Jan Brewer, liberal hero? The Republican Governor of Arizona—traditionally no friend to the left—has pledged to veto every bill that lands on her desk until her fellow Republicans agree to implement the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare. Yesterday, she made good on the threat, vetoing five bills in quick succession and repeating demands that Republicans in the state house approve the expansion. A local wing of the GOP is putting enormous pressure on Republican state legislators to oppose the expansion, which would provide coverage to an estimated 50,000 low-income Arizonans. (Photo credit: AP) source
While the federal government is committed to paying 100 percent of the cost, I cannot in good conscience deny Floridians that needed access to health care. We will support a three-year expansion of the Medicaid program under the new health care law as long as the federal government meets their commitment to pay 100 percent of the cost during that time.Florida Gov. Rick Scott • Discussing his decision to expand his state’s Medicaid program via the Affordable Care Act, despite previously suggesting he would not. Scott, a former medical industry executive, was a staunch critic of the Affordable Care Act, and his decision puts him in conservative crosshairs. But his decision was partly personal — his mother recently died, and the reminder of her struggle to raise him and his siblings on a low income had given him a new perspective on the matter. “Losing someone so close to you puts everything in a new perspective, especially the big decisions,” he said.
Well that didn’t take long. Do you think the White House should have heard out House Republicans before shooting down Speaker Boehner’s idea?
We can’t afford [Obamacare], and we can’t afford to leave it intact. That’s why I’ve been clear that the law has to stay on the table as both parties discuss ways to solve our nation’s massive debt challenge.Speaker of the House John Boehner • In an opinion piece published by the Cincinnati Enquirer on Wednesday, revealing that the GOP isn’t quite ready to abandon the fight over The Affordable Care Act. The Ohio Republican has said, in no uncertain terms, that he expects President Obama to be willing to negotiate over some/all of the law’s provisions if a “fiscal cliff” deal is to be reached. source
Unfortunately, the comments of this franchisee, who represents less than 1 percent of our system and who owns restaurants in other concepts, has been portrayed as reflective of the entire Denny’s brand. I am confident his perspective is not shared by the company or hundreds of franchisees/small business owners who make up the majority of the Denny’s community. Specifically, his comments suggesting that guests might reduce the customary tip provided to their server as an offset to his proposed surcharge are inconsistent with our values and approach to business throughout our brand.Denny’s CEO John Miller • In a statement addressing the controversy surrounding Denny’s franchisee John Metz’s comments about The Affordable Care Act. A number of Denny’s locations around the country have faced boycotts and/or barrages of angry phone calls from people outraged by Metz’s suggestion of adding a “5 percent surcharge for Obamacare” to menus at locations he owns. source
A federal court denied Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.’s request for a preliminary injunction against offering health insurance coverage of “morning after pill” and “week after pill.” Attorneys for the company plan to appeal this decision.
Without the injunction, Hobby Lobby will have to pay fines up to $1.3 million dollars a day beginning in January if it does not provide the pills, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said.
Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit against the section of the Affordable Healthcare Act in September that mandates coverage of “abortion pills,” citing the religious beliefs of the Green family, which owns it.
It will be interesting to see how far this case goes — and if, in fact, Hobby Lobby will have to eventually give in.
“Papa” John Schnatter, Papa John’s founder and CEO, is back in the headlines once more for his assertion that there’s no way on God’s green Earth he can afford to provide health care for a portion of his employees, as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Now, Schnatter hasn’t been hurting for…
On the Papa John’s tip, Meg sends along 15 cents in a letter to the man himself. Be sure to click for more.
We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.Mitt Romney today. Actually, about 26,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance, so Romney is flatly wrong (and, in our eyes, being a bit disrespectful to about 26,000 American families). He also said that “we don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack.’” source
Yahoo wants to buy Hulu now too. They’re going on an “I...
I’m moving back to New York in a few days. Unlike past...
OMG. I got so...
In this week’s Newsweek, a little...
Tumblr this morning. [h/t anne]
#@#$%!.tumblr.com
Here’s a hidden feature that shipped in...
6M Americans per year will pay a penalty under the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, according to a new CBO estimate
$8B in additional revenue per year will be collected via these penalties source
It’s my 3 a.m. nightmare. While we do not collect information about the immigration status of our patients, the fact that they will be uninsured could be taken as ‘code’ for also being undocumented.Alicia Wilson, Executive director for the La Clinica Del Pueblo community clinic in Washington, DC • Discussing an oft-ignored side effect of the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act during an interview with Reuters. Healthcare officials fear that many of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States may become more hesitant to seek medical attention following the law’s implementation, and they aren’t the only ones. “We were all aware of it,” says senior Obama healthcare advisor Ezekiel Emmanuel, adding, “It’s a visible consequence that we couldn’t do anything about given the politics of the situation.” source (via • follow)
Get rid of ObamaCare! Now! It’s a really good idea … if your plan is to do the exact opposite of what you’re trying to achieve on controlling the deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday said ObamaCare will actually work to shrink, not enlarge, our fiscal budget headache.More details from the CBO here. Important story for truth. (via hypervocal)
![Supreme Court flip-flops: Health care wasn’t the first. It won’t be the last.
