Tag Archives: Obamacare

national news, political news, State news

Sen. Cruz denies the obvious

Someone will have to pass the smelling salts to me. I must have been in a stupor the past year or so.

Either that or U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is utterly delusional.

I’ll go with the latter for now.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/cruz-denies-playing-role-in-congressional-gridlock/

Cruz is a Texas Republican who has denied playing a role in shutting the government down over a fight about the Affordable Care Act. He said at Texas Tribune Fest that the “blame” belongs to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Cruz’s role in that debacle? He says he didn’t have any role to play.

Huh? Cruz’s Republican colleague in the Senate, fellow Texan John Cornyn, said otherwise.

So has every observer of Capitol Hill — Democrat, Republican, independent, media observers — said that Cruz was a key player in the shutdown.

He filibustered against the ACA trying to repeal it. Didn’t he do that?

Of course, Cruz blamed the media — which he said sides with Democrats — for the characterizations attached to the junior senator. According to a blog posted by the San Antonio Express-News: “Remarking that Republicans are usually criticized as either crazy or evil, Cruz said he took it as ‘somewhat of a back-handed compliment that the press has invented a third caricature of me, which is crazy.’”

Well, he’s not crazy. Almost everything he’s done publicly since joining the Senate in January 2013, though, reveals a burning ambition. He’s been out front on high-profile issues almost from Day One of his still-young Senate tenure. He ignores Senate decorum. He’s drawn the ire of fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Now he says he had nothing to do with the government shutdown.

The young man possesses some serious hubris.

national news, political news, State news

ACA is hardly an 'abject failure'

Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott declared something the other day during his debate with Democratic opponent Wendy Davis that I cannot let stand.

“Obamacare,” he said, “is an abject failure.”

That’s it, then. The verdict is in. The Affordable Care Act isn’t working. It isn’t providing health insurance to Americans who couldn’t afford it. It isn’t saving lives. It isn’t saving people’s livelihoods.

How does he come to that conclusion?

Oh, wait. I think I know. He’s running for governor in a state that detests the ACA’s author, President Barack Obama. So it makes political sense for Abbott to declare the ACA a complete failure. It makes as much sense for the state’s attorney general to promise, as he did the other night, to bring “more health care to Texans.” The question, however, is this: How — precisely — does the governor do that?

I’ve noted already that the ACA rollout was full if fits and starts, hiccups, mistakes and all manner of “technical difficulties” with the healthcare.gov website that was supposed to be up and running.

However, Americans are enrolling in the ACA. They’re getting coverage now after being unable to get it prior to enactment of the law.

Will this process now proceed hitch-free? Probably not.

The ACA is just a few months old. It’s going to be fine-tuned, tinkered, tightened as we move along.

That’s the case — without exception — with all landmark laws.

International news, national news, political news

Put lawsuit on hold, Mr. Speaker

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner:

You don’t know me, nor do you likely care what I have to say about how you do your job. That is the business of the voters in your Ohio congressional district. Still, I’m going to offer you some unsolicited advice from out here in Flyover Country.

That lawsuit you plan to file against the president of the United States over his alleged misuse of executive authority? Put on the farthest back burner you can find.

You know this already, Mr. Speaker, but the country is going to war — again. The enemy this time is the Islamic State. They’ve beheaded two American journalists and a British aid worker. They mean business. They’re the nastiest of the nasty elements of society.

President Obama is trying mightily to craft an international coalition of nations — including Sunni Arab states in the Middle East — to join the United States in this fight to destroy ISIL. You, sir, should join the fight as well.

The lawsuit you said you want to file is a mere distraction at a time of national crisis. It smacks of partisan petulance. A lot of us out here in the heartland know what gives with the suit. You want to fire up the Republican Party base in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. You want your party to take control of the Senate. That likely will happen no matter what you do regarding that silly lawsuit. I can grasp your anger over the president’s use of executive authority to tinker with the Affordable Care Act. Given the international stakes, though, it all seems so damn petty.

To file suit now would serve as the Mother of All Distractions. It would take the president’s eyes off the ball he needs to watch, which is the one involving the protection of Americans. That’s his No. 1 duty as president and commander in chief. You agree with that, right?

As for your own job as speaker of the House, you’ve got to rally the entire body — not just Republicans — to some form of unity behind the president as he undertakes the task of fighting this despicable enemy.

Picking a court fight now, with the nation’s attention turning to ISIL, disserves the country you say you love.

I believe you do love America, Mr. Speaker. So do I.

So, from one patriotic American to another: Let go of that goofy lawsuit idea.

national news, political news

Raw politics? Are you kidding, Mr. Speaker?

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner has exhibited a stunning lack of self-awareness.

He calls President Barack Obama’s decision to delay any action on immigration reform until after the mid-term election an exercise in “raw politics.” You see, the president wants to give some cover to Senate Democrats who might be in trouble if the president went ahead with his planned use of executive authority to move some immigration changes forward without congressional approval.

