Category Archives: ~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

this is a repost

Conservatives Continue To Use The Court To Dismantle The Affordable Care Act

The amicus briefs were due for King v. Burwell¸ the Supreme Court case which threatens to cause a meltdown in the health care system. If the Supreme Court rules against the law, tax credits for health insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces in approximately three dozen states would be eliminated. This case, as we have written in the past, is a thinly veiled attempt by ideologically-motivated conservatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act, despite the overwhelming evidence that the law is working.

Simply put, conservatives have no ground to stand on in making their argument—the text of the law is simply at odds with the plaintiffs’ view. Their case is so shaky, in fact, that many prominent conservatives who are fighting against the law have previously undercut their own arguments:

In a 2013 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gov. Scott Walker said he spent nearly two years studying the law, and found there is no functional difference between a federal and state exchange, “[b]ut, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch was one of six Republicans to file an amicus brief in favor of gutting the law. Yet the brief directly contradicts an op-ed Hatch co-wrote in 2010 in which he wrote that a state establishing its own exchange, “[i]s not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states.”
The Heritage Foundation has supported the challengers in King v. Burwell, despite the fact that they wrote an entire white paper on the basis that subsidies would be available to any enrollee. According to that paper, “whoever controls the AHB exchange,” tax credits will be available.

Recently, the challengers in this case have turned to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to substantiate their case because during debates on the law he insisted that states should take the lead on establishing exchanges. But Sen. Nelson, now retired, set the record straight saying: “I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange, and the final law also reflects that belief as well.”

Much more than a political victory rests on the decision of this case. Stripping premium tax credits from all eligible individuals enrolled in a federal marketplace would have dire consequences. Here are just a few examples:

The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 8 million people would lose health coverage.
Health insurance companies and hospitals have said stopping subsidies in 34 states “would create severely dysfunctional insurance markets,” and “[i]t would leave consumers in those States with a more unstable market and far higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted.”
Public health experts estimate that 9,800 preventable deaths will occur each year if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act.

BOTTOM LINE: King v. Burwell is an ideologically-charged case whose real-world implications are much more serious than political gain. Many conservatives arguing against the law have undercut their argument in the past, showing the weakness of their own case. Conservatives should stop playing politics with the livelihood of the American people. The well-being and financial stability of millions of Americans is much more important that partisan politics.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

I was only 11 years old …. Sara Kruzan via Change.org

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

Hundreds of thousands of youth are at risk of being victims of sex trafficking in America, but our child welfare workers have little education on the issue. Sign my petition and demand that Congress improve child welfare training and protect our youth.

Sign Sara’s petition

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Your Supreme Court June Preview

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

The Supreme Court Will Decide Three Critical Cases This Month

Before the end of this month, the Supreme Court will rule on three cases that could affect the lives of millions of Americans and have a lasting impact on our Constitution. Today, the Center for American Progress hosted a panel discussion with legal experts about what’s at stake as the justices prepare to rule on critical issues like marriage equality, health care, and civil rights.

Here’s what you need to know about these three critical cases:

Healthcare—King v. Burwell: We’ve talked a lot about what’s at stake in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act. But as a refresher: a ruling against the ACA in King v. Burwell would strip premium tax credits away from 6.4 million people and send the health insurance market into chaos. Eliminating federal tax credits could cause more than 8 million people to become uninsured and lead to nearly 10,000 preventable deaths each year.

Marriage Equality—Obergefell v. Hodges: In this case the justices could extend marriage equality to all 50 states. This case combines challenges from four states that have laws that either ban same-sex marriage, fail to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, or both. While the Court is widely expected to rule in favor of marriage equality, the way the opinion is drafted will shape how LGBT rights continue to develop after this case is decided, which will be key given that a ruling for same-sex marriage would mean many LGBT Americans could legally be married one day and legally fired the next.

