Transphobic Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty use Lawsuit to intimidate public schools, students, and weaponize "Parental Rights."

Scott Walker's once pure political style of governing is now standard operating procedure in the GOP legislature. And their go-to think tank, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), is now their legal arm designed to use the courts as a way to legislate "from the bench."

The Constitution, as WILL imagines it, demands Parental Rights as a cure for Gender Dysphoria: WILL is suing "the Madison Metropolitan School District over its guidance for staff on how to handle transgender or gender-questioning students." WILL wants schools to make teachers and administrators expose gender-questioning students to disconnected parents. They say it's a constitutional right of parents:

"Constitutional?" About that...

The parental rights the U.S. Supreme Court previously recognized are of this type: there’s no specific clause that specifies that parents are entitled to direct the upbringing of their children, but the Court has (correctly) recognized such a right as an inherent feature of liberty.

It's also not surprising conservative constitutional literalists magically knew that "liberty" inherently applied to parental rights. WILL glosses over any parental responsibility at home of course. 

“By the time Plaintiffs learn the truth, the District may have already enabled their child to transition socially to a different gender identity without their consent, and that transition may become self-reinforcing, reducing the chances that their child will resolve the dysphoria in favor of his or her biological sex, as the vast majority of children do.” 

It's true the vast majority do resolve their gender dysphoria, still...

According to prospective studies, the majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty, with most growing up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, with or without therapeutic intervention. If the dysphoria persists into puberty, it is very likely permanent.

Yes, there's a definite dominionist religious element at the center of WILL's argument. Where could something like that go wrong? Conversion therapy?

“As a direct result of their religious beliefs, if these Plaintiffs’ children ever experience gender dysphoria, they would not immediately ‘affirm’ whatever beliefs their children might have about their gender, but would instead remind them that they were ‘fearfully and wonderfully made,’ see Psalm 139:14, and seek to help them identify and address the underlying causes of the dysphoria and learn to accept and embrace their God-given sex,” the complaint states. 

...and I love this "guarantee," as if anyone has that kind of policy control:

“At the same time, Plaintiffs will never stop loving their children, or love them any less, no matter what they believe about their gender.”

Getting public schools into the middle of gender identity politics is part of the Republican effort to feed into homophobia and bigotry. This has nothing to do with "parental rights."

Point #1; If you believe as strongly in parental rights as WILL is pretending, you'll love this idea. A Missouri Republican used parental rights to get 14 and 15-year-olds into the labor force without public schools permission. This really happened in March of 2011. It never passed:

State Sen. Jane Cunningham says her quest to change Missouri's child labor laws is driven by her belief that the current restrictions are "implying that government can make a better decision than a parent." Children age 14 and 15 must obtain signed permits from the school they attend. She also contends the state's current labor laws are "over the top'' and prevent parents from "teaching a work ethic to their children." "This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age 14. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child aged 14 or 15 obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under 16 will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. 

Point #2: 14-Year-Old workers in Texas too, with a union twist: We should be thankful the Walker administration didn't insist on going this far:

If the bill passes, children as young as 14 will be able to enter into an employment agreement with most employers without parental consent, but they will not be permitted to join a union without a signed parental consent.

Point #3: Parental Rights GONE thanks to Wisconsin Republicans, and WILL did nothing at the time, and still hasn't since it passed. Constitutional rights...?: 

The GOP-controlled legislature has given final approval and sent to Republican Gov. Scott Walker a bill that would loosen child labor laws. Assembly Bill 25 removes the requirement for 16- and 17-year-olds to obtain permits signed by a parent or guardian in order to work. The measure was approved on a party line 20-12 vote. Democrats maintain the bill would allow children to make important life decisions that could adversely affect their educations — against their parents’ wishes.

In 2011, Walker signed into law a provision in the 2011-13 state budget which eliminated restrictions on 16- and 17-year-olds working more than 26 hours during a school week and more than 50 hours a week during vacations.

 If no parent or guardian is available, a DWD officer can sign off for a child worker. These officers are funded by a $10 permit fee paid by the employer. A portion of the fee also goes to the state’s General Treasury. By eliminating this fee, Republicans are cutting funding for the enforcement of child labor laws and at a time when every penny counts, needlessly reducing state revenue.

WILL Lawsuit is against Gender Questioning Students, and not really about Parents, it's Political Transphobia: Wouldn't you know it, a high school junior and sophomore sound more like the adults in the room identifying the real intent of the lawsuit:

The Madison Memorial High School Gender Equity Association began to rally in support of the guidance after WILL’s initial complaint in the fall, said junior Maggie Di Sanza and sophomore Amira Pierotti, two of its leaders. They said the guidance serves as an essential way to protect students’ rights and help them through a period of time that can be challenging, even with parental support.

“It’s just incomprehensible to me that anyone would target these rights and do it with not a care about the students, about kids,” Amira said in an interview last month. “This (lawsuit) isn’t for the betterment of others, this is because you are scared that you don’t know what’s going on with your kids and that you’re afraid they’re trans or gender-expansive because you are transphobic.”

