Tag Archives: ACA

medical news, national news, political news

Cruz plays games with ACA

2 Comments

Ted Cruz wants to “repeal every word” of the Affordable Care Act.

Now the Texas Republican U.S. senator and GOP presidential candidate has enrolled in the act he wants to eliminate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638697/ted-cruz-wants-believe-hes-legally-required-sign-obamacare-hes-totally-wrong/

What gives with the Cruz Missile?

He says he’s obligated to sign up. He’s either (a) wrong, (b) confused or (c) lying.

Any takers on which one? I’ll pass for now.

The ACA doesn’t require members of Congress to sign up for health insurance. He could buy the coverage without having to participate in the District of Columbia health exchange set up under the ACA.

Does the former Texas solicitor general know this? Let me think. I’m guessing he knows that, sharp Harvard Law grad that he is.

Cruz is gaming the system and in the process is playing Republican voters for fools.

national news, political news

Graham writes strategy for GOP failure

Lindsey Graham is saying things his fellow Republicans don’t want to hear.

But they should.

That is why the U.S. senator from South Carolina’s expected bid to become the next president of the United States is likely going to fail. He will be unable to persuade the fire-breathing GOP base that he’s tell them a harsh truth: You can’t govern if you’re angry.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/lindsey-graham-2016-ted-cruz-116372.html?hp=lc1_4

As Politico reports, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas vows to “repeal ‘every word’ of Obamacare and Common Core if he becomes president. He would ‘abolish’ the IRS, flatten the Tax Code so Americans can fill out their taxes on a postcard, and ‘finally, finally, finally’ secure the border.”

Graham is trying to talk some sense into his fellow Republicans by reminding them that governing is a shared responsibility. They need to work with Democrats, not against them, if they expect to get anything done.

My hunch is that his message is falling on mostly deaf ears.

Republicans are mad at Democrats for what they perceive has been a shutting-them-out of the governing process. The GOP response now that it has control of both legislative houses? Payback, man.

Graham said it won’t work.

Here’s how Politico profiles Graham: “Graham, who has served in Congress since 1995 and is an attorney in the Air Force Reserve, is not without a wide range of votes that add to his baggage headed into 2016. He voted for both of President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. He backs Loretta Lynch to be attorney general. He believes climate change is real and that the federal government should do something about it. He’s open to a Simpson-Bowles-type approach to rein in big deficits, something that would raise tax revenues. And he was an architect of the comprehensive immigration bill, something the right wing of his party despises.”

What in the world is so unreasonable about Graham’s approach to governing?

Everything, apparently, according to the far right wing of the Republican Party. Too bad.

 

entertainment news, legal news

Great work, judge, if you can get it

This thought didn’t originate with me. It comes from my friend Jon Mark Beilue, a columnist for the Amarillo Globe-News, who took note of something he saw.

I’m passing it along here.

It is that Judy Scheindlin, aka Judge Judy, I going to rake in tens of millions of dollars annually dispensing “justice” on television.

http://www.tvguide.com/news/judge-judy-contract-2020/

Judge Judy has been given a contract extension that will pay her an undisclosed amount of money through 2020. If history is a guide, it’s going to be for lots and lots of money.

Her Honor earned $47 million in 2014.

As Jon Mark noted in his social media post, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, earns about $225,000 annually. All he and his eight colleagues on the highest court in the land do for a living is determine whether federal laws comport with the U.S. Constitution. They get to decide things like, oh, the fate of the Affordable Care Act, whether someone deserves to be executed for crimes they commit or whether abortion remains legal.

Judge Judy? She gets to scold people for not making good on fender-bender accident claims, or shaving their neighbor’s pet dog or cat, or absconding with a refrigerator load of food. It’s that kind of thing that Judge Judy gets to hear.

For that she earns millions.

As Jon Mark noted: Only in America …

 

political news, State news

Greg Abbott: plaintiff's lawyer in chief

It’s 31 lawsuits — and counting — for Greg Abbott, the Texas attorney general who’s about to become the state’s next governor.

Abbott has sued President Obama over the president’s recent executive order that protects about 5 million illegal immigrants from immediate deportation. He made good on his campaign promise to sue Obama over this issue.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/03/greg-abbott-sues-over-executive-action-immigration/

I must pose some inquiries about this action.

First, how much are these lawsuits costing the state? It strikes me that Abbott — a self-proclaimed fiscally conservative Republican — is running up an incalculable legal tab as he challenges the president over immigration, health care reform and whatever else.

Second, as a Republican who has support tort reform efforts to rein in the cost of court settlements, he’s becoming one of those dreaded plaintiff’s lawyers Republican officeholders have loved to hate. We’ve all heard the mantra that Democrats are plaintiff-friendly, while Republicans look out for the interests of defendants in civil court proceedings. Texans seem to have sided with the GOP on that one, electing an all-Republican state Supreme Court, which rules fairly routinely in favor of business interests who’ve been sued by plaintiffs.

And third, does Abbott really have a case against the president or is he being pressured by the TEA party wing of the GOP to do something — dammit! — to stick it in Barack Obama’s ear? The Texas Tribune reports: “‘It’s ill advised. I don’t think he has standing. He gets the basic terminology wrong, and he protests too much when he says he’s not politicizing it, because all of it is simply about the politics of it,’ said Michael Olivas, an immigration lawyer and professor at the University of Houston. ‘He characterizes what the president did as an executive order — it is not an executive order. It’s executive action.'”

