********************************************
Hey, Republicans!

You're so protective of the UNBORN...

Why not embrace the children
ALREADY HERE

and languishing at our borders?

C'mon, REPUBLICANS,
be modern-day HEROES!

EMBRACE THE CHILDREN!

Dot Calm

********************************************

"The courts have to get this right"
...that didn't stop SCOTUS from making a ruling based on "sincerely-believed" misinformation in the case of Hobby Lobby....

Did Courts Just Gut Obamacare? There's More to This Story Than You Think

Two federal appeals courts. Two opposite rulings Tuesday. Stay tuned.

AlterNet / By Steven Rosenfeld

July 22, 2014  |  The right-wing war on Obamacare reached a new plateau Tuesday, with two different federal appeals courts issuing opposing rulings—one killing and one upholding the billions of dollars in subsidies that lower the cost of health insurance that 4.5 million people bought on federal government websites in 36 states.

The legal roller coaster began with a 2-1 ruling by a U.S. District Court of Appeals panel in Washington, D.C.. That panel, dominated by conservative judges, held that the subsidies—which are paid by the federal government to insurers to make the policies more affordable—can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in state-run exchanges or in the District of Columbia, but not through the federal government’s HealthCare.gov.

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph for the majority. “At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”

But then several hours later, another federal appeals court panel in Virginia reached the opposite conclusion, and unanimously upheld the same provisions in the health law that allows the federal government to issue the insurance subsidies.

“Having examined the plain language and context of the most relevant statutory sections, the context and structure of related provisions, and the legislative history of the Act, we are unable to say definitively that Congress limited the premium tax credits to individuals living in states with state-run Exchanges,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote. “Simply put, the statute is ambiguous and subject to at least two different interpretations.”

That ambiguity in the legal fine print of the Affordable Care Act is what has allowed anti-Obamacare activists to pursue this strategy to try to upend the law. The federal government runs these exchanges in states where Republicans have refused to implement the law, or where state-run exchanges failed to offer the services under the health reform law. By 2016, more than $35 billion in Obamacare subsidies were slated to make health care more affordable nationwide.

The competing appeals court rulings mean that the issue of federal subsidies will go to the next rung in the judicial ladder—an appeal before all the sitting judges, not a three-judge panel, on either ot both of the Appeals Courts. The White House said that it expected the negative ruling from the Washington-based Court and would appeal in that venue. This is not surprising because legal observers noted that some of the judges who heard the case in Washington were overtly hostile to the law in earlier proceedings.   

“The subsection of the Affordable Care Act dealing with computing the amount of the premium tax credits that make insurance affordable to lower- and middle-income Americans says that those credits should go to individuals enrolled ‘through an exchange established by the state,’” said Timothy Jost, a Washington and Lee School of Law professor, at Balkinization blog, explaining the legal backdrop and starting line of the anti-Obamacare suits.

“But two thirds of the states are not operating their own health insurance exchanges, and are rather served by the federally facilitated exchange. In 2012, the IRS issued a rule authorizing the federal exchange to issue tax credits,” he continued. “ACA opponents… argue it is illegal.”

Until Tuesday, lower federal courts that have upheld the IRS interpretation of the provision were correct. Jost noted that conservatives on the Washington-based Appeals Court panel were openly hostile in hearings last winter. “The case was argued on March 25, 2014 to a three-judge panel consisting of Judges A. Raymond Randolph, Harry Edwards, and Thomas Griffith,” he wrote. “Almost from the moment the argument began, Judge Randolph expressed his profound dislike of the Affordable Care Act. He also demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of the history of the statute, and of the statute itself.”

Jost said that court’s conservative judges misread the legislative history of the law and some sloppy legislative drafting—less precise rather than more precise language—to create a justification for blocking the federal subsidies. Tuesday’s other federal appeals court ruling, upholding the subsidies, highlighted those same legal ambiguities but reached the opposite conclusion.