Their advocacy has included circulating a petition to other district schools and creating signage for buildings to reassure students they have staff’s support. Amira cited statistics showing non-binary and gender fluid students are more likely to be kicked out by their parents, report anxiety and consider self-harm. “It’s just a really frightening time right now,” she said, adding that showing “visible support” for those students is important when opposition like this is made public.

WILL is setting up for Constitutional Amendment: Winning this case is an important precursor to a proposed constitutional amendment. Who knew this was out there:

Welcome to The State Republican Supreme Court!

The news headlines should really read, "This is getting ridiculous!!!"

I keep thinking back on a time when Republicans always accused Democrats of using the courts to pass their left-wing agenda. Well, as it turns out, it was another serious case of "projection." 

It's all here; "Conservative Activist Justices" "Legislating from the Bench": Another Walker legacy, the gerrymandered Republicans legislature and their legal attack dogs at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) are now openly admitting the State Supreme Court is conservative and theirs to command. Seriously, they couldn't wait a few days?:

WILL’s lawsuit was filed on the last day that former Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson served on the court. When Hagedorn takes Abrahamson’s place on Thursday, the Court will have a 5-2 conservative majority.

...and...

Republicans filed their lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court just hours after conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn was sworn into office.

...and who could forget how it all started...

On limiting Gov. Evers veto power, it will be interesting to see how the State Republican Supreme Court will sell their eventual limit on vetos and over 80 years of precedent because you know they will:

Esenberg said he may also pursue having the court reverse a 1935 Supreme Court decision to further curtail the veto powers of the governor. Those who have challenged past vetoes have typically lost. In 1988, for instance, the high court ruled the governor held a "quasi-legislative" role and was allowed to strike out words, digits and even individual letters from budgets to string together new sentences.

Republican Voters love it: Even when it's obvious, GOP voters will never want to give up power. Like the originalist's con "interpreting" the legal text which could mean anything; or the lame-duck session stripping the governor and attorney generals of their power...: 

Justice Rebecca Dallet contended ... no state law gave them that power ... the state constitution says lawmakers can meet only when called into a special session by the governor or as provided by law. Lawmakers wrote a work schedule (not law) ... that was enough to comply with the constitutional provisions the majority concluded.

Ultra-Gerrymandering up Next: Would Republicans really try to bypass the governor when it's time to redraw districts? Seriously?

“I’ve heard about it,” Rick Esenberg, executive director of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL), said of the plan. “Whether we would have anything to do with it, I can’t say.”

But, he added, “I understand the argument. The argument is the constitution reserves [redistricting] to the state legislature, and it should be taken literally; the state legislature should do it. It would require that precedent be overruled,” Esenberg acknowledged. But, he added, “I don’t think it’s a frivolous argument.”

Worst Most Corrupt Conservative Activist Supreme Court Shreds Elected Office, blames "administration leviathan" and "Bureaucratic Overlords!"

It took awhile, but Republicans stuck with their plan to corrupt the judicial branch, and now they have what they needed; open and dishonest activist judges/justices legislating from the bench! This last week, Republicans were allowed to limit the governor's and AG's power:

"Constitutional original-ism?" Well, don't forget about what our state constitutional founding fathers intended too, which is now being channeled by our sitting Republican psychic mediums...I mean justices.

Good-bye Superintendent of Public Instruction: Republicans have now secured constitutionally the dismantling of public education in the future, or least greatly hold back reform and progress for years, if not decades. This was a big win for them, and an immeasurable loss for education, similar to what Republicans did to the supreme court:

JS: The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed itself Tuesday by ruling the state schools chief cannot set education policy without permission from the governor, a blow to Democrats who have controlled the state's education agency for decades.

The ruling makes successful an eight-year effort by Republicans ... Tuesday's decision overturns the court's own ruling just three years ago when justices said in Coyne v. Walker that Evers could write rules and regulations related to education policy on his own — without permission from then-Gov. Scott Walker and the Legislature — because the state constitution provides him with the power to do so.

Evers, in a statement, said "The facts didn't change in the last three years and neither did the meaning of the constitution. Only the composition of the court did.”

Surprise, Republicans waited for Majority Activist Justices to pull off Scheme: Conservative lawsuit mill WILL admitted it:

AP: In her dissent, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley noted the new lawsuit was filed after two members of the court that had previously upheld the state superintendent's authority — justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser — were no longer on the court.

"And why are we here again? At oral argument, counsel for the petitioners was asked, 'you wouldn't be here asking a supreme court of the state of Wisconsin to overturn a decision that it just made two years ago if it were the same court, would you?' In response, counsel acknowledged, 'any lawyer has to make strategic decisions about what is likely to be successful.' Indeed," Bradley wrote. "Although nothing in our Constitution has changed since Coyne was decided, what has changed is the membership of the court."

Surprise, Chief Justice twists previous decision into Convoluted Word Salad Nonsense: Not kidding, really:

Chief Justice Pat Roggensack wrote in the majority opinion ... a footnote justifying how the court could reverse itself. She wrote the 2016 opinion was fractured with two concurrences and failed to establish a “common legal rationale.” As result there was no rationale to analyze, opening the door for another look at the issues.

