Editorials from around Pennsylvania

Editorials from around Pennsylvania:

DISABILITY CASES TAKE TOO LONG

Sept. 26

Deciding whether a person is eligible for Social Security disability payments is time consuming, sometimes complex, and requires no small amount of documentation.

But this nation, which, for the most part, prides itself on being compassionate, has, for the past half-decade, been guilty of an increasingly terrible disservice to individuals dealing with disabling physical and mental conditions.

As an Associated Press article in last week’s Mirror reported, it’s reached the terrible point where the average wait time for a hearing to decide a disability case is 602 days.

The article indicated that five years ago, the average wait was less than a year.

Why it has taken so long for Washington to deal with the growing problem obviously is rooted in the issue of money. Advocates contend that budget cuts over the past five years have thwarted efforts to reduce the disability backlog.

According to the article, the Social Security Administration’s $12.6 billion budget remained virtually unchanged between 2011 and last year, despite an additional 6 million people receiving either retirement or disability benefits from Social Security.

Regardless of what one thinks about Social Security now or for the future, including what needs to be done to bolster it, the government should not have allowed the decisions issue to become as serious - even tragic - as what it has become over the past five years.

The troubling, worsening issue should have been revealed - and become a serious topic of discussion and action - long before now.

People unable to work because of a disabling condition have experienced extended financial hardships and even died before their cases were scheduled to be heard.

Social Security’s inspector general has reported that last year there were 7,400 people on hearing waiting lists who already had died.

Meanwhile, the list of people waiting for hearings has grown to 1 million applicants - a number hard to fathom in terms of being able to get under control.

Social Security says it intends to add 500 additional administrative law judges to its contingent numbering 1,600, as well as 600 additional support-staff members.

However, with such tight financial constraints, it has to be wondered how long it will take to accomplish that goal, as well as how much larger the hearings waiting list will grow in the meantime.

Deciding disability cases must not become a rubber-stamp process, simply because of the extent of the workload. There’s too much of a financial stake for the nation for cases that are decided wrongly on behalf of applicants.

Because of the time, paperwork and medical involvement necessary in evaluating cases properly and justly, there should be adequate resources in place to carry out that work in a timely and efficient manner. The federal government has been derelict in regard to that responsibility.

Commendably, Social Security is expanding a program that awards benefits expeditiously to people diagnosed with serious conditions and illnesses such as certain cancers. However, that doesn’t alleviate the responsibility to bring the hearing-wait-time issue within a reasonable, dependable parameter.

Now that the issue is front and center, ignoring it is not an acceptable option.

__The Altoona Mirror

__Online: https://bit.ly/2yGNsnP

___

CONGRESS SHOULD MOVE TO EXTEND CRITICAL PAYMENTS TO ’SAFETY-NET’ HOSPITALS

Sept. 23

There’s no disputing the fact that the debate over the newest Affordable Care Act repeal proposal, the bill popularly known as Graham-Cassidy, is getting all the press in Washington D.C. these days.

But bubbling right below the surface is a threat to a critically important - but overlooked - federal program that could hit tens of thousands of low-income Pennsylvanians where they live if Congress fails to act.

Since the 1980s, so-called “safety net” hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients, whose coverage is not covered by such third-party payers as Medicaid, Medicare or CHIP, have annually received payments to help offset the uncompensated care they provide to these patients.

Taken together, Pennsylvania hospitals currently receive about $609 million in these of “disproportionate share payments,” with such local providers as Pinnacle Health and Geisinger receiving more than $14 million in such assistance, according to the most recent data.

According to published reports, thanks to a quirk in the Affordable Care Act’s implementation, these payments were set to be gradually reduced over eight years. For each of the last three years, lawmakers authorized extensions.

Unless Congress acts, the first of a total of $43 billion in payment cuts will kick in starting Oct. 1.

That’s a reduction of about 19 percent nationwide, the data shows. And industry advocates say the cuts, if they’re allowed to proceed, would be devastating.

“If these cuts move forward, it’s going to be very hard for safety net hospitals to continue to offer services to those in their communities who otherwise don’t have access to everything from primary care visits to emergency care services,” Beth Feldpush, an industry advocate for America’s Essential Hospitals, told the trade publication, STAT, this week.

Pennsylvania hospitals stand to lose about $121 million in fiscal 2018 if the payments are not extended.

According to data compiled by the Hospital and Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania, the reductions in payments to Keystone State hospitals are expected to increase annually, hitting a high of $500 million by fiscal 2024.

That’s a hit they can ill afford.