“One hopes that by the time the D.C. Circuit announces a decision in this case, the judges will have reread the briefs and supporting record and have corrected any erroneous first impressions,” Jost wrote late last week. “This case is too important to be decided on wrong information… A decision for the plaintiffs could deprive residents of 34 states of $36 billion in tax credits by 2016 and could cause the non-group market to collapse in those states. The ensuing disruption of the healthcare system will bring financial ruin to many families and, ultimately, will cost lives. The courts have to get this right.” [emphasis mine]

Unfortunately, one federal court did not get it right, as Jost put it. But it will not be the final word on this case and Obamacare subsidies. Shortly after the ruling was released, the Obama administration said it would ask all of the judges on the Washington Appeals Court to review the ruling. And then the federal appeals court in Richmond issued its ruling in the administration’s favor, underscoring that there is firm basis for the Affordable Care Act's subsidies to continue.

-----
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet, including America's retirement crisis, the low-wage economy, democracy and voting rights, and campaigns and elections. He is the author of "Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting" (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Members Of Congress Take ‘Minimum Wage Challenge’ To Live Off Reduced Budget For A Week

Since he began his minimum wage challenge on Sunday, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, now president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, has had eggs and toast, a bowl of cereal with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and a banana. On Monday, he came to work with a bologna and cheese sandwich and a banana. “I’m not sure what I’m going to have for supper,” he told ThinkProgress.

This is not a typical menu for him. But given that he can only spend $77 a week while he’s taking the challenge, which asks lawmakers to live on a typical full-time minimum wage minus average taxes and housing expenses for a week, he has to “be sensitive about everything that I buy.” Eggs are fairly cheap, he reasoned, and “I have found out that bananas don’t cost a whole lot, so I stocked up on bananas.” He hasn’t eaten any other fruits or salads because they’re too expensive. For the remaining five days of his challenge, “I don’t think I’ll be eating very healthy,” he said. “Bologna’s a lot cheaper than ham. I’ve been eating quit a bit of bread.”

He’s also had to give up some pleasures. “I was walking by a nice restaurant last night near my apartment and people were sitting outside and eating nice food and drinking,” he said. “I was thinking, ‘You know what would be nice? To have a cold beer.’ But you know, I didn’t. Ordinarily I would, but if you don’t have much money there’s a lot of things you can’t do.”

And some things have come up that are more dire than skipped beer. He came down with a cold but was lucky enough to find Tylenol and Afrin nasal spray in his cabinet already. “I don’t think I would have been able to buy that Afrin nasal spray” on the challenge, he noted. “I never think about what medicine costs if i need it… But some people have to think constantly about how they spend their money, and their quality of life is quite different than mine.”

Strickland will be joined by some current lawmakers this week, including Democratic Reps. Jan Schakowsky (IL), Tim Ryan (OH), and Keith Ellison (MN), to mark the fact that Thursday will represent five years since the last minimum wage increase, leaving it at $7.25 an hour. And Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, the group that is organizing the Live the Wage challenge, said on a press call that they want more to join in, particularly Republicans. “We’re asking you to live the wage John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and others who insist the minimum wage is adequate or we don’t need a minimum wage at all,” he said.

The hope is that those who take the challenge get a taste of what life is like on a low wage, even if it’s temporary and they can go back to their normal lifestyles after a week. “I think it’s important for those of us in these leadership positions that get elected by our constituents to represent their views from time to time to take a challenge such as this,” Rep. Ryan said on the call, “to make sure we really are not just understanding this in an intellectual way but really understand the deep challenges that people face.” It’s meant to “bring awareness to this issue,” he said.

He and his family will take the challenge for a week and “make decisions that a minimum wage family would make,” he said. “It’s an opportunity for us to put our money where our mouth is.”

Rep. Schakowsky will also do the challenge with her husband, spending just $77 each on “all of our food, transportation, personal care products, and whatever entertainment,” she said on the same call, “although I doubt there’ll be much of that.” She has already run up against the constraints, saying it took her longer to shop for groceries as she got ready for the coming week because she had to weigh everything out and put some things back to make it all fit in her budget. “It does give us a taste of what it’s like to try to live on a minimum wage,” she said.

She added, “I’m hoping more of my colleagues will take the challenge, especially my Republican colleagues who will decide whether or when to call a vote” on the current legislation that would raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, which was blocked by Republicans in the Senate. “After they would do it, I believe it would be hard for anyone to deny the importance of moving quickly to raise the minimum wage.”

Some state lawmakers have already done similar challenges to push for minimum wage raises in their states, and Schakowsky has taken the food stamp challenge, eating off of a food stamp budget for a week, to protest cuts. States have been more successful in raising wages: ten have passed higher wage floors since January. Progress at the federal level appears stalled, though.