- 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.
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)
Conservatives are Mad at “Woke” Xbox for Minor Climate-Related Updates
The fury comes after Xbox announced it was slightly altering existing consoles to better utilize and save energy.
Same War, New Battlefield
Mere days after M&M canceled their “spokescandies” due to backlash from the right, led largely by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, conservatives have found a new front for their ongoing culture war: Xbox.
Carlson spent months complaining that small character redesigns were “woke” because they made the animated anthropomorphized M&M’s — in his own words — “less sexy.” His campaign finally proved successful on Monday when the company announced it would be doing away with the spokescandies and replacing them with actress Maya Rudolph.
Conservatives, now facing a sudden dearth of non-issues to complain about, quickly found a new issue to rage against. Xbox announced in a blog post earlier this month that it is making minor updates to lower its environmental impact as part of an effort to reach Microsoft’s goal of being carbon-negative by 2030.
Now, instead of having an Xbox wake up to update games, apps, and software during random times of the night, it will do that at a time of night when a user’s local energy grid is generating the most power it can from renewable sources.
Xbox also said it would automatically update some older consoles to a power-saving mode that aims to reduce electricity consumption when it is turned off — a feature that is already the default on newer consoles.
According to The Verge, the only difference for users is that an Xbox in power-saving mode takes around 15 seconds to boot up instead of doing so immediately as the console does in “sleep” mode. The change is a small price to pay for what the outlet described as “significant” energy savings.
Xbox Under Fire
To many leading conservative voices, the minimal shifts were just another example of “woke” culture.
While discussing M&M’s spokescandies Tuesday morning, “Fox and Friends” co-host Ainsley Earhardt brought up Xbox’s new changes with Fox radio host Jimmy Failla.
“So Xbox has also announced that they’re going woke too, you know, because of climate change,” Earhardt said.
“I mean, it’s crazy what they’re doing, but we understand what this is. It’s not that it’s actually going to offset emissions, okay — the level of reduction is infinitesimal,” Failla claimed, without evidence. “But they’re trying to recruit your kids into climate politics at an earlier age; make them climate conscious now.”
“Yeah, I didn’t think of that — you’re right, they’re going after the children,” Earhardt agreed, despite the fact that internal data from Microsoft shows just around 10% of Xbox owners are under the age of 18.
Other prominent conservatives also did their part to bait Americans into anger on social media, including America’s Foundation, which posted a tweet stating that “the woke brigade is after video games.”
The post linked an article from the right-wing website TheBlaze, which asserted that “Xbox will force gamers to power down to fight climate change.” That, however, is false — Xbox has said users can switch back and change the settings any time they want
Still, top lawmakers continued to share the article and spread its false claims, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.).
“First gas stoves, then your coffee, now they’re gunning for your Xbox,” he wrote in the post, which was flagged by Twitter and given an “added context” warning.
The same warning, however, was not placed in a very similar post by Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Tx.), who also shared the article.
“They want to take your guns. They want to take your gas stoves. And now they want to take your Xbox. What’s next?” he wrote.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (The Daily Beast) (VICE)
Washington State Launches Investigation Into Abuse at Private Special Ed. Schools
Allegations include staff kicking a fourth-grader and dragging a child with autism around by his leg.
Washington State’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has launched an investigation into a system of private schools for kids with disabilities after ProPublica and the Seattle Times reported on allegations of abuse.
The series of articles focused on Northwest School of Innovative Learning (NWSOIL). NWSOIL is a set of private schools that serve 500 Washington public school students with serious disabilities. ProPublica and the Seattle Times found years of complaints from parents and school districts against NWSOIL alleging abuse, overuse of isolation rooms, and unqualified aides teaching instead of certified professionals.
One district claimed NWSOIL staff kicked a fourth-grader. Another alleged that a child with autism was dragged around by his thigh.
Many former NWSOIL employees also claim that they were pressured by their parent company to to enroll more students and skimp on basic resources, like staffing.
In a seven-page letter, OSPI reminded NWSOIL of its authority to revoke or suspend a school’s approval, meaning that it could shut NWSOIL down.
“Given the serious nature of the allegations made in the articles, OSPI is examining what, if any, actions need to be taken with respect to Northwest SOIL’s approval to contract with Washington school districts,” Tania May, assistant superintendent for special education at OSPI, wrote in the letter.
OSPI has demanded any records of mistreatment, maltreatment, abuse, or neglect as well as documents pertaining to restraint or isolation of students and calls to the police. They are also seeking information about the student-to-teacher ratio and staff qualifications.
