively; now, 54% say it is only fair (38%) or poor (16%).
As has been the case throughout the 24-year trend, Americans rate healthcare coverage in the US even more negatively than they rate quality. Just 28% say coverage is excellent or good, four points lower than the average since 2001 and well below the 41% high point in 2012.
Most Americans are unsatisfied with the healthcare system, say the health insurance system is confusing and opaque, and many have skipped or delayed care because of a bad experience or the lack of timely appointments. A small, but not insignificant number, of Americans believe they have had a negative health outcome as result of their experiences within the healthcare system.
When this inefficient system doesn’t literally kill Americans, it can still kill them financially. “Almost a third of all working adults in the United States are carrying some kind of medical debt—that’s about 15% of all US households,” Marketplace (3/27/24) reported. It added: “This debt is also the leading cause of bankruptcies in the country.”
Many news outlets’ pontificators, however, were incensed that anyone would voice frustration with health insurance when an industry CEO has fallen.
‘Not the time to offer criticism’
After Brian Thompson’s killing, the New York Post (12/5/24) condemned those on social media who “swooned over his killer, speculated on his motives, and wondered if Timothée Chalamet would play him in the movie.”
Responding to the memes and the jokes, many of which were more about the unjust health insurance system than support for vigilante murder, the New York Post editorial board (12/5/24) asked:
Do the jokes point to a society that has become so desensitized by the coarseness of online discussion, so disassociated from kindness, that a baying mob cheers a man’s murder and cries out for more?
And upon Mangione’s arrest, the Post (12/9/24) complained that on social media, “tasteless trolls showered praise on the Ivy League grad.” The Post (12/11/24) also fretted about fake “Wanted” posters for insurance company executives that the paper considered a “a fear-mongering social media stunt to incite hysteria,” adding that the “murder has also spawned a stream of merchandise sympathetic towards the 26-year-old being sold by online retailers, forcing Amazon to pull them from its website.”
Fox News (12/6/24) quoted one of its own contributors, Joe Concha, saying, “I think this encapsulates the far left’s worldview: If you run a company that isn’t to their liking, you deserve to die.” The network (12/7/24) praised Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania for “tearing into” a New York article (12/7/24) that the outlet characterized as saying “resentment over denied insurance claims made…Thompson’s murder inevitable.”
The dismay was felt in other corners of right-wing media. At the Free Press (12/5/24), the brainchild of anti-woke crusader Bari Weiss, Kat Rosenfield wrote:
The people celebrating Brian Thompson’s murder by turning him into an avatar for everything wrong with the American healthcare system remind me of nothing so much as Hollywood screenwriters, cunningly manipulating an audience into cheering on unforgivable acts of fictional violence.
This is not the time to offer your criticisms of the health-insurance industry. And there is never a time to believe that corporate executives are, by their very nature, evil people who deserve to be killed. Yet that is what you’ll see if you go on social media right now and look at comments on news stories about this assassination.
Yet all of these outlets at the same time have run support for Daniel Penny, the man recently acquitted for killing a Black homeless man on the New York City subway (National Review, 6/17/23; Free Press, 10/20/24; New York Post, 12/4/24; Fox News, 12/6/24). These outlets likewise expressed support for Kyle Rittenhouse after he gunned down Black Lives Matter protesters (National Review, 11/19/21; Free Press, 11/17/21; New York Post, 11/19/21; Fox News cited by Media Matters, 11/11/21), and for George Zimmerman when he shot Trayvon Martin (National Review, 6/22/20; New York Post, 7/15/13; Fox News, 7/18/12). In other words, it’s fine to defend vigilantes when they kill unarmed Black people or anti-racist activists, but when a CEO’s life is taken, we must solemnly stay silent on the reasons why such a person might be targeted or why bystanders might not be crying.
Piers Morgan (New York Post, 12/10/24) made this clear when he said “I cheered when I heard” Penny’s acquittal, and felt “shocked and saddened when I saw the footage” of the Thompson shooting. “Those two reactions would surely be the correct and appropriate ones for anyone with an ounce of fairness and humanity in their heart,” he said—because Thompson was “a non-violent, non-threatening, non-criminal man in the street,” whereas Penny’s victim was “a dangerous, mentally ill, homeless man.”