In fiscal 2016, 49 Pennsylvania hospitals, or 29 percent of those statewide, posted negative margins. Such a dramatic reduction in financial support could lead some of those hospitals to dramatically reduce services or to close their doors entirely, the trade association warned in a position paper.

Unlike most issues on Capitol Hill, the debate over these payments is not a partisan one.

The most recent payment extension, approved in 2015, passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 92-8 in the Senate and by a vote 392-37 in the House.

At the time, Pennsylvania’s two United States Senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, both voted to reauthorize the payments.

A spokesman for Toomey said Friday that the Lehigh Valley Republican is “closely examining how the Graham-Cassidy proposal, which would undo Obamacare’s (disproportionate share language) for certain states, would affect Pennsylvanians.”

A spokeswoman for Casey said he continues to support extending the payments.

Congress should move to reauthorize the extension of these payments. And Toomey should join Casey and remain a ’yes’ vote.

__PennLive.com

__Online: https://bit.ly/2yH8hPW

___

MORE POLITICAL FOOTBALLS

Sept. 26

Political protest in the United States predates the National Football League, the presidency and even the country itself. Those patriots who chucked the tea into Boston Harbor in 1773 widely were viewed as mere hooligans at the time, even though they had a valid point about British oppression.

It is difficult to understand why anyone would believe that putting on a professional sports uniform requires an athlete to stifle his views. Athletes earn the uniform in a true, ultra-competitive meritocracy; winning it does not carry an obligation to be silent. Their views, like everyone else’s, are rooted in their experience.

Yet many people - most notably President Donald Trump - believe that NFL players should be denied the same right to protest that is available to all Americans.

That’s not to say that fans must agree with protesting players. They, too, are entitled to their opinions.

Until Sunday, players’ protests were mostly silent and individual. They began last year when former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick “took a knee” during the pre-game playing of the national anthem. That generated a great deal of debate and possibly cost Kaepernick his livelihood, in that no team signed him this year in a league that is desperate for quarterbacks.

It wasn’t until Trump seized upon the protests Friday, furthering divisiveness as a means to endear himself to his political base, that the protests became far more pervasive.

Peaceful protest is part of America’s democratic DNA. Attempting to stifle it to prevent challenges to the majority viewpoint is what truly tarnishes the flag.

__ The Times-Tribune

__Online: https://bit.ly/2yH6SJc

___

TUNNEL VISION: STEELERS MADE THE WRONG CALL SUNDAY

Sept. 26

The Pittsburgh Steelers may have hoped to avoid controversy while waiting in the tunnel during the playing of the national anthem Sunday in Chicago, but the decision to stay off the field itself was viewed as a sign of disrespect for the flag. Now, some angry fans have turned their backs on the black and gold. It goes to show how raw emotions are around the issue of race in America - and how sad it is to let professional football become a battleground in this conflict.

The National Football League, its brand already slipping because of an epidemic of traumatic brain injury among professional and amateur football players, has a crisis on its hands. The Steelers’ example may have been highly publicized, with only lineman Alejandro Villanueva, a former Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, visible during the anthem, hand over his heart as he stood at the entrance of the tunnel. But variations on the theme occurred league-wide Sunday, with some players kneeling for the anthem while others stood, often with their arms locked together. Players from the Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans also stayed off the field during the anthem.

How sad. Sports is a great unifying force. Now it’s become one more source of divisiveness?

The NFL and its team need to respect their fans, most of whom stand for the anthem and expect the players to do so, too. The anthem tells the story of American resilience, a resilience still in demand today as the nation struggles with various problems … including race relations. Standing for the anthem does not make one party to a conspiracy to paper over the nation’s flaws.

Jimmie Johnson, driver of the #48 Lowe’s Chevrolet, stands for the national anthem during pre-race ceremonies for the Monster Energy NASCAR Cup Series ISM Connect 300 at New Hampshire Motor Speedway on Sept. 24 in Loudon, New Hampshire.

But sitting it out is widely considered to be defiant. At the very least, it is bad manners for players to go out of their way to show disrespect for something so many other people hold dear. Those who kneel during the anthem are making a statement that is open to misinterpretation - what some see as using a spotlight to call out racial injustice, others see as dishonoring the nation’s military.

Last season, Colin Kaepernick launched the controversy by first sitting and later kneeling during the anthem when he was a quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers - something he did to draw attention to social injustice and the deaths of African-Americans at the hands of police. Now a free agent, Mr. Kaepernick at the moment plays for no one, perhaps because he’s considered a PR liability.

Other players on various teams have continued taking the knee, however, prompting President Donald Trump to suggest during a rally Friday in Alabama, in his usual colorful language, that NFL teams fire players who refuse to stand for the anthem. He should not have stirred the pot. Athletes, who responded with angry tweets, were wrong to let Mr. Trump bait them. The NFL leadership and many team owners generally stood by their players.