Civil Rights—Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. This case challenges the decades-old principle that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 should prohibit housing policies that result in discrimination, regardless of whether they were designed to discriminate. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in this case it could make it much harder to fight discrimination in housing—and potentially all civil rights cases. For a more detailed explanation of this case, check out this CAP column.

While some politicians remain divided on these issues, public opinion on these cases is pretty settled: 55 percent of Americans believing the court should not block federal health care subsidies and 61 percent of Americans supporting marriage equality.

The Supreme Court is traditionally considered to rise above the partisanship and politicking of Congress and the executive branch. But as we well know, the Roberts Court has handed down a series of ideologically-charged decisions that have advanced a distinctly conservative agenda. And as the justices prepare to issue opinions on such critical issues, it has rarely been more important to have a judiciary that protects the rights of all Americans equally.

BOTTOM LINE: This month the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to issue landmark decisions on health care, civil rights, and marriage equality. As the branch charged with upholding the rights of all Americans, the Supreme Court should apply the core tenets of our Constitution rather than reflect the ideological crusades of the conservative movement.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Alicia Keys – In Manila (Official Behind The Scenes)

06/11/2015 Nativegrl77

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

3 Key Takeaways From The King v. Burwell Oral Arguments

06/10/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

Key Moments From Oral Arguments Bode Well For The Affordable Care Act

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell today, the latest partisan threat to the Affordable Care Act that threatens to strip subsidies away from millions of Americans in more than three dozen states. While the arguments presented by the lawyers and the questioning from the Justices certainly don’t give us the answer to how the case will turn out, they do provide an early indication of how the Justices may be leaning in their decision. With that in mind, we wanted to highlight three key points from the oral arguments today that could indicate that the subsidies for millions of Americans — and by extension Obamacare as a whole — will be safe when the ruling is handed down in June. For more in-depth analysis be sure to read Think Progress Justice editor Ian Millhiser’s complete analysis.

1. Justice Anthony Kennedy was concerned about what the consequences of a ruling for the challengers would mean. At one point during the arguments, Kennedy, always a potential swing Justice, acknowledged the reality that states would face if tax credits are cut off in states with federally run exchanges: premiums would spike, healthy people would drop out of the marketplace, and a so-called “death spiral” of higher premiums for fewer, sicker customers would ensue. An interpretation of the law that forces states to choose between setting up their own exchanges and eliminated tax credits raises “a serious constitutional problem,” Kennedy said.

2. The Justices got the challengers to admit that context matters. It may seem obvious that context matters — but this is actually somehow a critical debate in a legal argument where the challengers case rests on reading a single clause in place of the clear meaning of the entire law. After a nifty hypothetical from Justice Kagan, Michael Carvin, the attorney for the challengers, responded to “implore” the Justices to make their decision taking into account “the context of the Act as a whole.””

3. For any indication of momentum outside the courtroom, look no farther than right outside the Supreme Court steps. Hundreds of ACA supporters turned out to rally in support of the law and urging the court to protect health care for millions of Americans; meanwhile, just a handful of opponents thought it important enough to show up. The Washington Post writes, “If good organization could win a legal debate, supporters of the Affordable Care Act would triumph.”

Take a look at some of the best signs from the rally:

kvbpic2

kvbpic3

kvbpic1

And if that’s not enough, check out the spate of editorials in support of the law from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Tampa Bay Times, Kansas City Star, Dallas Morning News, Knoxville New Sentinel … (shall we go on? Yes we shall) … Albany Times Union, Orlando Sentinel, Bangor Daily News, and the Toledo Blade.

BOTTOM LINE: We’ve known from the beginning that this challenge to the Affordable Care Act is a politically-motivated, legally weak attack from those trying to use the Court to do what they have been unable to do in Congress or at the ballot box: repeal the Affordable Care Act. After today’s oral arguments, we hope the Justices will see that as well and make a decision that upholds the law, and doesn’t savage the reputation of the court. Momentum is with us.