Blame it on Medicare
The Wall Street Journal (12/6/24) made the absurd claim that a medical system based on private insurance is better than any other kind of healthcare system.
It was the Wall Street Journal, the more erudite of Murdoch’s media properties, that really addressed the question of why people might hate health insurance companies. The anger was misdirected, the editorial board (12/6/24) said. Rather, we should look to federally funded healthcare if we want to get mad: “Medicare and Medicaid, two government programs, cover about 36% of Americans,” the paper observed; because they “pay doctors and hospitals below the cost of providing care…many providers won’t see Medicaid patients, resulting in delayed care.”
It’s an odd argument, given that people who receive Medicaid report being happier with their health insurance than people who get it through their employers or pay for it themselves—and people with Medicare are the happiest of all (KFF, 6/15/23). If the federal programs are underpaying healthcare providers, the obvious solution would be to increase funding for them—an initiative the Journal would be unlikely to support.
The board (Journal, 10/10/24) later dismissed critiques of the health insurance industry and passed off Mangione as a “disturbed individual” radicalized by the Internet and said it is “a dreadful sign of the times that Mr. Mangione is being celebrated.”
Journal editorial board member Allysia Finley (12/8/24) followed up by placing the blame on the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”). “Having insurance doesn’t change people’s behavior,” she wrote, but does “cause them to use more care.” The situation, she said, “has gotten worse since Obamacare expanded eligibility” for Medicaid. This portrait of US patients overusing healthcare like sweet-toothed children let loose in a candy store is belied by (among other things) the fact that Americans live 4.7 fewer years than the average of comparable countries (KFF, 1/30/24).
The Journal editorial went on to complain that “some providers prescribe treatments and tests that may be medically unnecessary,” and so “insurers have tried to clamp down on such abuse by requiring prior authorization.” While this “can result in delayed care that is medically necessary…it’s also how insurers control costs.”
In reality, doctors are complaining that insurance bureaucrats are impeding their ability to deliver needed healthcare because of this cost-slashing system (Forbes, 3/13/23). The American Medical Association found “94% of doctors say prior authorization leads to delays in patient care” (Chief Medical Executive, 3/14/23); “one in three doctors (33%) say prior authorization has led to serious adverse events with their patients.”
Journal editorialists appear to believe that doctors are jauntily giving away expensive blood pressure medicine and signing up patients for brain surgery for no particular reason, and the only thing that can stop this carnival of care is some bureaucrat who is trained to say “no.” The reality is that the private insurance system “saves insurance companies money by reflexively denying medical care that has been determined necessary by a physician,” as pediatrician William E. Bennett Jr. (Washington Post, 10/22/19) wrote. This is why people are so unsympathetic to Thompson, who was paid an estimated $10 million annually for imposing medical austerity on patients and providers (PBS, 12/7/24).
Pity the insurance giants
The Washington Post (12/7/24) criticized those who tried to use Thompson’s killing “as an occasion for policy debate about claim denial rates by health insurance companies.” (Note that both the Post and the Wall Street Journal used the same photo of flags at half-mast.)
Right-wing media weren’t the only engaging in scolding. At the Jeff Bezos–owned Washington Post, the editorial board (12/7/24) criticized those “who excuse or celebrate the killing,” as well as those “who do not countenance the killing itself” but “have nevertheless tried to treat it as an occasion for policy debate about claim denial rates by health insurance companies, an admittedly legitimate issue.” The Post added that debate was “fine in principle, but we’re skeptical that this particular moment lends itself to nuanced discussion of a complicated, and heavily regulated, industry.”
The editors nevertheless spent a lengthy paragraph explaining to readers that “controlling healthcare costs requires difficult trade-offs,” and that “even the most generous state-run health systems in other countries also have to face” these trade-offs. The editorial attempted to summon sympathy for
insurers, whose profits are capped by federal law, [and] must contend with consumer demand for ready access to high-priced specialists and prescription drugs—and, at the same time, premiums low enough that people can afford coverage.
Note that insurance company profits are “capped” by requiring them to spend at least 80% of premiums on claims, a percentage known as their loss ratio—but those claims can be paid to providers that are owned by the insurers themselves, “a loophole that makes loss ratio requirements meaningless” (Physicians for a National Healthcare Program, 7/16/21). United Healthcare has been particularly aggressive at this, which is part of the reason its “capped” profits soared to $22.4 billion in 2023.
