|
Tag Archives: election
Raising the Stakes for Health Care
Another Successful Enrollment Report Underscores Importance Of Upcoming Supreme Court Ruling
More than 10.2 million people purchased insurance coverage through the Affordable Care Act in the most recent sign-up period, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services announced yesterday. That number beats the 2015 goal of 9.1 million enrollees previously set by the Obama administration.
The millions of people enrolling and re-enrolling in plans through the insurance exchanges highlights once again that the ACA is working to deliver quality, affordable health care to those who need it. But it also serves as a stark reminder of the stakes surrounding the ruling in King v. Burwell that the Supreme Court is expected to hand down later this month.
Let’s take a closer look at the numbers from the latest successful enrollment report, and what could happen if at least five Supreme Court Justices ignore the overwhelming evidence and strike down insurance subsidies for individuals on the federal exchange.
- 10.2 million: The number of Americans who have enrolled in quality, affordable coverage through the ACA’s marketplaces.
- 85 percent: The percentage of all enrollees receiving tax credits for their insurance premiums — 8.7 million people.
- 87 percent: The percentage of enrollees in the 34 states with federally-facilitated marketplaces receiving premium tax credits — 6.4 million people.
- $272: The average monthly tax credit for the 6.4 million enrollees in states with federally-facilitated marketplaces.
- 287 percent: The percent increase in enrollees’ average premium if the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.
There are 6.4 million Americans who get insurance through HealthCare.gov (instead of a state-run marketplace) and qualify for tax subsidies to help them afford their coverage. Those people receive an average of $272 per month, scaled according to their income, to help them pay. A bad decision in King v. Burwell would remove that subsidy, almost tripling their premiums on average (for some, premiums could spike more than six times the amount they currently pay. A huge number of these people, no longer able to afford coverage, would become uninsured.
But they wouldn’t be the only ones affected. Such a shock to the marketplace would ricochet out and put the entire health insurance system into chaos, causing millions of others to see premiums increase and force health insurance to become unaffordable. All told, according to several studies, more than 8 million people would become uninsured and nearly 10,000 preventable deaths would occur each year.
Couldn’t Congress step in and help correct a terrible Supreme Court decision? That would be the responsible course of action, but we aren’t betting on it. With more than 50 votes to repeal the law, Republican Congressional leaders have been destructive, not constructive. And while conservatives continue to promise a “replacement” plan for the Affordable Care Act, they haven’t proposed any credible alternatives — all of them take us back to the broken system we had before. There’s no reason to expect that to change.
BOTTOM LINE: While we should all cheer another strong enrollment report showcasing the success of the Affordable Care Act, the stakes are only rising for the potential effects of a negative decision in King v. Burwell. Insurance coverage for millions of people hangs in the balance, and the Republican Congress is not offering any serious solutions for them if the Supreme Court chooses ideology over the facts.
Share this:
Cracks In The Big Money Wall
Two Small But Significant Steps To Make Elections Better Took Place This Week
There are two big pieces of election news this week out of Florida, known for its historically torrid election administration. The Supreme Court, following a string of rulings unleashing big money into politics, has finally found a small but significant campaign finance law that it is willing to uphold. Meanwhile, earlier this week, the Florida legislature passed a bill that would finally bring online voter registration to the state — should Gov. Rick Scott sign the bill. The decision and the law together augur a better approach to election administration in Florida and across the country.
In Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that campaign solicitation bans for judicial candidates are constitutional. This follows years of decisions where the Court facilitated the rise of big money in our politics, seven times since 2006. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the four liberal-leaning justices, arguing that “Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot,” and therefore they “cannot supplicate campaign donors without diminishing public confidence in judicial integrity.
Unfortunately, Roberts’ decision did not go far enough. While he acknowledged that campaign contributions to judicial officials could give off the “appearance of corruption,” Roberts contained his opinion to the judiciary. This flies in the face of what we have seen in our elections, as big money’s influence has only increased thanks to Roberts’ Court especially since Citizens United. Ian Millhiser, editor of ThinkProgress Justice, broke down why Roberts’ reasoning is flawed:
Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.