Huh? Roggensack just obliterated precedent/stare decisis. 

Stare decisis is a doctrine, or an instruction, used in all court cases and with all legal issues. Stare decisis means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. These past decisions are known as precedent.

Republican Justice Bradley opinion polluted with Political Trash Talk: Bradley's divisive right-wing writings in the past as a student, as it turns out, weren't so irrelevant after all. I guess she forgot the state Superintendent is an elected office determined by voters, or as Bradley puts it, the "supreme power held by the people." Bradley seems to have an issue with our overly complicated constitutionally created "administrative leviathan" known as state government. 

Justice Rebecca Bradley in a separate concurring opinion criticized what she called "the concentration of power within an administrative leviathan."

"The philosophical roots of rule by bureaucratic overlords are antithetical to the Founders' vision of our constitutional Republic, in which supreme power is held by the people through their elected representatives, and 'the creation of rules of private conduct' is 'an irregular and infrequent occurrence,'" she wrote.

The Job creation mill that is the Republican Party. Can't they get a Real Job?

For a party claiming to hate government, it seems like everything they ends up latching onto government politicians, sharing power.

Hell, I've noticed this for years. The no-talent conservative radio talkers I heard didn't have to know much, they just had to be Republican, it was that easy.

But lately? Wow, it's insane how many freeloader like jobs are suddenly created by former cronies.

Former Walker cronies gave Scottie a big money funded political influence peddling job, so he doesn't have to work. Hey, how about a cruise...:

The Job creating Lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty latches onto Republican Party Money: I posted this recently:

WILL's Conservative Lobbyists-the Final Corruption of our Legal System: Adding to the public's dislike and skepticism of the their own government, WILL is providing that final nail in the coffin of this great experiment:

Cap Times: For the first time in WILL’s existence, four of its employees registered earlier this year with the state’s ethics commission to lobby in the state Capitol.

Just a Game: Love the "high-caliber attorneys" playing to win: 

WILL executive vice president CJ Szafir said “What we’re trying to do is put together a team, maybe like the Golden State Warriors of the conservative movement, which is filled with high-caliber attorneys, communicators and policy analysts that are going to fight for (our) principles.”

Small Government?   

Why is this man teaching yet?

Conservative lawyer Rick Esenberg ... saw a need ... and With the help of a $500,000 grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, WILL launched as a law firm ... The organization now includes 18 attorneys, researchers, writers and other staff, plus two contracted advisers. Its revenues peaked in 2015, at $3 million.

WILL ... plans to double size of the organization in the next five years. “In order to do that, we need to reach out to high-wealth individuals, business executives and ideologically motivated people who share our beliefs and values, to talk about the program and what we’re trying to do,” said Jim Pugh, who joined WILL as vice president of development.

Kevin Nicholson creates Political Job for Himself, latches onto Government Power Leaders: Nicholson failed in his primary bid to take on Sen. Tammy Baldwin, so this is a logical next step. Don't laugh, this is sadly real:

Nicholson has spent the last few months speaking at Republican caucuses and Lincoln-Reagan Day dinners and appeared at the recent state GOP convention.

Now, he's forming a nonprofit organization, "No Better Friend Corp." a 501(c)4 advocacy group to promote conservative public policy solutions. "On a personal level, I'll do what I can to help the president win re-election 2020."

The Rise of Faux Think Tank Research in the rubble left by Scott Walker and Trump!

Faux research and analysis now has market in Trump believers everywhere. The alternative world of resentful politics is expanding in Wisconsin. Thinking they were pretty damn smart, the GOP lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty took their legal successes in front of right wing activist courts and decided to make even more money as a think tank pushing fake research and policy "ideas" that don't make any sense.

Unable to start, compete, and grow on their own, WILL in the beginning accepted a political special interest handout that made them a think tank arm of the right wing Bradley Foundation: 

With the help of a $500,000 grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, WILL launched as a law firm ... now includes research and advocacy arms and employs 18 attorneys, researchers, writers and other staff, plus two contracted advisers ... receiving a $1 million grant from the Bradley Foundation to launch its Center for Competitive Federalism. 

SEVEN REFORMS TO LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE

Let's takes a look at WILL's "nibbling around the edges" ideas, that will do nothing to lower health care costs. Eventually, everything below would be exploited by insurers and the health care industry to increase profits on the sick and dying. My comments are in red:

1. Direct Primary Care – (DPC) offers one of the best avenues to cut out the costly insurance middlemen and allow patients and doctors to decide on care through transparent, up-front prices. In this system, clients pay a monthly fee to a DPC provider for the majority of their health services. 

Reality: This assumes you'll always be in the area where your DPC's are located. Seriously? 

2. Create a Dental Therapy License – The creation of a dental therapy license (less than a dentist but more than a dental hygienist) could increase access and lower the cost of routine dental care, particularly in rural Wisconsin where access to dental care is lacking.

Reality: Plain and simple, this lowers standards and care for the sake of lower prices. Yup, nice trade off there.

