Read a little. Learn a lot. • Tightly-written news, views and stuff • Follow us on Twitter • Be a Facebook Fan • Tumble us!

16 Dec 2011 14:23

tags

Politics: Three major cuts in the shutdown-avoiding omnibus spending bill

  • one In the biggest change, the popular Pell Grant program for low-income students could run dry for as many as 100,000 students, as eligibility standards tighten.
  • two Foreign aid will decline, with a 17 percent drop in the operating budget coming to USAID. It’s part of a larger $6 billion cut coming to the State Department.
  • three The GOP won a health care victory, blocking the IRS’ ability to implement the Affordable Care Act’s provisions in 2012. The individual mandate hits in 2014. source
Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink

09 Nov 2011 13:53

tags

Politics: Ohio referendum brings good, bad news for President Obama

  • good “Issue 2,” on which a yes vote meant approval of the Ohio state GOP’s stripping of public employees’ collective bargaining rights, was resounding defeated with 63% voting no. Gov. John Kasich’s chastened reply: “The people have spoken clearly.”
  • bad Ohioans also passed an amendment to their state constitution, saying they can’t be forced to buy health insurance. So while a union-backed Obama looks stronger now in Ohio, the health care mandate seems to irk voters in the critical swing-state. source
Posted by Chris Tognotti • 0 Comments • Permalink

16 May 2011 15:48

tags

Politics: Newt Gingrich, whatever you want him to be

  • “I oppose the Obamacare mandate”: That quote is very telling, because the truth is, Newt does oppose the Obamacare mandate — because it’s Obama’s. Hearing him musing about the merits of a health insurance mandate just a day before, on Meet The Press, may make you think there’s some sort of hypocrisy, or flip-flop here, but there isn’t. You see, this mandate we’ve got now… it’s Obama’s! Seriously, though — this is nothing new for Newt. You may remember his utter reversal on whether he would intervene in Libya, a clear instance of him espousing policy beliefs simply to appear opposite Obama, rather than having any conviction or integrity behind them. source
Posted by Chris Tognotti • 0 Comments • Permalink

11 May 2011 15:04

tags

Politics: Mitt Romney believed in that individual mandate back in 2007

  • I’d think it’s a terrific idea. I think you’re going to find when it’s all said and done, after all these states that are the laboratories of democracy, get their chance to try their own plans, but those who follow the path that we pursued will find it’s the best path, and we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach.
  • Mitt Romney • Expressing his experience-based belief that health care (and insurance) reform would be helped by an individual mandate, on a 2007 episode of Meet The Press. In other words, one of the quotes Romney is hoping beyond feverish hope not too many Republicans read heading into 2012. The thing is, this does conform with what he’s been insisting, that he supports what he did on health care because it was at the state level (the laboratories of democracy), not the federal level. However, he clearly says here that the mandate would, in fact, be the best plan nationwide. This is a problem — the GOP’s talking points haven’t just been saying that the mandate is bad because it’s federal, they’ve also been saying it’s wrong for the government to force you to buy something. Whether it’s Barack’s federal government, or Mitt’s Massachusetts, that argument ought to stay the same, right? source
Posted by Chris Tognotti • 0 Comments • Permalink

01 Mar 2011 13:50

tags

Politics: Republican response to Obama’s individual mandate deal tepid

  • It always seems these symbolic offerings, ostensibly designed to appease Republicans, end up with a catch. Here, it’s that to apply for a waiver, states must first set up systems that mimic the very federal law they are running away from. Gee, thanks.
  • Brendan Buck, spokesman for Speaker John Boehner • Commenting on President Obama’s proposal to allow states to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, provided that the state demonstrates they have an alternate plan that will maintain similar coverage rates without raising the deficit. His chagrin is curious, because what he’s really complaining about seems to be the very nature of political compromise (and it’s a bit snarky for a spokesman). Considering the individual mandate was a keystone of the original legislation, this proposal seems at bare minimum like a compromise in which both sides get what they claim they want. The argument against the “federal system,” too, is generally that it’s federal, which many Republicans call unconstitutional. So why the hand-wringing over a state-run alternative? source
Posted by Chris Tognotti • 0 Comments • Permalink

28 Feb 2011 13:20

tags

U.S.: President Obama hedges on health insurance mandate

  • old The Affordable Care Act became law, hinged on the concept of an individual mandate. Basically, everybody must buy health insurance, thus lowering the liability costs that the insured must cover for the uninsured. This prompted a slew of legal challenges from the states — mostly ones with Republican governors.
  • new President Obama has announced that he supports legislation allowing states to opt out of the individual mandate by 2014, if they can reasonably illustrate that they can keep the same coverage rates. Is a modest dose of health care reform — in truth, more health insurance reform than anything else — being watered down? source
Posted by Chris Tognotti • 0 Comments • Permalink

14 Dec 2010 08:49

tags

U.S.: Three reasons the health-care ruling isn’t a very big deal

  • first Two other courts have already ruled that it’s constitutional. The difference here? The judge this time was a Bush appointee and partly owns a campaign consulting firm that fought against the bill. (Conflict of interest?)
  • second The only part of the law that Judge Henry E. Hudson overturned? The individual mandate, which forces people to buy insurance. He turned over nothing else in the bill, even though that’s what opponents wanted.
  • third And, the most alarming part for those against the bill? He wrote his decision very narrowly, ensuring that only the one section would be affected. And he didn’t stop the health care bill from being enacted, either. source
Posted by Ernie Smith • 0 Comments • Permalink
 

07 Oct 2010 19:09

tags

U.S.: Federal judge upholds key component of health care reform

  • Much maligned by opponents of health care reform, the individual mandate is the aspect of the law requiring everybody to purchase health insurance (except those who can’t afford to). It’s also the part under attack by reform opponents, who find it unconstitutional and hope to bring down the entire law by way of judicial activism lawsuits against it. Unfortunately for them, a federal judge in Michigan has just upheld the individual mandate’s constitutionality. In her words, here’s why:
  • Interstate commerce
    “The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket is plainly economic,” Judge Steeh said, reaffirming  that the individual mandate falls within Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce.
  • It affects everyone Whether or not individuals purchase insurance has “clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”
  • A unique market
    “The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true.” source
Posted by Seth Millstein • 0 Comments • Permalink
 
 
top tags