Connect with us

U.S.

SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on the Future of the Affordable Care Act

Published

3 years ago

on

  • The Supreme Court heard another challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Tuesday, marking the third time the law has gone to the highest court since it was passed a decade ago.
  • The most recent case, filed by Texas and other Republican-led states, focuses on a provision of the law known as the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to have health insurance or face a penalty.
  • The court had previously upheld the mandate as constitutional, arguing it amounted to a tax, but in 2017, Congressional Republicans lowered the penalty to $0.
  • Now, the Republican-led states argue that the mandate can no longer be considered a tax, and thus both the provision and the entire ACA are unconstitutional.
  • Because the Trump administration has not put forward a comprehensive replacement for the ACA, if the justices repeal the law, more than 20 million Americans would lose their health insurance during a pandemic.

Latest ACA Challenge

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday for the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), marking the start of proceedings that will decide the future of essential healthcare benefits for millions of Americans during a pandemic.

The case marks the third time that the ACA, often called Obamacare, has been brought to the highest court since it was signed into law by former President Barack Obama a decade ago. The first two attempts were rejected by the Supreme Court in 2012 and 2015 respectively.

The most recent challenge, brought by Texas and other Republican-led states and backed by the administration of President Donald Trump, centers around a provision of the law known as the individual mandate, which required all Americans to either have some kind of health insurance or pay a penalty.

That specific provision has been one of the most controversial elements of the law, and when it was brought before the justices in 2012, the court upheld the mandate 5-4 on the grounds that it amounted to a tax and thus fell under Congress’ taxing power.

But in 2017, the Republican-held Congress passed a sweeping tax bill that tweaked the individual mandate by setting the penalty for not having health care to $0. Now, the GOP-led states leading this most recent challenge are arguing that because the mandate is zeroed out and no longer raises revenues, it can no longer a tax and thus is unconstitutional.

What’s more — and this is the key part here — they are also claiming that the individual mandate is so ingrained in the ACA that it cannot be separated from the law without scrapping the whole thing. In other words: the Republican states believe that the entire ACA was rendered unconstitutional when the Republicans Congress zeroed out the mandate.

Now, notably, many legal experts do believe the argument that an entire law should be rolled back because one part is problematic is ambitious, to say the least. While some of the courts conservatives have implied that they are hesitant to get rid of the ACA entirely, the makeup of the court is very different now than it was during the other two Obamacare challenges.

Since taking office, Trump has appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, including the newly-seated Amy Coney Barrett, who has openly criticized the court’s previous rulings on the ACA in the past.

Major Consequences 

The stakes for overturning ACA are higher than ever before because of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic that has already infected over 10 million Americans and claimed over 238,000 lives.

The U.S. is currently experiencing the worst of the pandemic, and health officials believe the situation will only become more dangerous soon. Cases and hospitalization rates are rising all across the country, new daily infections and 7-day averages have been hitting record-breaking highs, and experts now say they expect us to hit 200,000 daily cases as soon as next week.

If the justices scrap Obamacare, more than 20 million Americans — including roughly 12 million low-income Americans — would lose their healthcare overnight.

Those people would very likely be left without health insurance for a while because, despite Trump’s repeated claims for the last four years that his healthcare plan to replace Obamacare is almost ready, at least publicly, the president has proposed close to nothing on this front.

Even if it did, the divided Congress would likely have a very difficult time agreeing on any kind of deal. But the fact that there is no comprehensive program to replace Obamacare if the Supreme Court decides to get rid of it would also have other major impacts for even more Americans.

One of the most notable, of course. is how this affects pre-existing conditions. Under Obamacare, health insurers are required to cover most pre-existing conditions. If the ACA is rolled back, insurers can start denying coverage to the estimated 52 million Americans — roughly 1 out of every 4 — who have pre-existing conditions.

That is especially concerning in regards to the pandemic because is very possible that COVID-19 could become a pre-existing condition. With the ACA in place right now, insurers cannot use a coronavirus case to deny someone coverage or charge them more: it is essentially treated the same as a pre-existing condition.

However, if Obamacare no longer protects that, insurance coverage for COVID-19 will be up in the air.

The reversal of the ACA would also have other far-reaching effects, including forcing older Americans to pay more for prescriptions and cutting young adults off their parents’ healthcare plans before the age of 26, as is the law now.

While experts say it is increasingly unlikely that the court will do away with the ACA in its entirety, it is unclear what a partial repeal would impact the law and the American people.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The Associated Press) (The Washington Post)

Related Topics:

U.S.

Survey and Census Data Shows Record Number of Americans are Struggling Financially

Published

1 week ago

on

May 23, 2023

By

Americans are choosing not to pursue medical treatment more and more frequently as they encounter money troubles.

A recent federal survey shows that a record number of Americans were worse off financially in 2022 than a year prior.

Coupled with recent census data showing pervasive poverty across much of the country, Americans are forced to make difficult decisions, like foregoing expensive healthcare. 

According to a recent Federal Reserve Bureau survey, 35% of adults say they were worse off in 2022 than 2021, which is the highest share ever recorded since the question was raised in 2014. 

Additionally, half of adults reported their budget was majorly affected by rising prices across the country, and that number is even higher among minority communities and parents living with their children.

According to recent census data, more than 10% of the counties in the U.S. are experiencing persistent poverty, meaning the area has had a poverty rate of 20% or higher between 1989 and 2019. 

16 states report at least 10% of their population living in persistent poverty. But most of the suffering counties were found in the South — which accounts for over half the people living in persistent poverty, despite making up less than 40% of the population. 

These financial realities have placed many Americans in the unfortunate situation of choosing between medical treatment and survival. The Federal Reserve study found that the share of Americans who skipped medical treatment because of the cost has drastically increased since 2020. 