3. Free Speech in Medicine – Doctors and patients deserve to have all the information necessary when deciding care but the FDA prevents pharmaceutical companies from freely providing information on off-label uses of prescription drugs. 

Reality: For profiteers! This would allow drug companies to claim almost anything to sell more drugs, make more money. It also assumes doctors don't already know about off-label uses, which is just not true. 

4. Take full advantage of Short-Term Limited Duration Plans –The Affordable Care Act created uniform insurance regulations that eliminated much of the variety of insurance coverage. But not everyone needs, or even wants the same coverage. Short-term limited duration health plans are a flexible, low-cost alternative that consumers deserve access to. In some cases, these plans can be offered for 90 percent cheaper ...Wisconsin should match the federal government and allow consumers to purchase up to three years of coverage.

Reality: This brings back preexisting conditions, and if you get sick on your cheap insurance, get ready to payout that huge deductible first before any insurance payout. WILL is pushing what the industry calls JUNK POLICIES. What a "reform" plan.

5. Take full advantage of healthcare freedom in U.S. Territories –Other US states are subject to the same onerous restrictions as Wisconsin under Obamacare ... since 2014, US territories have been exempted from many of the more onerous parts of Obamacare ... Wisconsin citizens ought to be able to purchase those insurance plans if they happen to fit their needs.

Reality: "Freedom" and "Onerous restrictions?" Oh, you mean getting rid of mandating coverage for preexisting conditions? Last time I looked, Republicans copied the Democrats and ran on protecting preexisting conditions...until now of course. "Onerous."   

6. Reform Retroactive Eligibility for Medicaid – Controlling the cost of Medicaid without compromising care is critical. Wisconsin should remove any incentive for those eligible for Medicaid to avoid enrollment until after a medical procedure. Nearby states such as Iowa and Indiana received waivers from the federal government to implement this change. While this could potentially lead to a savings for the state—Iowa estimates it’s savings at $36 million in the first year—the more important reason is that enrollment could get people to the doctor sooner for more preventative care that could improve health outcomes.

Reality: This is intentionally cruel and a solution looking for problem. Let me understand this; people wait to get free BadgerCare until their sick, because...it's free? I can't wrap my head around this Republican "savings" on  the backs and lives of Wisconsinites. A WTF moment is there ever was one. 

A few Final Thoughts:

1. WILL pretends we didn't go through this all before the ACA became law. 

2. Cheap insurance reduces what insurance companies make...how long do you think they will stay cheap? I experience this in my 20's and 30's, and premiums skyrocketed and deductibles increased. 

3. Cheap insurance means everybody else with full coverage plans will pay more to make up difference. 

4. Nothing above actually lower insurance, or health care prices, or covers people who travel in state or out of state. 

5. Does nothing about increased high deductibles for employers either. 

Perfectly clear; Conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty just declared Wealthy Elites control Republicans and Government!!!

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) is one shining example of the great Republican lie that the legislative branch, and not the judicial branch, should govern and pass laws reflecting the will of the people.

Republicans decided to push the constitutional envelope again, playing the odds that their power grab limiting the incoming Democratic governor's constitutional duties would be defended in the conservative State Supreme Court by...the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty. See a pattern?

It's funny how "'advancing limited government" removes the public's ownership of their own government, and plops it right into the hands of...surprise, the wealthy and big business. "Limited government" is using eminent domain to turn public to private; roads, parks, air, minerals, energy, and civil rights, so they can extract greater profits and gain more power. 

WILL's Conservative Lobbyists-the Final Corruption of our Legal System: Adding to the public's dislike and skepticism of the their own government, WILL is providing that final nail in the coffin of this great experiment:

Cap Times: For the first time in WILL’s existence, four of its employees registered earlier this year with the state’s ethics commission to lobby in the state Capitol.

Just a Game: Love the "high-caliber attorneys" playing to win: 

“What we’re trying to do is have WILL be the leader in the conservative movement,” said WILL executive vice president CJ Szafir. “What we’re trying to do is put together a team, maybe like the Golden State Warriors of the conservative movement, which is filled with high-caliber attorneys, communicators and policy analysts that are going to fight for (our) principles.”

The Wealthy Own US: Can it get any more obvious?  

Why is this man teaching yet?

Conservative lawyer Rick Esenberg ... saw a need for an organized legal effort to defend conservative and libertarian causes. With the help of a $500,000 grant from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, WILL launched as a law firm with a staff of three. In its first year, its budget was about $275,000 ... The organization now includes research and advocacy arms and employs 18 attorneys, researchers, writers and other staff, plus two contracted advisers. Its revenues peaked in 2015, at $3 million, after receiving a $1 million grant from the Bradley Foundation to launch its Center for Competitive Federalism.

WILL admits, Wealthy Donors in Complete Control of Government by well paid Republicans. And yes, thanks to Trump's wealth tax cut, they own us nationally too. The following is very unsettling, which is why I posted this. This isn't a question anymore...

WILL ... plans to double size of the organization in the next five years.