As Justice Ginsburg noted in her concurring opinion, “Numerous studies [including some by CAP!] report that the money pressure groups spend on judicial elections ‘can affect judicial decision-making across a broad range of cases.’” It is inconceivable that big money in non-judicial elections would not have the same effect. The public understands that, which is why they have consistently shown that they are against the rising tide of big money in politics. According to one recent poll, 61 percent of voters oppose the Citizens United decision that ushered in this latest wave of big money politics.
This decision is only the latest demonstration of the importance of our court systems. For more information on the importance of our courts and how we can leverage them to create true progressive change, go to WhyCourtsMatter.org.
Although imperfect, hopefully this momentum on making our election system better for everyone will extend into Florida’s battle over online voter registration. Florida’s Republican-controlled House and Senate passed important legislation that would require online voter registration in the state by October 2017. As shown in over twenty other states that allow online voter registration, registering online is “more accurate, less expensive and a convenience to voters.” Despite the overwhelming evidence, Governor Rick Scott was previously reported to be working to kill the legislation. And his chief election official, Secretary of State Ken Detzner, came out against the bill, oddly claiming that “forces of evil” would sabotage such a system. Online voter registration is good for voters, good for Florida and Governor Scott should bring Florida’s election system into the 21st century by signing this bill into law.
BOTTOM LINE: After a string of poor decisions, and public momentum building for real reform on money in politics, the Supreme Court has finally taken steps, however late and limited, to stem the corrosive effects that big money has in our politics, at least in the judiciary. The Florida law behind the decision is an important piece of ensuring the integrity of the judiciary. But Florida can do even more to strengthen their election system, and Scott should take the opportunity to do so by bringing voter registration into the 21st century.
Share this:
A game-changer for the Amazon
|
Share this:
a message from Greenpeace India …
Greenpeace India is under threat — and could be shut down permanently. 
Keep the environmental movement in India strong. Ask the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to support free speech in India.
|
I’m writing you today because Greenpeace India is fighting for survival.
India is poised to lead the world on tackling climate change and reducing poverty by showing we can move from dirty to clean, renewable energy.
But over the last few months, government authorities here have been doing everything they can to stop our work — from putting travel bans on our staff to blocking our bank accounts. So far, the courts have been on our side and these orders have been overturned.
The relief is only temporary.
Why is this happening? Over the last 15 years, Greenpeace India has had some important victories. Sometimes, we disagreed with the government too. This has now earned us the wrath of India’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
The Indian home ministry seems determined to silence Greenpeace India’s work. Soon, the campaigns we’re running here to protect the forests, for clean air and against dirty energy could be scrapped.
Attacks on freedom of speech and democracy here in India — and it’s not just Greenpeace — threaten our ability to be a major force in tackling climate change and poverty. We need a strong environmental movement in India to solve the most pressing issues of our generation. We need a strong Greenpeace India.
I know this issue isn’t unique to India. Freedom of speech and the right to question powerful people is under threat all over the world. The United Nations helps protect these rights, so ordinary people can speak out and help find solutions to the problems facing our planet.
Please take action today and ask the UN Secretary General to speak up for free speech in India.
Since 2001 Greenpeace India has worked with communities all over India to safeguard our natural environment and better the lives of all our citizens:
- We worked with the forest community of Mahan to save the lands on which their livelihoods depend. Small communities that might otherwise not be heard worked together to take on the might of giant coal companies — and won.
- Together with the people of Dharnai, we’ve shown the possibilities of solar energy in India. A whole village now has electricity for the first time — clean, renewable electricity.
- And after a Greenpeace India investigations showed unsafe pesticides in tea, four major Indian tea producers agreed to phase out their use. Good for tea drinkers and the natural world.
Now instead of being rolled out all over India — and the world — projects such as Dharnai are facing the prospect of being shut down because government authorities are threatening our very right to exist.
Take action now to keep projects like Dharnai alive in India.
If we can’t continue to speak out against climate-wrecking companies, and help lead the fight for clean energy in India, so much will be lost.
I’m proud of our tradition of free speech in India. I’m proud of Greenpeace India. That’s why I’m asking you to join me in standing up for Greenpeace India and speaking up for freedom.
For Free Speech,
Samit Aich,
Director, Greenpeace India
P.S. Stand with Greenpeace India and for free speech by taking action today.
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.