Unable to reach a consensus on what to do during the anthem at Sunday’s game against the Bears in Chicago, or how to respond to Mr. Trump’s comments and the ensuing Twitter storm, the Steelers decided to wait in the tunnel until the singing ended. They may have hoped to stay out of the controversy in this way. “We did not want to appear divided on the sideline with some standing and some kneeling or sitting,” quarterback Ben Roethlisberger said on his website Monday. But the plan backfired. Mr. Roethlisberger’s hometown of Findlay, Ohio - officially known as “Flag City, USA” - must not be proud of its native son.

Coach Mike Tomlin said he went along with the players’ collective decision. It turns out to have been a bad call. The Steelers’ management will need to speak clearly to regain the trust of its many fans.

Some fans, reading the players’ behavior as disrespect, have burned Steelers gear or otherwise forsaken the black and gold. But Mr. Villanueva’s popularity got a bump because he stood apart from his team. Mr. Tomlin has justifiably been criticized for leaving the impression that he was disappointed in Mr. Villanueva’s act, saying that was “looking for 100 percent participation.”

A person should never be criticized for honoring his nation’s flag, although Mr. Villanueva said Monday that he didn’t mean to end up at the front of the tunnel by himself.

On Monday, Mr. Roethlisberger said he regretted the decision to remain off the field. He and defensive end Cam Heyward said the team would be on the field for the anthem this Sunday, when the Steelers face the Ravens in Baltimore.

Which raises the question: What will happen around the NFL this coming Sunday and how will the league respond to it? The NFL official operations manual calls for players to stand on the sideline respectfully as the anthem is played. The NFL should enforce its own policy if it wants fans to respect calls on the field, too.

__ The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2xxLRCW

___

TIGHTENING WELFARE REQUIREMENTS IS NECESSARY

Sept. 26

Welfare reform has always been a highly charged topic, and state Sen. Mike Regan is serving as a lightning rod for the subject.

In July, the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation, 40-9, intended to make sure government aid is getting to the right people and being used correctly.

The measure, awaiting House approval, would tighten public assistance rules for ex-cons with drug and sex offenses, eliminate loopholes regarding the value of vehicles that welfare recipients can own and dictate how much Lottery winnings they can collect.

Regan, a Republican from Cumberland County, said that the legislation was designed with two purposes in mind.

“First,” he said, “to demonstrate to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania that we value their significant tax contributions and are willing to hold the beneficiaries of those tax dollars accountable.

“More importantly,” he said, “to preserve the public assistance for those who are truly in need and deserving.”

In one sense, Regan is correct. Lawmakers do value taxpayers’ significant tax contributions, because they are always hitting us up for more. But that is a debate for another day.

Regan, beating the drum for welfare reform, noted that some of the major components of the aforementioned revisions have already passed House muster, and with overwhelming support.

But it is Regan’s insistence that welfare requirements on sex offenders and drug users be strengthened that has women’s rights groups up in arms.

Regan favors barring welfare recipients from getting benefits if they fail to comply with Megan’s law requirements. And those on public assistance who have been convicted of drug crimes would be subject to drug testing for 10 years in order to qualify for food stamps and other benefits.

Ann Sanders of Just Harvest, a Pittsburgh-based group that lobbies for programs to help feed the hungry, said government should be doing more to help ex-cons stay clean, not adding more hoops to jump through.

“The prison system is the punishment,” she said.

“Once you’ve done your time, the punishment should be over. This will create a revolving door.”

Tara Murtha, a spokeswoman for the Women’s Law Project, said the Senate proposal is “dangerous and counterproductive” and will only “disproportionately target mothers struggling to recover from drug addiction, domestic violence survivors and survivors of sexual violence.”

Democratic Sen. John Yudichak of Luzerne County agrees with Regan.

“Suspending benefits for a decade after multiple drug convictions is a reasonable measure to deter illegal conduct and demand compliance with the law,” he said.

A 10-year suspension seems a bit draconian. Perhaps that language could be reworked to a probation-type penalty.

But reforming public assistance as a whole is a good idea. Welfare was never meant to become a way of life, it was a way to help the poor until they could transition back into the workforce. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was the latest federal government attempt to encourage the move from welfare to work.

We don’t begrudge the public assistance that worthy individuals receive, but we do not condone those who cheat the government, and ultimately taxpayers, by receiving more than their share.

Those unscrupulous individuals are why the system needs to be tightened.

__ The Tribune-Democrat

__Online: https://bit.ly/2wWdYMD