“In order to do that, we need to reach out to high-wealth individuals, business executives and ideologically motivated people who share our beliefs and values, to talk about the program and what we’re trying to do,” said Jim Pugh, who joined WILL as vice president of development in January after more than two decades with the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce. “You need to be strong by making sure that you’re well-funded, clearly understood, you clearly articulate your message and have strong leadership at the top. It’s about the people, the vision and the values.” 

Saving the best for last...CEO tours? Really?

WILL continues to benefit from the Bradley Foundation, the Walton Foundation and the Kern Family Foundation. WILL has started a “CEO Tour” of Wisconsin, and last week, the organization partnered with DonorsTrust to host a fundraiser in Naples, Florida.

Republican right-wing funded "institutions" float fear and resentment with fabricated Medicaid Expansion report now being laughed at by experts.

Shocker? It looks like Scott Walker and the Republicans actually did expand Medicaid, but they just didn't take the federal money...the reality is just settling in:

JS-Guy Boulton: Former Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican-controlled legislature already expanded the Medicaid program. They just didn’t take the federal money available to states to offset much of the cost.

Wisconsin is the only state in the country that expanded eligibility for its Medicaid program — the change made in 2014 ... That decision will have cost the state an estimated $1.1 billion in federal dollars through the current fiscal year, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Just as outrageous, although many suspected this all along, Republicans made a decision after Evers election that they would collude with right-wing groups and "institutes" to spew out phony research just to muddy the waters and call into question any "liberal" Democratic policies coming out of the Evers administration.

It almost worked.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (backed with millions in grants from the Bradley Foundation (and) member of the State Policy Network, a web of right-wing “think tanks”) and UW economics professor Noah Williams (also funded by the Bradley Foundation) defended their phony study. They claimed "cost shifting" to everyone else's private insurance premium? It just wasn't possible. You can't make this stuff up:

There’s also a question about the study’s time frame. The study ended with data from 2014 — before any purported cost shift to private health plans could have occurred in most states. This means that any costs shifted to private insurers wouldn’t have appeared in the cost of health plans until 2016 at the earliest.

The expanded eligibility for Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act didn’t begin until Jan. 1, 2014. Insurers typically negotiate three- to five-year contracts with health systems and other providers ... the price increases would not have been set until the following year, 2015. Insurers and employers who self insure, in turn, set premiums for their health plans for the following year in September or October.

Remember when Walker thought the federal government would end up not paying the 90 percent of the cost of expanded Medicaid? What study informed in of that? The federal government never missed a payment before that. Walker had mistaken the yearly federal changes to the percentage on the fed side as reneging on their promise. Walker is not a smart man, as we're finding out from his now clueless tweets.

But wait, there's more proof the report was pretty damn phony; hospitals most affected financially disagreed with the conclusions:

But studies show that expanding eligibility for Medicaid significantly improved hospital operating profit margins, according to an issue brief from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which does health policy research.

Further, hospital associations have pushed to expand eligibility for Medicaid in states that didn’t — and they presumably wouldn’t take that position if they thought it would increase their costs and force them to raise prices.

Then there's this caveat...

Neither Flanders nor Williams contend the study is perfect. “There are invariably assumptions that have to be made in every econometric analysis,” Flanders said.

...which embolden Republicans to claim the study as factual proof. A study by the way, that will make the rounds in other conservative states now. They don't do this stuff for nothing:

The study’s conclusions didn’t evoke any skepticism by the legislators — Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin; Sen. Duey Stroebel, R-Saukville; Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield; and Sen. Dave Craig, R-Big Bend, — who held the news conference to tout them.

Here's what I've been saying since this "study" came out:

Robert Laszewski of Health Policy & Strategy Associates, a health care consultant and Wisconsin native who has been a sharp critic of flaws in the Affordable Care Act:

“Why are we even having this discussion? The data is there. The studies are there. The practical information is there. When are these people going to give up and finally admit that forcing Wisconsin taxpayers to pay something the federal government has been begging to pay for is not smart policy?”

Desperate Medicaid Expansion myths backed up by predetermined outcome based research.

It costs a lot to keep Americans healthy, and Republicans have a problem with that.  

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) has recently joined forces with Republican legislators to push back against any future problems selling their backward agenda that favors profits over Wisconsinites positive health care outcomes under Medicaid expansion, despite proof to the contrary. 

As Governor, Tony Evers can now explain and compare what polling has revealed to be popular public policies, with the GOP's costly, failing, and stagnant draconian agenda claiming health care should be private, profitable, and a privilege. 

WILL thinks their "institute" of right wing propaganda backed by predetermined research outcomes will muddy the waters enough to keep conservative voters from ever catching on to their purely ideologically driven agenda. 

But discrediting reality and logic...well, that's not gonna be easy. 

A September Wisconsin LFB report showed taking full Medicaid expansion beginning in 2020 would give the state an additional $280 million to work with over the next two-year budget cycle. 

or this...

Wisconsin has missed out on $1.1 billion in federal money since 2014, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The state would save about $513 million over the course of the next two-year budget, which runs from July through June 2021, if it accepted federal money for full Medicaid expansion, the Fiscal Bureau said.