So that brings this criticism from the speaker that the president is playing a political game.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/john-boehner-barack-obama-immigration-delay-110665.html?hp=f2

Wow! Boehner takes my breath away.

Has anyone reminded him lately why he is suing the president over his alleged misuse of executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

I do believe that, ladies and gents, is an exercise in “raw politics.”

The only reason Boehner is planning to sue is to appease his GOP base, which wants Obama to drawn and quartered — politically, of course — over changes he’s instituted through the use of constitutional executive authority.

For the speaker to say now that Obama is playing politics with the immigration delay is downright laughable.

Yes, he’s playing politics with this delay. It’s disappointing that the president is not going forward as he pledged to do. But he also understands the importance — as he sees it — in protecting the Democrats’ slim majority in the Senate.

I guess it would be better if someone other than Mr. Frivolous Lawsuit would have shot off his mouth.

 

 

Uncategorized

Lawsuit to be put on hold … perhaps?

The thought occurs to me: If the speaker of the House of Representatives wants the president to concentrate on his job, might he and his Republican congressional colleagues want to delay their goofy lawsuit over Barack Obama’s alleged misuse of executive authority?

Let’s think about this.

The United States is up to its armpits in a variety of international crises: Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Hamas vs. Israel. They are taking up a lot of the president’s time, attention and energy.

The speaker has been critical of the president because, he says, the president has abused his executive authority by changing parts of the Affordable Care Act without congressional approval.

Obama has countered Boehner’s contention by encouraging him to “sue me.”

But now the nation is trying to resolve these crises. Does the president need to be “distracted” by the lawsuit? I don’t think so.

Indeed, with beheadings, rocket attacks, air strikes, Americans in physical danger in hostile places, the idea of going to court over domestic policy differences seems, well, rather irrelevant.

Don’t you think?

Uncategorized

Should Obama counter-sue Congress?

This isn’t going to happen, but a political author thinks President Obama should sue Congress, given that Congress has sued him.

Thomas Geoghegan’s reason? Gerrymandering.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/obama-should-sue-right-back-109990.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.U-ybRVJ0yt-

What a concept.

House Speaker John Boehner has been given authority to sue Obama over the president’s use of executive authority as it relates to the Affordable Care Act. The president has chided Boehner over his threatened lawsuit. Some polling indicates the public is on Obama’s side, that the GOP is engaging in a purely partisan exercise to fire up its base in advance of the mid-term election.

Geoghegan thinks Obama should take it a step further. The gerrymandering of House congressional districts to favor Republicans has disenfranchised voters who cannot elect candidates of their choosing. The deck is stacked in favor of the GOP, thanks to legislatures’ redrawing of the lines to give Republicans a built-in advantage.

He writes: “In Ohio, for example, about half the votes in the House races of 2012 went to Democrats, but the GOP took 12 of the 16 seats. In Pennsylvania, it was more than half, but the GOP grabbed 13 of the 18 House seats.”

There’s more: “Does Obama have such a right to sue? You bet he does. The United States has standing to sue any state that interferes with any attribute of its sovereignty. And when state legislatures try to interfere with the right of the people under Article I of the Constitution to elect House members of their own choosing, they are interfering with such an attribute of U.S. sovereignty—indeed, disrupting a relationship that runs from the people to their national government. So, yes: If Obama chose to fire back, the administration would have standing to say: ‘State legislatures that engage in gerrymandering are interfering with a constitutional scheme that gives the states no role at all in influencing who does or does not go to the U.S. House.’”

Interesting, don’t you think? I do.

Will the president do it? I doubt it. He’s probably wise to let Boehner and the House Republican majority stew in their own juices, while continuing to chide them at campaign fundraisers across the country.

Besides, if he’s going to join the chorus that gripes about Boehner’s “frivolous” lawsuit, it hardly seems right to engage in yet another exercise in frivolity.

Uncategorized

Obamacare is working, poll says

You can say many things about polls. Let’s try this: If you agree with a poll’s findings, you take those findings to heart; if you disagree with them, you dismiss the numbers as being cooked up, fabricated.

I’ll go with the former on the latest CNN poll on the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obamacare-working-cnn-109272.html?hp=r10

A new poll suggests that most Americans believe the ACA is working, if not for them personally, then for someone else.

Does that end the dispute over President Obama’s signature piece of domestic legislation? Hardly. It’s still going strong because critics want to keep the pot boiling.

House Speaker John Boehner says he’s going to sue the president over changes Obama made in the law that delayed the employer mandate provision in the ACA — which Boehner and other critics actually favor. Still, the speaker is mad because the president acted under his own executive authority.

Whatever.

The new poll, though, does bring to mind another political quandary for opponents of Obamacare. Do they really want to roll back a law that has provided health insurance for an estimated 9 million Americans that previously didn’t have it? Do they really and truly want to take back something the federal government has provided?

This is perhaps the stickiest issue facing ACA critics as they campaign for public office across the land.

We still keep hearing talk of attempting to repeal the act — with nothing to replace it. Congress has voted a bazillion times to repeal the ACA; it keeps coming up short. When will it end?