In the letter, OSPI claims that all of this was previously unknown to them as well as to police, Child Protective Services, and local school districts. They are asking NWSOIL for an explanation as to why the allegations were not reported.
NWSOIL defended itself in a public statement.
“Use of restraints and seclusion are always used as a last response when a student is at imminent risk of hurting themselves or others,“ it said. “We strongly deny any allegation that we understaff and/or pressure staff to increase admissions in order to maximize profits.”
Washington state representatives are considering a reform bill that will give them more oversight on the publicly funded system of private special education schools.
In this legislation, OSPI and at least one district that sends students to this program would be required to visit before approving the contract. It would also standardize district agreements with programs like NWSOIL, including financial safeguards to make sure funds are being used appropriately.
See the full series: (ProPublica) (The Seattle Times)
Mass Shootings in Half Moon Bay, Oakland Rock California
Just since Saturday, at least 19 people have been killed and 17 have been injured in mass shootings in California.
California Sees Third Attack in Under a Week
Two California localities experienced separate mass shootings Monday, just days after an attacker killed 11 and injured nine others in a suburb of Los Angeles.
The first of the most recent shootings took place in Half Moon Bay, a small coastal town about 30 miles outside of San Francisco, where a gunman killed seven and critically injured an eighth at two different locations.
According to authorities, police were dispatched to the first location around 2:20 pm and found four people shot to death and a fifth victim also suffering gunshot wounds. Shortly after, three more people were found dead at another site nearby.
About two hours later, police discovered the suspect in his car in the parking lot of a San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office substation with a semiautomatic handgun in the vehicle that officials later confirmed he had purchased legally.
Sheriff Christina Corpus said the man was taken into custody “without incident” and is “fully cooperating.” He has been identified as a 66-year-old Half Moon Bay resident of Asian descent.
Currently, the gunman’s motive is unknown, but the Sheriff told reporters Monday that both of the locations he targeted were nurseries, and it has since been reported that they were mushroom farms.
“All evidence we have points to this being an instance of workplace violence. The Mountain Mushroom Farm, the first location, is where the subject was employed,” Corpus said in a press conference Tuesday, though she added that, so far, the “only known connection between the victims and the suspect is that they may have been coworkers.”
As of writing, it remains unclear why he targeted the second location. A mushroom farm called Concord Farms has told reporters that it was the site of the second shooting — which a law enforcement official confirmed to The Washington Post.
In a statement to the media, a spokesperson said the farm had “no past knowledge” of the alleged gunman or his possible motives. Little has been released about the victims, though Corpus said Tuesday they were all adults and a “mixture of Asian and Hispanic descent,” some of whom were migrants.
Authorities had previously stated that, because people both live and work on the farms, children were among those who witnessed the shooting. However, on Tuesday, one official walked that back and said while children were indeed in the vicinity, police do not have information about specific witnesses.
Just hours after the violence in Half Moon Bay, seven people were injured, and one other was killed during a shooting at a gas station in Oakland. Very little has been reported about the incident, but police have said that the shooting was “between several individuals.”
Renewed Calls for Gun Control
Californians continue to reel from the rapid succession of mass shootings in a state known for its strict gun control laws.
According to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates against gun violence, the state ranks No. 1 in the country for gun law strength. An analysis led by the organization found that California has the sixth-lowest rate of gun ownership and the eighth-lowest gun death rate.
Many of California’s top lawmakers have argued that the state’s relatively low gun violence statistics emphasize the need for more federal regulations.
“The Second Amendment’s becoming a suicide pact,” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) told CBS News in an interview.
“We’ll continue to find whatever loopholes we can and continue to lead the national conversation on gun safety reform. And the data bares out. It works. It saves lives,” he continued. “California’s 37% lower than the death rate of the rest of the nation, and yet, with all that evidence, no one on the other side seems to give a damn. I can’t get anything done in Congress.”
Following the Monterey Park shooting, U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Ca.), alongside other Democratic colleagues, introduced two gun control bills in the upper chamber. The first would ban assault weapons, while the second aims to raise the minimum age to purchase assault weapons from 18 to 21.
President Joe Biden quickly threw his support behind the measures, urging Congress to pass them.
“The majority of the American people agree with this commonsense action,” he said in a statement Monday. “There can be no greater responsibility than to do all we can to ensure the safety of our children, our communities and our nation.”
Editor’s Note: At Rogue Rocket, we make it a point to not include the names and pictures of mass murders, suspected mass murderers, or those accused of committing violent crimes who may have been seeking attention or infamy. Therefore, we will not be linking to other sources, as they may contain these details.