What was the dead giveaway this was a Medicaid expansion hit job? Besides the fact that the study oddly came out right before Evers planned to release his budget, Republican legislators were right there with WILL pushing this nonsense. Could they be more obvious? Seriously, you can't make this stuff up:

 

Less than two weeks from the rollout of Gov. Tony Evers’ budget, Republican lawmakers are touting a health care study, by the conservative WILL and UW-Madison economics professor Noah Williams, (that) found expanding Medicaid in 2020 would increase private insurance consumer costs by $1.145 billion while saving state taxpayers $545 million, for a net cost to the state of about $600 million a year.

The conclusions drew sharp criticism from Donna Friedsam, health policy programs director of UW-Madison’s Population Health Institute. “This study has several methodological and analytical flaws that substantially compromise the validity of its conclusions,” Friedsam said ... pointed to mathematical errors and problems with the study’s conclusion that health care spending is higher in Medicaid expansion states.

Also, consider this logical argument:

Friesam added most economists reject the reasoning that private sector health care costs would increase because health care providers would pass on costs from low Medicaid reimbursement rates to consumers.

According to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation research data, and contrary to WILL's spin:

1. As a whole, the large body of research on the effects of Medicaid expansion under the ACA suggests that expansion has had largely positive impacts on coverage; access to care, utilization, and affordability; and economic outcomes, including impacts on state budgets, uncompensated care costs for hospitals and clinics, and employment and the labor market.

2. Studies show that Medicaid expansion states experienced significant coverage gains, reductions in uninsured rates and health outcomes.

3. Economic measures: No significant increases in state spending from state funds as a result of the expansion through 2015 ... Medicaid expansions result in reductions in uncompensated care costs for hospitals and clinics as well as positive or neutral effects on employment and the labor market.

4. Medicaid expansion is having a disproportionately positive impact in rural areas in expansion states, where growth in Medicaid coverage and declines in uninsured rates have exceeded those in metropolitan areas.

5. No studies have found negative effects of expansion on employment or employee behavior.

6. Two studies found significantly greater increases in cancer diagnosis rates (especially early-stage diagnosis rates), and another study showed an association of expansion with an increase in the probability of early uncomplicated presentation for patients admitted to hospitals for one of five common surgical conditions.

7. Medicaid expansion is associated with Medicaid spending on medications to treat opioid use disorder and opioid overdose.

8. Found expansion to be associated with improvements in disparities by race and income, education level, and employment status

9. Significant reductions in out-of-pocket medical spending. Multiple studies found larger declines in trouble paying as well as worry about paying future medical bills in expansion states relative to non-expansion states ... significantly reduced the percentage of people with medical debt, reduced the average size of medical debt, reduced the average number of collections, improved credit scores, reduced the probability of having one or more medical bills go to collections in the past 6 months, and reduced the probability of a new bankruptcy filing, among other improvements in measures of financial security.

10. Documented provider reports of newly eligible adults receiving life-saving or life-changing treatments that they could not obtain prior to expansion. 281,282,283,284,285,286

11. National research found that there were no significant increases in spending from state funds as a result of Medicaid expansion and no significant reductions in state spending on education, transportation, or other state programs as a result of expansion during FYs 2010-2015. 307

12. A Louisiana annual report on Medicaid expansion reported that expansion saved the state $199 million in FY 2017 due to multiple factors, including the higher federal match rate for Medicaid populations that were previously funded at the regular state match rate, additional revenue from a premium tax on managed care organizations, and a decrease in state disproportionate share payments to hospitals as the uninsured population decreased. 308

13. A new study published in January 2018 found that Medicaid expansion was associated with improved hospital financial performance and significant reductions in the probability of hospital closure, especially in rural areas and areas with higher pre-ACA uninsured rates. 372 

14. Additional studies demonstrate that Medicaid expansion has significantly improved hospital operating margins.

WILL would like us to forget the other states that have already provided real life health and economic outcomes that contradict their projected problems. 

This is the same ploy Republicans have used to argue against the horrors of universal health care, even though every other country in the world depends on that system and pays only half of what we pay in the U.S..

Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty loves short term Junk Insurance policies, and a Desperate Public!!!

The Cap Times column, State Debate, pointed me to an article that was so nonsensical, that I just had to pass it along.

This represents the brain trust of right wing "fellows" at the lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL). WILL has been furiously raising funds in preparation to challenge almost everything Gov. Evers and AG Josh Kaul will put forward as policy.

First up, Covering Preexisting Conditions: Perhaps WILL Research Director Will Flanders thought most readers would just give up and default to his bigger point about gladly buying junk insurance policies if he just wrote a bunch of words that sounded pretty darn official.

Let's look at the "institutes" case for short term junk insurance policies, a big part in Trump's health care reform plan. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers isn't buying into this horrific scheme:

Flanders

Among the executive orders signed by Governor Tony Evers in his first week was a directive for DHS and DATCP to “provide recommendations on how to…. Protect against attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act marketplace with short term plans that do not comply with Affordable Care Act requirements...” 

