Tag Archives: black

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

Writing the rules for 21st century trade


whitehouselogo

My top priority as President is making sure more hardworking Americans have a chance to get ahead. That’s why we have to make sure the United States — and not countries like China — is the one writing this century’s rules for the world’s economy.

Trade has an important role to play in supporting good-paying, middle-class jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, past trade deals haven’t always lived up to the hype. That’s why I’ve made it clear that I won’t sign any agreement that doesn’t put American workers first.

But we also should recognize that 95 percent of our potential customers live outside our borders. Exports support more than 11 million jobs — and exporters tend to pay their workers higher wages. Failing to seize new opportunities would be devastating not just for our businesses, but for our workers too.

That’s why my Administration is currently negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership — so we can benefit from trade that is not just free, but also fair.

Watch this video my team put together, and then share it with anyone who needs to know exactly what’s at stake.

We have the chance to open up more markets to goods and services backed by three proud words: Made in America. For the sake of our businesses, and American workers, it’s an opportunity we need to take.

But beyond greater access to the world’s fastest-growing region, the agreement will establish enforceable commitments to protect labor, environmental, and other crucial standards that Americans hold dear.

Right now, China wants to write the rules for commerce in Asia. If it succeeds, our competitors would be free to ignore basic environmental and labor standards, giving them an unfair advantage over American workers.

We can’t let that happen. We should write the rules, and level the playing field for our middle class. The first step is for Congress to pass Trade Promotion Authority.

Watch the video, and then pass it along.

After years of shipping jobs overseas, our manufacturing sector is creating jobs at a pace not seen since the 1990s. Rather than outsourcing, more companies are insourcing and bringing jobs back home. Today, more than half of manufacturing executives have said they’re looking at bringing jobs back from China.

Let’s give them one more reason to get it done, by giving me the tools I need to grow our economy, boost exports for our businesses, and give more hardworking middle-class families a chance to get ahead.

Thanks,

President Barack Obama

~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

King Vs Burwell Courting Chaos – SCOTUS will hear arguments


By

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:

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)


~ politics petitions pollution and pop culture

3 Key Takeaways From The King v. Burwell Oral Arguments


By

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.”

CAP-DontTakeMyCare-3-4

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

The Latest GOP Health Care Ploy


By

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.