Tag Archives: black people

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

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.

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Southern Rites: The Heartbreaking Story of Justin Patterson’s Death

06/07/2015 Nativegrl77

When Gillian Laub started photographing the racially divided town of Mount Vernon, Ga. — with its segregated homecomings and proms — she stumbled onto the story of Justin Patterson, a 22-year-old black man who was killed, on Jan. 29, 2011, by Norman Neesmith, a 62-year-old white man.

posted in Time

Patterson’s story, which further divided Mount Vernon, is the subject of Southern Rites, a HBO documentary premiering on May 18.

Dedee Clarke, Justin’s mother, spoke to TIME.

In HBO’s Southern Rites, photographer Gillian Laub goes to Mount Vernon, Ga., a racially divided town

Gillian Laub:Sha’von, Justin and Santa, 2012

“When I got the call, it was around 3.45 in the morning and my youngest son, Sha’von, said that Justin had been shot and he was dead… For a long time, Sha’von wouldn’t talk about it, he would only tell me things in bits and pieces. It wasn’t until 2013 that he told me the whole story. I think that the thing that bothered him the most was that the gun was actually aimed at him. Justin looked back, saw that and pushed Sha’von out of the way and took the shot himself. It’s something I don’t think he’ll really recover from. He just has to learn to live with it. It’s a day-by-day process, but I don’t think anybody can ever be the same.

The first time I met Gillian was in 2010. My youngest son, Sha’von, was attending the prom that year, and she was photographing it. I thought the work she was doing was great. But I didn’t know that much about her, I just knew that the pictures that she was taking were important. I didn’t get to know her on a deeper level until my son, Justin, died.

[When Gillian shifted her focus to what had happened to Justin], I was, at first, a little reluctant. But I could just see her passion and drive as she talked to me and I knew at that point that she really cared. I was more relaxed around her and I began to open up. But I just remember saying that it wasn’t going to be pretty sight because I was just not in the right state of mind, and she understood that.

You have to feel some kind of compassion when you do this. And Gillian had that; she felt it. And because she felt it, I believed that shows in her work.

Of course, it was very difficult to see Norman Neesmith in Gillian’s film. I had always made it a point not to really look directly at him. And to see him up close and personal in the film, it was very hard. It was hard to watch some of the things that he said. It’s just hard to hear that he never really acknowledged that his daughter invited them into his home. I felt that he thought he was a victim. I don’t think he understands that Justin had a life. He had a daughter. And she will never have her father.

Gillian’s work makes me feel that my son’s death was not in vain. That’s the one thing that I can hope for. I’m hoping that it will help someone. It’s too late for my son, but maybe it can help somebody else.

I’m hoping it will help other mothers to see that you can still survive that kind of pain and. I’m a survivor because God says I am. Everything that I believe in is because of God. He’s the reason that I’m here because there’s no way I could have done any of this by myself. I felt like nobody really cared because the story wasn’t out. It was a while before it was even in a paper. To see it now and to know that people really care, it does make me feel supported. It definitely does. I’m thinking that everyone will have an idea of what happened. This is real life. These people are real people; they feel that pain continuously every day.

My goal here is for people to know and understand that there’s still, very much so, a lot of injustice in this world and something has to be done about it.”

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

The Latest GOP Health Care Ploy

06/07/2015 Nativegrl77

By CAP Action War Room

a repost

The GOP “Alternative” To The ACA Is A Political Ploy, Not A Real Plan

News broke last night of a health care proposal from a group of influential Republicans. Mainstream media outlets from The New York Times to The Washington Post billed it as an “alternative to Obamacare” and the GOP’s plan to “repeal and replace” the law. While that is certainly what the GOP would like the public to think, those evaluations are misleading and incorrect. In fact, this is not a real plan, but rather a political ploy to influence the Supreme Court in their upcoming decision in King v. Burwell .

Let’s take the so-called “alternative” on its face. First of all, three people writing an op-ed and a memo is not a plan to replace a law that is working and providing benefits and protections to hundreds of millions of Americans, including nearly 10 million Americans who have obtained quality, affordable coverage through the marketplaces.

Second, the contents of the proposal demonstrate that its not a serious alternative, because it will dramatically increase costs for lower-income people who can least afford care. The proposal has no essential health benefits, no minimum plan value, no out of pocket limits, no subsidies for cost sharing, and meager tax credits. It would eliminate the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and gut the pre-existing Medicaid program, leaving millions of low-income people currently covered by Medicaid uninsured. And it would go back to the days where insurers could charge women more than men.

Third, we’ve heard this tune before. GOP leaders have promised their own replacement plans dozens of times, and in none of those circumstances has the party passed one of them — let alone voted on, held hearings for, or even coalesced around one. After five years of promises, there is no reason to think that this time will be any different.

Ultimately, factoring in the context of the current health care debate is where the true strategy of Republicans in Congress becomes clear. As the Supreme Court considers the latest attack on the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell, opponents of the law are convinced that the high court will be more likely to strike it down if they have a replacement plan at the ready to mitigate the chaos and meltdown of the health care system. One of the intellectual architects of the 2012 Supreme Court challenge to the ACA has shared the belief that the justices would be more likely to rule against the law if they knew there would a “viable alternative.” And since Republicans have shut down the option of an easy legislative fix if it were necessary, that means they need to create the aura that there’s something else.

Regardless of whatever proposals House and Senate Republicans want to talk about, the fact is that the fate of the health care system rests solely in the hands of nine Supreme Court Justices. To reject the government’s defense of the law, which was commonly accepted just a few years ago by many of the current opponents, would cripple the high court’s reputation as an institution above politics. As Linda Greenhouse writes in a must-read opinion piece for the New York Times, “overturning Obamacare would change the nature of the Supreme Court.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) has said it would be a “stunning act of judicial overreach.”

BOTTOM LINE: The latest GOP health care proposal is just another tactic to accomplish what has been the party’s real goal for years: to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Republicans have not been able to do it electorally or legislatively, so now they are turning to the Courts. No amount of political posturing from congressional Republicans is going to change the very real stakes facing the Supreme Court justices. A ruling for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell would not only fly in the face of the ACA and legal precedent, but the entire U.S. health care system and the millions of Americans benefiting from the ACA — click here to see the profiles of several of them.