Flanders went on to explain why short term plans are nothing more than junk insurance policies that don't cover preexisting conditions:

Short-Term Limited Duration (STLD) healthcare plans were originally designed as a stop-gap measure for people who would be lacking insurance for (appropriately enough) a short time …Critically, such plans were exempted from many of the mandates of the ACA, including language on preexisting conditions...

Down the Rabbit Hole: To be clear, if you get sick while on a short term insurance plan, you are now strapped with a preexisting condition, and you can't get another short term policy. Again, Evers is against short term junk plans. 

But Flanders doesn't get that. In an incomprehensible word salad explanation, Flanders somehow ended up blaming Evers for "exacerbating the problem? I know, you've got to read it to believe it:

One result of placing greater limitations on such plans is that people may be left entirely without coverage options if they get sick while on a STLD … individuals who enroll in short term plans and get sick during that plan may not have coverage options when those plans come to an end. This serves to exacerbate the problem of uninsured that people like Evers purport to be so concerned about. 

Junk Insurance, a Necessary Evil: But wait, Flanders isn't done embarrassing himself. He still wants these junk policies in Wisconsin because...the "public is desperate." Of course they are, isn't that how we want people to feel? You can't make this sick stuff up:  

The second, and perhaps even more critical, problem is that limiting the time frame of these plans removes a viable healthcare option for Wisconsinites who may be struggling to afford insurance coverage. Short term plans represent a viable alternative for a public desperate for affordable options.

Rather than being concerned about protecting the viability of the ACA, let’s consider the healthcare needs of Wisconsin’s low- and middle income families, who perhaps don’t want or cannot afford Obamacare plans.

Note: Evers and Democrats aren't simply "protecting the viability of the ACA" for political reasons, they're trying to give everyone affordable access to health care short of universal care.  

Let's hope Evers tells the insurance commissioner and specifically Cari Lee at enforcement, to examine and negotiate lower rates in Wisconsin: 

Wisconsin’s’ average insurance premiums are among the highest in the nation in both urban and rural parts of the state.

Walker's Foxconn cash handout Unconstitutional? Right Wing Lawsuit happy "Institute" might kill Deal.

Sweet irony: The conservative lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty might put a stop to taxpayer handouts to Foxconn and other corporate crybabies begging for money. 

And don't expect the partisan and incompetent DOJ to make a coherent legal argument either to stop this train wreck from happening. This is what happens when Republican ideology collides with contradictory and convenient...Republican ideology. Excuse my gloating. 

Esenberg

The $10 billion Foxconn factory in Racine County could be “imperiled” by a lawsuit challenging an economic development project in Eau Claire, according to the state Department of Justice. At issue is whether local economic incentives can result in cash payments to a private developer or company — which in the Eau Claire case include $1.5 million, but in the Foxconn case total $100 million.

The state wants in to intervene in the lawsuit, Voters with Facts v. City of Eau Claire, filed on behalf of some Eau Claire taxpayers who say the city abused Wisconsin's tax incremental financing law that includes cash payments to a private developer or company.

The lawsuit brought by the conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty on behalf of the taxpayers is currently before the state Supreme Court. Solicitor General Misha Tseytlin says that if the court were to side with the plaintiffs, it "would imperil numerous projects critical to Wisconsin's economic growth, including the Village of Mount Pleasant's recent agreement with Foxconn Technology Group." That project includes $100 million in cash incentives.

The case is now before the state Supreme Court after both the district court and an appellate court ruled in favor of the city.

We'll see...

Rick Esenberg, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Eau Claire lawsuit, is arguing that the $1.5 million direct payment plus half of the redevelopment payment are an illegal property tax rebate for the property owner, which would violate the state Constitution’s requirement that property taxes be assessed in a uniform manner, known as the uniformity clause. Esenberg said it’s possible the argument could also apply to Foxconn.

Walker/Schimel attack Department of Public Instruction pushing costly taxpayer bus rides for kids in Religious Schools.

Under Scott Walker and the Republicans, the law can be manipulated just enough to guarantee a certain outcome, no matter how much it defies the intent of a law or how much it will eventually cost hardworking taxpayers. You can bet the recent State Supreme Court decision taking control of the Department of Public Instruction away from Walker was at the heart of this retaliation.

First, Walker's sweet revenge would make it harder to defend laws he doesn't like in court:

WSJ: Gov. Scott Walker is blocking the state Department of Public Instruction from seeking outside counsel in a lawsuit filed in federal court — a move that comes after the state Department of Justice dropped the education agency as a client in the suit.

UPDATE: According to former AG Peg Laughtenschlager, Walker has a legal obligation to appoint representation to DPI. From the Devil's Advocated Radio show:



Having a right wing "institute" and lawsuit mill ready to defend school privatization special interests with deep pockets helps too:

The parents ... represented by conservative legal group Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty allege the Freiss Lake School District and DPI are denying the parents’ First Amendment rights and are violating their right to exercise religion by not providing transportation for their children to school.