As for the Post’s assertion that insurance providers should keep “premiums low enough that people can afford coverage,” KFF (10/9/24) found that “Family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose 7% this year to reach an average of $25,572 annually, marking the “second year in a row that premiums are up 7%.” The Center for American Progress (11/29/22) found that employer sponsored insurance “premiums have risen above the rate of inflation and have outpaced wage growth” over the course of a decade. “Escalating grocery bills and car prices have cooled, but price relief for Americans does not extend to health care,” USA Today (10/9/24) reported.
The Post added that all this talk about how Americans are being tortured by the insurance system should wait until next year, “when Congress is to consider whether to keep temporary Obamacare enhancements that have boosted enrollment.”
It is easy to see the material interests of the Washington Post‘s owner at work. Jeff Bezos’ Amazon does not run a health insurance company, but it is fully entrenched in the for-profit medical system. It offers a health insurance marketplace through AmazonFlex, acquired the healthcare provider One Medical last year (NPR, 11/12/23; Forbes, 4/5/24), and offers a pharmacy and other health services.
As one of the world’s richest people, Bezos might have another reason to be worried about people cheering on the murder of CEOs: Amazon is often hated for its monopoly-like grip on online retail (FTC, 9/26/23), as well as charges of price-gouging (Seattle Times, 8/14/24) and union-busting (Guardian, 4/3/24).
‘Last or near last’
The failure of the US healthcare system in one chart: life expectancy plotted against healthcare spending.
The Washington Post‘s line about the comparable ills of “generous state-run health systems” echoed a similar argument from the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial, which concluded:
Government healthcare is a recipe for more care delays and denials. Witness the fiasco in the United Kingdom, where the Labour government reports that more than 120,000 people died in 2022 while on the National Health Service’s waitlist for treatment. To adapt a famous Winston Churchill phrase, private insurance is the worst form of healthcare, except for all others.
The statement that the British or European health systems are worse for people than the US private insurer–dominated system is simply false. Just months ago, the Commonwealth Fund (NBC, 9/19/24) found that the United States
ranks as the worst performer among 10 developed nations in critical areas of healthcare, including preventing deaths, access (mainly because of high cost) and guaranteeing quality treatment for everyone.
The US “ranked last or near last in every category except one,” precisely because
the complex labyrinth of hospital bills, insurance disputes and out-of-pocket requirements that patients and doctors are forced to navigate put the US second to last in administrative efficiency.
The Commonwealth Fund (CNN, 1/31/23) also found that
the United States spends more on healthcare than any other high-income country, but still has the lowest life expectancy at birth and the highest rate of people with multiple chronic diseases.
Healthcare providers in Mexico and Costa Rica are huge draws for Americans in need of care who can’t make it through America’s Kafkaesque system (NPR, 3/8/23). Spain and Portugal are attracting American retirees, and good low-cost health care is one incentive (Travel + Leisure, 6/20/24).
Retreat to the castle
Apparently the CEOs that Fox News (11/13/24) is so concerned about don’t qualify as “professional elites.”
While the Washington Post’s position clearly falls in line with its material allegiance to a system where its owner sits at the apex, the positions from Murdoch are more interesting. As the Democratic Party has lost support among the working class (NPR, 11/14/24; USA Today, 11/30/24), Murdoch’s outlets have touted Donald Trump and the Republican Party as alternatives for working-class voters.
Murdoch and other purveyors of Republican propaganda have promoted the idea that Democrats serve only financial elites and Hollywood producers, and that protectionist policies under Trump will help US workers (New York Post, 7/16/24; Fox News, 11/13/24). Republicans were able to woo voters by complaining about the high price of gasoline and groceries under the Biden administration (CNBC, 8/7/24).
Now Murdoch outlets are fully retreating into their elite castle and telling the rabble to stop complaining about the lack of access to healthcare. The Republicans and their news outlets have worked hard to recharacterize themselves as something more populist, but the Thompson killing has brought back the old narrative that they are, proudly, the champions of the 1 Percent.
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