The reflection of this can be found in the overall health of households in different income brackets. 75% of households with an income of $25,000 or less report being in good health – compared to the 91% of households with $100,000 or more income. 

See what others are saying: (Axios) (The Hill) (Federal Reserve)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Montana Governor Signs TikTok Ban

Published

2 weeks ago

on

May 18, 2023

By

The ban will likely face legal challenges before it is officially enacted next year. 

First Statewide Ban of TikTok

Montana became the first state to ban TikTok on Wednesday after Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) signed legislation aimed at protecting “Montanans’ personal and private data from the Chinese Communist Party.”

The ban will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024, though the law will likely face a handful of legal challenges before that date. 

Under the law, citizens of the state will not be held liable for using the app, but companies that offer the app on their platforms, like Apple and Google, will face a $10,000 fine per day of violations. TikTok would also be subject to the hefty daily fine. 

Questions remain about how tech companies will practically enforce this law. During a hearing earlier this year, a representative from TechNet said that these platforms don’t have the ability to “geofence” apps by state.

Roger Entner, an analyst at Recon Analytics, told the Associated Press that app stores could have the capability to enforce the restriction, but it would be difficult to carry out and there would be a variety of loopholes by tools like VPNs.

Montana’s law comes as U.S. politicians have taken aim at TikTok over its alleged ties to the CCP. Earlier this year, the White House directed federal agencies to remove TikTok from government devices. Conservatives, in particular, have been increasingly working to restrict the app.

“The Chinese Communist Party using TikTok to spy on Americans, violate their privacy, and collect their personal, private, and sensitive information is well-documented,” Gov. Gianforte said in a Wednesday statement. 

Criticism of Montana Law

TikTok, however, has repeatedly denied that it gives user data to the government. The company released a statement claiming Montana’s law “infringes on the First Amendment rights of the people” in the state. 

“We want to reassure Montanans that they can continue using TikTok to express themselves, earn a living, and find community as we continue working to defend the rights of our users inside and outside of Montana,” the company said. 

The American Civil Liberties Union condemned Montana’s law for similar reasons. 

“This law tramples on our free speech rights under the guise of national security and lays the groundwork for excessive government control over the internet,” the ACLU tweeted. “Elected officials do not have the right to selectively censor entire social media apps based on their country of origin.”

Per the AP, there are 200,000 TikTok users in Montana, and another 6,000 businesses use the platform as well. Lawsuits are expected to be filed against the law in the near future.

See what others are saying: (Associated Press) (Fast Company) (CBS News)

Continue Reading

U.S.

How a Disney-Loving Former Youth Pastor Landed on The FBI’s “Most Wanted” List

Published

1 month ago

on

April 24, 2023

By

 “Do what is best, not for yourself, for once. Think about everyone else,” Chris Burns’ 19-year-old son pleaded to his father via The Daily Beast. 

Multi-Million Dollar Scheme 

Former youth pastor turned financial advisor Chris Burns remains at large since going on the run in September of 2020 to avoid a Securities Exchange Commission investigation into his businesses.

Despite his fugitive status, the Justice Department recently indicted Burns with several more charges on top of the $12 million default judgment he received from the SEC. 

Burns allegedly sold false promissory notes to investors across Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida. The SEC claims he told the investors they were participating in a “peer to peer” lending program where businesses that needed capital would borrow money and then repay it with interest as high as 20%. Burns allegedly also reassured investors that the businesses had collateral so the investment was low-risk. 

The SEC says that Burns instead took that money for personal use. 

Burns’ History 

Burns began his adult life as a youth pastor back in 2007 before transitioning into financial planning a few years later.  By 2017, he launched his own radio show, The Chris Burns Show, which was funded by one of his companies, Dynamic Money – where every week Burns would “unpack how this week’s headlines practically impact your life, wallet, and future,” according to the description. He also frequently appeared on television and online, talking about finances and politics. 

The SEC alleges that he used his public appearances to elevate his status as a financial advisor and maximize his reach to investors.

His family told The Daily Beast that he became obsessed with success and he reportedly bought hand-made clothes, a million-dollar lakehouse, a boat, several cars, and took his family on several trips to Disney World. His eldest son and wife said that Burns was paying thousands of dollars a day for VIP tours and once paid for the neighbors to come along. 

Then in September 2020, he reportedly told his wife that he was being investigated by the Securities Exchange Commission but he told her not to worry. 

The day that he was supposed to turn over his business documents to the SEC, he disappeared, telling his wife he was just going to take a trip to North Carolina to tell his parents about the investigation. Then, the car was found abandoned in a parking lot with several cashier’s checks totaling $78,000

FBI’s Most Wanted

The default judgment in the SEC complaint orders Burns, if he’s ever found, to pay $12 million to his victims, as well as over $650,000 in a civil penalty. Additionally, a federal criminal complaint charged him with mail fraud. Burns is currently on the FBI’s Most Wanted list. 

Last week, the Justice Department indicted him on several other charges including 10 counts of wire fraud and two counts of mail fraud. 

“Burns is charged for allegedly stealing millions of dollars from clients in an illegal investment fraud scheme,” Keri Farley, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta, said in a statement to The Daily Beast. “Financial crimes of this nature can cause significant disruptions to the lives of those who are victimized, and the FBI is dedicated to holding these criminals accountable.”

His family maintains that they knew nothing of Burns’ schemes. His wife reportedly returned over $300,000 that he had given to her. 

She and their eldest son, who is now 19, told The Daily Beast they just want Burns to turn himself in, take responsibility for his actions, and try to help the people he hurt. 

“Do what is best, not for yourself, for once. Think about everyone else,” Burns’ son said in a message to his father via The Daily Beast. 

See what others are saying: (The Daily Beast) (Fox 5) (Wealth Management)

Continue Reading