I’ll stick with my mantra that the Affordable Care Act is working. Yes, the rollout was tough, but it got fixed.

I also will suggest that the latest poll exposes Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit for being the frivolous legal action it is.

Uncategorized

Obamacare is — what? — working? Who knew?

The Affordable Care Act has done what? It has reduced the number of uninsured Americans?

Goodness, gracious. That must mean the act — aka Obamacare — is working. It’s doing its job. It’s providing health security for millions of Americans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obamacare-lowers-uninsured-108789.html?hp=l1

A story on Politico.com by David Nather reports: “Survey after survey is showing that the number of uninsured people has been going down since the start of enrollment last fall. The numbers don’t all match, and health care experts say they’re not precise enough to give more than a general idea of the trend.”

And yet, House Speaker John Boehner is suing President Obama because the president allegedly changed a law by postponing the mandatory employer mandate provision in the law — which I believe is what Boehner and his Republican colleagues actually wanted done.

My head is spinning.

The numbers being reported aren’t yet rock-solid. Nather reports there remains a “lot of variation” in the statistics of uninsured Americans. Still, the bottom line is that fewer Americans are uninsured today than when the Affordable Care Act was rolled out.

As expected, Republicans continue to call the ACA a failure. Sen. Ted Cruz told Politico: “Four years ago, before the law was implemented, it was possible to have good-faith disagreements about whether the law would work. Today, seeing the utter disaster that has played out … to me, it is the essence of pragmatism to realize that the law isn’t working, and to repeal it and start over.”

Wait a minute, senator. The law is working. The number of uninsured has declined. Isn’t that the goal?

Uncategorized

These 5 men have tin ears

The five men who voted on the U.S. Supreme Court to reel in a part of the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control provisions deserve a serious scolding.

They’re getting it now in the wake of that 5-4 court ruling that involves “closely held” companies, such as Hobby Lobby.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-decision-5-takeaways-108467.html?hp=r11

They ruled that these firms are not compelled to offer contraception coverage under the ACA. Some of these companies, such as family-owned Hobby Lobby, can cite religious grounds for refusing to provide coverage for female employees. IUDs, for example, are seen by some as a form of abortion. So, the court said, they don’t have to offer that kind of insurance provision.

Five justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito — comprise the majority. Of the four court members who dissented, three of them — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor — are, quite clearly, women; the fourth is Stephen Breyer.

The fact that five men decided this key ruling that affects women provides ammo for those seeking to make inroads in the upcoming mid-term elections. I’m going to bet that we’ll see this ruling show up in campaign ads around the country — perhaps even in Texas — as candidates seek to take note of the decision that has such an impact on the health care that women can receive from their employers.

Let’s add also that all five of the men comprising the court majority were appointed by Republican presidents. Let us also note that one isn’t likely to hear a single word, not one utterance, from those on the left complaining about “unelected judges” wielding too much power without having to answer to the voters for their decision.

The “answering” part will be left ultimately to voters who will get to determine who they want to sit in the president’s office and who they want to appoint the next Supreme Court justice when that opportunity presents itself.

Uncategorized

SCOTUS slaps down women's health concern

I’ll try to figure out what the Supreme Court said Monday in that much-anticipated Hobby Lobby health care case.

The court ruled 5-4 that family owned businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, can exempt contraception coverage for women who work for the company under the Affordable Care Act.

So, let’s see if I have this right: If a female employee of Hobby Lobby wants to prevent a pregnancy through contraception, she is unable to apply for insurance under the Affordable Care Act because, again as I understand it, her employer disagrees with the policy on religious grounds.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-obamacare-108435.html?hp=f2

The employee, therefore, is denied coverage because of her employer’s devotion to his or her faith.

I have to agree with critics of the ruling. Women, they say, have seen their health care put in jeopardy because of a narrow court ruling that applies only to contraception.

Let the firestorm rage all over again.

Hobby Lobby is a fine company. My wife and I shop there on occasion for picture frames and Christmas decorations. It’s also owned by a devote Christian family. I honor their faith as well.

What is troubling is the denial of contraceptives under the ACA and why it’s such a bogeyman in the eyes of Hobby Lobby.

Here’s how Politico reported it: “The contraception coverage mandate isn’t central to the law, the way the individual mandate is. By letting some closely held employers — like family-owned businesses — opt out of the coverage if they have religious objections, the justices haven’t blown a hole in the law that unravels its ability to cover millions of Americans. They didn’t even overturn the contraception coverage rule itself. They just carved out an exemption for some employers from one benefit, one that wasn’t even spelled out when the law was passed.”

The ruling along those true-blue political lines: the five conservative justices outvoting the four liberal ones. Well, that’s the way it goes. I accept the ruling as legit, as opposed to some on the right who two years ago raised holy hell when the court voted, also 5-4, to uphold the ACA.

I accept the ruling. I surely don’t agree with it. I believe a privately held company owner has been given license to stand in the way of a woman’s health care needs on grounds that have little to do with, oh, health care.