I didn’t used to consider Abbott to be a fiery conservative. I’ve long thought of him as a more thoughtful politician. He could be feeling the heat from the right wing of his party to carry through with his campaign pledge to sue the president one more time.

Well, he’s got 31 lawsuits in the can already. For my money, enough is enough.

 

 

national news, political news

When in doubt, House, sue

Congress is going to court with the president of the United States.

The House of Representatives filed its long-awaited lawsuit against Barack Obama, contending the president misused his executive authority to “rewrite the law” regarding the Affordable Care Act.

I’ll stipulate that I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I’ll bet the farm that Obama didn’t break the law.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/house-files-obamacare-lawsuit-113089.html?hp=b1_l1

He did what the Constitution empowers him to do.

It’s curious, too, that Congress filed the suit the day after Obama delivered that long awaited executive order on immigration, although the lawsuit deals with the ACA exclusively. I guess Speaker John Boehner just couldn’t take it any longer.

The lawsuit, along with the talk of impeachment, is utter nonsense.

Boehner is grandstanding in the worst possible way. It’s not even clear the court will hear the lawsuit, let alone allow to go to trial and be decided by a jury.

The most hilarious aspect of this lawsuit are the claims by Republicans that the president is “overusing” the executive authority granted to him. It’s funny because Obama has signed fewer executive orders than almost any of his immediate predecessors. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the most recent two-term Republican presidents, signed more. Where was the outcry then?

We’ll now get to see how this circus plays out.

Meanwhile, some serious legislating needs to get done. How about seeing the GOP craft a bill on, say, immigration and health care? They say they can do better. Let’s have it.

 

medical news, national news, political news

Affordable Care Act sabatoged from within

Who is this clown Jonathan Gruber?

We know he’s got a big mouth and that he’s careless beyond belief about what he says to whom.

Gruber’s name has surfaced front and center over remarks he made regarding the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/224072-gruber-in-fourth-video-says-public-doesnt-actually-care-about-uninsured

He was recorded saying in 2013 that he considered Americans too stupid to understand the complexities of the landmark health care legislation pushed forward by President Obama. Now we hear him saying in 2010 that Americans “don’t actually care that much about the uninsured.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi supposedly said she didn’t know about Gruber until this firestorm erupted. Then we hear from other sources that she isn’t being truthful about who she knew and when she knew him.

Good grief!

Republicans naturally are up in arms over these revelations about a former White House insider popping off as he has done. Some critics say Gruber’s big mouth gives them ammunition to finally — finally! — muster up the votes to dismantle the president’s signature legislative accomplishment.

Let’s hold on.

The ACA is working. Americans who didn’t have insurance have it now. The law has been upheld by the highest court in America. Key Republicans have joined Democrats in declaring that the ACA is going to stay on the books.

So now some clown shoots off his mouth and that turns a law that’s working into one that’s not?

I think not.

 

national news, political news

GOP lawsuit takes another hit

That much-hyped lawsuit that congressional Republicans planned to file against President Obama has taken another body blow.

Imagine that.

A second law firm has backed out, apparently succumbing to pressure from Democratic groups. The firm declared that Republicans have little or no chance of winning a lawsuit, which they say they’ll file to challenge the president’s use of executive authority to change the Affordable Care Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-cant-anyone-sue-president-160655337.html

Turns out that the law is working. It also turns out that the appetite for suing the president is being abated.

The lawsuit that Speaker John Boehner announced would occur is being exposed little by little for what it has been all along: a political stunt intended to fire up the base of the GOP.

World events and the attention they have demanded of the president and Congress have eclipsed the silliness of such a lawsuit, given the gravity of issues abroad and the goofy intention of Republicans to stick it to the president over a law that’s looking more and more as if it’s here to stay — for keeps!

Yahoo.com reported: “House leaders have now all but given up on finding a new lawyer who will take the case, and Boehner is instead considering assigning the work to the chamber’s in-house counsel, which is a position appointed by the speaker.”

The lawsuit, which lacked merit from the get-go, appears headed for oblivion, where it belongs.

 

political news, State news

Abbott is swimming in campaign cash

Greg Abbott has become a fundraising dynamo in his campaign for governor, which a lot of observers think he’s going to win next month.

He’s got an estimated $30 million in the bank. He won’t spend it all, according to the Texas Tribune.

What’s the deal?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/08/brief/

It appears he’s saving it up for the next campaign in 2018, which could get serious if another Republican — state Sen. Dan Patrick — is elected lieutenant governor.

Patrick might be so darn full of himself that he’ll want to challenge Abbott for governor in four years. I’m worried far less about Patrick’s challenge of Abbott than I worry about what kind of governor Abbott would become.

Here’s the deal.

If Abbott wants to fend off a challenge from the right wing of his party, he’ll have to govern from the far right. That means he’ll let loose with fiery rhetoric about border security, working with Texas congressional Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, appointing right-wing ideologues to all those boards and commissions and perhaps even raising the specter of secession when the moment presents itself.

There might be a formidable Democrat out there who’ll challenge a Gov. Abbott in 2018. Let’s not kid ourselves, though, about where the stiffest challenge might present itself.

It’ll come from within the Republican Party.

As the Tribune reports: “The target of this cash juggernaut, of course, may not be a Democrat at all, but rather GOP lieutenant governor candidate Dan Patrick, who as (Austin American-Statesman reporter Jonathan) Tilove writes, ‘would like to be governor someday.'”

Therein lies the concern of where an Abbott governorship will take the state in the meantime.

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.