Here’s the first entry in our weekly post series, “The Pitch.” This post, written by our very own Seth Millstein, analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Affordable Care Act in wider historical context. Find him on Twitter over here.
Stepping back and looking in wider context: Conservatives were very upset with Chief Justice John Roberts last month when he provided the tie-breaking vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. That anger grew exponentially when reports surfaced that Roberts had originally voted to overturn the law, but then switched his vote to side with the court’s liberals. Why did Roberts flip-flop? How common is vote switching on the Supreme Court? And how often has a single justice’s indecisiveness significantly affected the law of the land? ShortFormBlog reports. (Read more after the jump.)
[[MORE]]
Preface: How justices think
These are not nine all-wise people who retire to a secret room and come up with the answer that nobody else can figure out. They’re nine human beings who are trying to wrestle with the problem the way the rest of us do.
Former SCOTUS clerk Bill McDaniel • Discussing the nature of Supreme Court justices changing their minds. The Court has a very heavy case-load in a given year, and the June period is especially heavy. WIth much wheeling and dealing taking place behind the scene, especially among moderates, it’s very likely that nobody’s mind is made up on any individual case immediately.
Some notable historical swaps
11 decision-changing swaps made between 1991 and 1994 alone
Abortion rights In 1992, a last-minute vote switch prevented the overturning of Roe v. Wade. A case involving a highly-restrictive Pennsylvania abortion law made its way to the Supreme Court. Advocates of the legislation argued that, while the law did indeed violate Roe, Roe itselfwas unconstitutional, and should thus be overturned. During the first vote, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of overturning Roe …but then, at the last minute, Justice Kennedy changed his mind, voting with the liberal wing of the court instead.
VCRs (seriously) Do VHS machines violate copyright law? That was the question before the court in 1983, when the entertainment industry argued that, because the devices enable people to record and pirate copyrighted material, they should be outlawed. The initial vote was 5-4 against the video cassette recorder, but Justice Sandra Day O’Conner switched her vote after the majority opinion was written, thus protecting the rights of future nine-year-olds to tape The Mighty Ducks when it came on TV. A single tear for Emilio Estevez.
Homosexuality In 1986, the court debated whether or not anti-sodomy laws were constitutional. Justice Lewis Powell had originally agreed that “homosexual acts,” as they were ominously referred to back then, were permissible in the privacy of one’s home, but then changed his mind, keeping the ban on sodomy in place. This decision was ultimately less influential than Kennedy’s vote-switch, however: Three years later, the court overturned the ruling, and now gay sex is constitutionally-protected.
Reasons for vote swapping
To put it simply: It’s not always what you think it might be. There are several reasons a justice might change their vote midway through the process (although of course, plebes like us will never know for sure):
image Many people suspect that Roberts switched his vote to protect the court from being seen as an overly-partisan institution — an understandable fear, considering that the court had recently made high-profile decisions that proved very unpopular, such as Citizens United.
roots In the sodomy case, Powell’s decision was reportedly influenced by the fact that the plaintiff in the suit, a gay bartender who had been “caught” having sex with another man in his own bedroom, hadn’t actually been prosecuted, but rather filed a civil suit against the state.
effects The VHS case is an interesting one: While O’Connor agreed that VHS violated copyright law, the majority opinion also overturned a lower court’s ruling (on a different, but related question) that she agreed with. Apparently, it was more important to her to uphold that decision.
» Something to keep in mind: Finally, when discussing the ACA ruling, it’s important to keep some perspective. A lot has been made about how the amount of detail that leaked about the court’s internal deliberations was unprecedented — but that’s what they said in 1986 about the Powell case. (“Such information rarely reaches the public,” the LA Times wrote of the leak.) And the theory that Roberts switched his vote to preserve the integrity of the court as an institution? That’s what they said about Kennedy with regard to the abortion case. In short, while the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of the various justices is no doubt fascinating, the process by which the court upheld the ACA wasn’t as anomalous as a lot of the reporting is suggesting.
Seth Millstein is a writer for ShortFormBlog and The Daily. Reach him at @SethMillstein.](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6wkmmElpZ1qas8z9o1_500.jpg)
Here’s the first entry in our weekly post series, “The Pitch.” This post, written by our very own Seth Millstein, analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the Affordable Care Act in wider historical context. Find him on Twitter over here.
Stepping back and looking in wider context: Conservatives were very upset with Chief Justice John Roberts last month when he provided the tie-breaking vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. That anger grew exponentially when reports surfaced that Roberts had originally voted to overturn the law, but then switched his vote to side with the court’s liberals. Why did Roberts flip-flop? How common is vote switching on the Supreme Court? And how often has a single justice’s indecisiveness significantly affected the law of the land? ShortFormBlog reports. (Read more after the jump.)
Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook
