Tag Archives: Affordable Care Act

medical news, political news

Senate fails — one more time — to repeal Obamacare

2 Comments

When, oh when, are congressional Republicans going to wake up to the fact that the Affordable Care Act is here to stay?

The U.S. Senate tried once again — and failed once again — to repeal the ACA by seeking to tie it to a transportation funding bill. The vote split on party lines, with eight senators not voting.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/obamacare-repeal-vote-fails-in-senate-120638.html?hp=l2_4

Will this failed effort mean the end of future efforts? I am not holding my breath.

As Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., noted, the Senate now has voted 55 times to end the ACA. Fifty-five votes have failed. Meanwhile, she said, 20 million Americans have health insurance who didn’t have it before.

The U.S. Supreme Court — comprising a Republican-appointed conservative majority — has upheld the ACA in two rulings, the second of which brought a suggestion from GOP senators that we ought to make court justices stand for retention, which of course would require a fundamental change in the way the founding fathers established out system of government.

So much for “strict constructionist” views of the judiciary.

No one on either side of the political aisle believes the ACA is perfect. Yes, it has some flaws. Repeal of the law, though, isn’t the answer, particularly when those who want to repeal it keep failing to produce anything approaching a suitable alternative.

So, senators, let’s end the charade. Understand and accept — finally — that the Affordable Care Act is the law. Make it better if you wish. Failing that, then live with it.

legal news, national news, political news

Change the federal judicial system? Please, no

What is it with some American politicians?

A court ruling or two doesn’t go their way and they want to toss aside one of the basic tenets of our federal government? They want to elect federal judges, make them stand for “retention” if they make a decision that upsets some of us?

That’s the view of a leading so-called “conservative” U.S. senator who’s also running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Take it away, Ted Cruz of Texas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-chris-matthews-supreme-court-119891.html

Cruz jousted this week with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews over the setup of the federal judiciary. Cruz doesn’t like the two recent Supreme Court rulings that (a) upheld the Affordable Care Act and (b) legalized gay marriage in the United States.

The junior senator from Texas now thinks Supreme Court justices should stand for retention to enable voters a chance to decide if they want them to keep their jobs.

Matthews, not surprisingly, went semi-ballistic — which is part of his shtick. He brought up the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount. Texas Gov. George W. Bush was leading by 537 votes at that moment over Vice President Al Gore. Gov. Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes, which were enough to elect him president of the United States by a single electoral vote.

The five Republican-appointed justices’ overruled the four dissents cast by the Democratic-appointed justices. Politics? Gosh, do you think?

Conservatives hailed that decision. And why not? It was all done according to precisely the manner allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Some of us might not have liked the outcome, but that’s how it goes. The justices made the call.

Cruz didn’t object then, Matthews reminded him.

The nation’s founders set up a system in which the federal judiciary is intended to be free of political pressure. The president appoints judges and Supreme Court justices, who then are subject to approval by the Senate. They get lifetime jobs and, therefore, are able to rule according to how they interpret the Constitution.

This idea that we should now subject justices to the political will of the people is simply not in keeping with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Political conservatives, such as Sen. Cruz, keep harping on “original intent.” Well, the founders’ “original intent” was to separate the judicial branch of governmentĀ from the political tug-of-war that exists in the legislative and executive branches.

Cruz said he is ā€œreluctant to call for elections,ā€ and said itĀ ā€œmakes him sad.ā€ He added that he has made that call becauseĀ ā€œa majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.ā€

Yes they are, senator.

Let’s leave the judicial system alone.

legal news

Tumult unlikely to let up

gay marriage

It’s been a tumultuous past few days, right?

The Confederate flag has come under intense fire; then the Supreme Court steps in and — in order — affirms the Affordable Care Act and then legalizes gay marriage.

Let the arguments ensue.

As for the gay marriage issue, I want to make only this point.

Those who oppose the court’s ruling as a threat to traditional marriage ought to take a deep breath and wait.

They need to wait to see — and this will take time — if the rate of traditional weddings drops off; or if the rate of traditional divorce increases.

I suspect we’ll see an increase in gay marriages across the land, as same-sex couples now are able to marry openly — and legally.Ā Would that increaseĀ signify a disproportionate representation of the number of Americans who happen to be gay? That remains to be seen as well. I continue to believeĀ the percentage of gay people is as it’s always been; we’ve seen a spike in the percentage of those who have “come out.”

I only can speak for myself and — on this matter — for my wife. Neither of us feels threatened by the court decision. We’ve been at this marriage game for going on 44 years. It’s worked pretty well for us.

In that regard, I’m not yet willing to concede that the court majority’s ruling is going to trigger an avalanche of divorces among heterosexual couples. Nor am I willing to believe that a serious decline in weddings involving men and women marrying each other is on the horizon.

Patience, please. Let’s see what transpires.

legal news

Court switches roles and angers everyone

Think about this for a moment.

Before this past week, political liberals across the United States were angry with the Supreme Court, calling it a body comprising conservative “judicial activists.”

They cite the Citizens United ruling of 2010 in which the court ruled that unlimited amount of money can pour into political campaigns, thus giving the very rich an even more powerful voice in electing public officials.

We’ve witnessed a 180-degree turn.

Conservatives now are chastising the “liberal” court — even though its ideological balance is the same as it was in the Citizens United ruling. Conservatives say the court is “too activist” because it upheld the Affordable Care Act and then ruled that the Constitution guarantees gay people the right to marry.

Liberals dislike the high court. So do conservatives.

Journalists are fond of saying that if “Both sides are mad, then I must doing something right.”

Does the sameĀ truism apply to judges?

 

legal news

14th Amendment means what it says

Well, it’s been an Earth-shaking couple of days at the Supreme Court of the United States, don’t you think?

First, the court upholds the Affordable Care Act, guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans.

Then today comes a ruling that makes gay marriage legal in every state in the Union.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246249-scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-americas-ruler-is-supreme

Today’s ruling is going to cause considerable apoplexy among political conservatives, some of whom now are saying the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters in today’s ruling, said the nation is now being governed by a majority of justices.

Let’s hold on here.

The ruling tosses out statewide bans on gay marriage on the basis of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the document we use to establish a governing framework for the entire nation.

States’ rights? I believe the federal Constitution trumps those rights. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment means what it says, that all citizens are guaranteed the right to “equal protection under the law,” which means that if gay citizens want to marry someone of the same gender, they are entitled under the law to do exactly that.

Is the battle over? Not even close.

It’s going to shift to the issue of religious liberty, where individuals will argue that their faith and their religious opposition to same-sex marriage also is guaranteed under the First Amendment. Some Republican candidates for president are calling for a constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage illegal; good luck with that, as the 14th Amendment stands as the protector of all Americans’ rights to equal treatment under the law.

The court has done what it had to do. It has affirmed what the U.S. Constitution declares in guaranteeing every American the right to marry who they love — no matter what.

 

medical news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

Repeal 'Obamacare'? Are conservatives nuts?

1 Comment

Congressional conservatives have rocks in their heads. They’ve gone ’round the bend. They need some smelling salts.

They’re angry with House Speaker John Boehner who they believe is stalling their effort to get a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act to the desk of the president of the United States — who hails the ACA as his signature domestic legislative achievement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/conservatives-obamacare-repeal-republicans-117364.html?hp=t1_r

Gosh, what do you suppose President Obama is going to do when he receives a bill repealing the ACA?

Sign it into law? Guess again.

Put it on ice? Hardly.

Veto it outright? Yes.

The ACA happens to be working. It’s gaining popularity among millions of rank-and-file Americans — particularly those who now can afford health insurance whereas before they couldn’t.

Their effort is doomed to fail. As Politico reports: “House Republicans have already voted more than 50 times to try to defund, alter or overturn the health care law that conservatives despise. The latest effort, if it happens, would no doubt fail, too ā€” and there are some indications that GOP leaders are ready to move on. But getting a bill to President Barack Obamaā€™s desk and forcing him to veto it would send a powerful symbolic message to the Republican base that House conservatives havenā€™t given up on scuttling the law.”

That’s the point, I guess: make the base happy.

They want the law repealed, no matter what. The rest of the country? Well, the tideĀ appears to beĀ pulling in the opposite direction.

medical news

ACA is working, if uninsured rate is an indicator

One way to measure the success of the Affordable Care Act comes from a new survey by the Gallup organization.

The number of uninsured Americans has declined to 11.9 percent.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/182348/uninsured-rate-dips-first-quarter.aspx

That’s down from 18 percent in the first quarter of 2013, when the ACA took full effect.

I’ll be the first — OK, maybe not the first — to concede that the ACA rollout went badly, with all the hiccups and meltdowns associated with healthcare.gov.

But the whole premise of the Affordable Care Act was to provide health insurance to Americans who didn’t have it and who — without insurance — faced the prospect of losing all their possessions if they were stricken with a catastrophic illness. Indeed, the very definition of “catastrophic” should be enough to frighten every uninsured American.

The decline in the uninsured was felt most dramatically among lower-income Americans, according to the Gallup survey. Those individuals, too, were among President Obama’s target demographic.

So, let’s take a deep breath before we start piling on the ACA, attaching ridiculous pejorative descriptions to it.

The results keep coming in: The Affordable Care Act is doing its job.

 

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, State news, Uncategorized

Who are you calling ‘crazy,’ Rep. Hastings?

It’s one thing to be called “crazy” by someone whose very presence commands respect and dignity.

It’s quite another to be labeled as such by someone who, shall we say, has a bit of a checkered past himself.

All that said, it’s bizarre to the max to see such an eruption of anger at a congressional rules panel hearing between Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the people’s representatives in the government of the world’s most powerful nation.

U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., called Texas a “crazy” state and said he wouldn’t live here “for all the tea in China.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2015/02/crazy-texas-republicans-to-alcee-hastings-dont-mess-with-texas/

Hastings made the crack during a House Rules Committee hearing on the Affordable Care Act and whether Texas would participate in its implementation.

His remark drew a sharp rebuke from Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, who said Hastings had “defamed” the great state of Texas. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but the remark seemed a bit of a diversion from the issue at hand.

I won’t get into defending the state where my family and I have lived for the past 31 years — except to say this: Yes, the politics here aren’t quite to my liking, but the state is chock full ofĀ decent, hard-working, caring, compassionate folks who don’t nearly fit the stereotype that many Americans attach to Texans.

The sunrises and sunsets ain’t bad, either.

As for Hastings, I just wish he wouldn’t have brought up that crazy talk.

This individual once sat on the federal bench. President Carter appointed him to be a U.S. District Court judge — and then he got himself impeached on perjury and bribery charges by a Democratically controlled House of Representatives. The vote was 413-3. How did he fare in a Senate trial? Senators convicted him and he got tossed out of office.

Never fear. Congress welcomed him in 1993 when he won election.

So, let’s stop throwing “crazy” talk around out there, Rep. Hastings. Shall we?

 

International news, medical news, national news, political news

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, IĀ have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.