You know story, asking taxpayer to foot the bus ride for their kids, 5 days a week to what is essentially "Sunday school." Very Republican of them, but not very fiscally conservative or small government (I thought they didn't need government help?).

State law requires public school districts to provide transportation to private school students, but only to one school per religious denomination in an attendance area.

Friess Lake school officials denied the children transportation because they live in the attendance area of another Catholic school that already receives state transportation, and is affiliated with the Milwaukee Roman Catholic Archdiocese ... DPI sided with the school district in March.

The right wing lawsuit mill is exploiting a possible loophole that could cost taxpayers lots of money, and prompt other religious schools to rewrite their "articles of incorporation," removing any reference to their religion. 

CJ Szafir, an attorney representing the parents, said based on a former Supreme Court decision, the law requires the DPI to only look at a school’s articles of incorporation to determine a school’s affiliation. Those articles describe the school as a private school governed independently of any denomination. 

It's a big loophole because the school itself could get away with claiming their religion on their website, school name and promotional materials, but never mention it in their article of incorporation.

The school’s website offers a more precise description of the school — “an independent and private traditional Roman Catholic School.”

“This case will come down to what kind of inquiry the government can use to determine whether two private schools are affiliated with one another,” said Szafir.

Walker and Schimel want a narrow interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, wording not mentioned in the article here:

DPI contends the same Supreme Court decision does not prohibit DPI or the school from looking beyond the articles of incorporation to determine whether attendance area of schools within the same religious denomination overlap. In essence, legal precedent asks DPI in these situations to determine whether a school is Catholic, Lutheran or based in other religions, which is what the department did.

Republican Frivolous Lawsuit mill churns out another lawsuit threat, this time aimed at stopping a minimum wage hike.

If the next governor raises the minimum wage, they’re gonna get sued.

Anti-government conservatives have found a way to gum up government by suing government for everything they don’t like. And by using our now conservative activist courts to their advantage, they can get almost anything stopped dead in its tracks.

Lawsuit mill Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is cranking out lawsuits and threats almost every day, winning some of them through court order or by intimidation.  

Hand it to Rick Esenberg for successfully using of one branch to take down the other.

Here's Esenberg's proposal:

First, were Governor Walker or any other governor to use sec. 104.02 to unilaterally raise the minimum wage, there would be one serious lawsuit … sec. 104.02 doesn't say that the requisite wage should be enough to support a family.

Esenberg than forgot all that legal stuff to spout hard right wing justifications to keep poverty right where it is. You know, suggesting the poor are doing better than most, because of their microwave ovens, cell phones and “flat” screen TV’s.  Slow recovery? I wonder why?

Here’s hoping conservative ideologues like Esenberg continue to proudly spout their Dickensian drivel and make every frivolous lawsuit a media event. People will start feeling a little uncomfortable:

"We are right to note that a minimum wage increase might well hurt more people than it helps. We are right to say that distorting labor markets is not way to help poor people. But we ought to acknowledge that, once we recognize that the marginal value to an employer of certain workers will not exceed a relatively low level…"

Please, enough already. 

The Intellectual Giants at The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty...want to be taken seriously with a name like that? Advocate no Accountability to Taxpayers.

You've got to be kidding? There’s an actual group with the cheesy name “The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty?” Gee, think they’re conservative? My god that's embarrassing.

It's another faux pro-education voucher support group asking the important question, “are vouchers constitutional?” But no one is asking that question. Instead opponents of vouchers are pointing out how big a failure they've been the last 20 years. Oh well, here’s their grandiose positioning statement anyway:

Wheeler Report: The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (“WILL”) has released a report, “The Story

of School Choice – Constitutional Challenges and Victories,” that provides a brief –but thorough – description of relevant Supreme Court cases on school choice. It seeks to rebut the unfounded attacks on the school choice program … opposition forces have questioned the program’s constitutionality.

That sounds serious...if it were true, but wait…The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (I’m nearly out of breath saying their name) doesn't really mean what it just said:

These are expressed, not as claims that school choice violates the state or federal constitution, but as a vague raising of “questions” and identification of “issues.” There is a reason for such obfuscation. As the report shows, there are no questions and there is no issue regarding the constitutionality of choice expansion.

And that’s all there is. I’m not kidding, and I don’t believe this is a practical joke by The Onion or Anonymous either.

Thank god we can rely on The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty for staying alert, and asking those questions no one else is asking.

As always, WILL remains vigilant in its defense of the Constitution, the rule of law, and truth in public discourse.

Looks like we dodged another assault on our freedoms and liberties.

Their position is very clear, and could be a huge sore spot for taxpayers; they don't want to be accountable to taxpayers, they just want to take their money.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court has long … held that simply giving public money to parents who, in turn, direct it to choice schools does not automatically turn those private schools into public schools. Most importantly, parents ensure accountability of the program by carefully evaluating which school provides the best education ... empowering parents over bureaucrats and having a healthy competition among schools.

Wisconsin taxpayers should stop their whining, and throw money at private voucher schools, because the parents of kids there will be our watchdogs?  Amazing.