A.P U.S. Government and Politics
7 views | +0 today
Follow
 
Rescooped by Jannell Alino from Healthcare and Technology news
onto A.P U.S. Government and Politics
Scoop.it!

The Supreme Court's Surprise Ruling Saves Obamacare

The Supreme Court's Surprise Ruling Saves Obamacare | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it

The Affordable Care Act survived its second major challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday. In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the Internal Revenue Service can continue to provide health-insurance subsidies to middle-class people living in all states.

 

At issue in the case, King v. Burwell, was whether the subsidies should go to residents of the roughly three dozen states that use the federal health-insurance exchange, in addition to those who live in states that run their own exchanges.

 

It’s a highly technical difference, but had the decision gone the other way, Obamacare might have unraveled. Individuals who receive these subsidies make less than $48,000 per year, and many would struggle to afford health-insurance plans without the government’s financial help. Health-policy analysts feared that, without the subsidies in place, healthy people would withdraw from the health-insurance exchanges in large numbers. That, in turn, would cause premiums to skyrocket, making insurance unaffordable to almost anyone who does not receive insurance coverage through their jobs.

 

The Affordable Care Act gave states the option to either set up their own exchanges or to rely on the federal government’s marketplace through Healthcare.gov. The part of the law that describes the subsidies said they should only apply to people in the exchanges “established by the state.” The plaintiffs in the King case said that clause meant the IRS was offering subsidies to residents of federal-exchange states illegally.

In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the idea that the fate of the entire Obamacare law should hinge on such a technicality.

“In petitioners’ view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub sub-sub section of the Tax Code,” he wrote. “We doubt that is what Congress meant to do.”

 

Many patient advocates cheered the decision. “It means that millions of people with serious health conditions such as cancer will continue to have access to essential treatment and care, and millions of others at risk for disease will be able to afford preventive screenings and tests that could save their lives,” said Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society’s advocacy arm, in a statement.

 

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented, writing, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

 

Roberts concludes by saying that the Court is attempting to respect what Congress hoped to accomplish in passing the law: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”


There are still a few, more minor, legal challenges to Obamacare remaining. But at least for now, the law lives to see another day.


Via Technical Dr. Inc.
Jannell Alino's insight:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS will be able to continue to administer health insurance to middle class people to all in the United States. If this did not pull through Obamacare would have left thousands of people without insurance and helpless. Many who are on Obamacare make less than 48K a year and need assistance from the government. If this were to happen a large number of healthy people would withdraw from health insurances causing prices to go up and then no one would be able to afford health insurance! The Affordable Care Act gives states the option to set up their own exchanges or rely on the government. With the passing of this act people suffering from serious illness will be able to care and have access to treatment as well as others who are susceptible to illness. Some conclusions that can be drawn from this article are that by the passing of this act thousands of citizens are still able to have health insurance and do not have to pay with an arm and a leg. Yes this argument is logical because it would be irrational to take away a program that has aided so many Americans in getting the health care they need. This relates because if this act was to fail our health insurance prices would go up and going to get a simple checkup would cost a fortune! I think it is great that the congress passed this act because I would want everyone to be able to have the privilege to seek out help if they were ill. No there is no bias, it is objective to all citizens in the united states. 

more...
No comment yet.
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

Georgia Now Allows Guns in Airports and Bars | VICE News

A controversial new Georgia law went into effect today that increases the number of places where people can carry their firearms.
Jannell Alino's insight:

A new law went into effect last year known as the “guns everywhere law” in Georgia. This law allows people to carry concealed permits that allow them to enter bars, nightclubs, airports, and unsecured government buildings while armed. Schools even allow teachers and admin to possess firearms after training. But citizens are not allowed to bring them into religious establishments. Even though the law allows people to bring in firearms they can still be kicked out of places and even sued. Following the same law as having a driver’s license, a police cannot demand to see if you have a permit even if that person is holding a firearm because it is violating their rights. If caught without these permits you can be deported. Some generalizations that can be drawn from this article are that many Georgian residents can feel much more anxious when going to these public settings because anyone can be armed. This argument is not logical because it raises the chances for innocent people to be killed and adds to the unreasonably high gun violence rates. This relates to the second amendment and is seen as one of the first victories of it. I think this is out right ignorant because why do you need a gun in a bar or an airport?? What is the purpose of needing to carry a gun around with you everywhere you go? I see this as objective because it doesn’t target itself to any type of person in particular. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

The Supreme Court just legalized same-sex marriage across the US

The Supreme Court just legalized same-sex marriage across the US | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it

"The Supreme Court's decision means marriage equality is now the law of the land in the US. But whether states allow same-sex couples to marry immediately or days or weeks from now will depend on the actions of local and state officials, who could delay the final effect of the decision for a few days or weeks."

 

Tags: sexuality, USA, map, political.

Jannell Alino's insight:

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage would be legal in all fifty states. This was a majority vote that now requires all states to grant marriage licenses to all couples whether they are same sex or not. Before this day Washington D.C. as well as 37 other states allowed same sex marriage. This decision was years in the making and has been long waited for by many. There were many factors that went into deciding if this should be made legal like discrimination. Although it is now legal to have same sex marriage in all states not all states are open to this idea. Many states are still not granting marriage licenses although all citizens have the right to. Some generalizations that can be retrieved from this article is that the Supreme Court is making strides in passing laws that have been needed for many decades. They are finally making progress with addressing our countries current problems. Yes this argument is logical except for the states that are still refusing to grant licenses to same sex couples. This relates because it affects our entire country and shows that we are not as conservative anymore. I am 100% supportive of this decision and believe that it great that after several decades of fighting for the right to marry they finally have it! It is objective and appeals to everyone, not just one group of people.  

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

Bernie Sanders returns to central Iowa, this time with bigger campaign - Ames Tribune

Bernie Sanders returns to central Iowa, this time with bigger campaign - Ames Tribune | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
While he said he was originally unsure how large his campaign would grow, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said Saturday that his 2016 presidential campaign has since developed a large, passionate response.
Jannell Alino's insight:

Feel the ‘Bern.’ Bernie Sanders was unsure how well his campaign would grow and was skeptical about the support he would attain. But, currently he has drawn up crowds that have thousands of supporters that reportedly beat rival, Hilary Clinton. Bernie sanders is a unique candidate in that he appeals to the current struggles of the everyday American whether they are female or male, black, white or anything in-between, and gay or straight. He is the most down to earth candidate that we’ve seen in years and has strong points about the countries current state. He has plans to fix the economy, settle racism, set gender equality, and create jobs and more. Bernie is the answer to all of our problems. He is THAT person who is going to make a change and have an impact on this world. Sanders is one of the few that will honestly fight to win and if he does he will pull through with what he promises. Some conclusions that can be drawn from this article are that Bernie Sanders is our most promising candidate that we can assure will not jeopardize our country or economy. This argument is logical because it is backed by statistics (polls). This relates to our government because if he is elected he will be making decisions that will affect our daily lives for the next 4 to 8 years. I agree with this information and think Sanders will aid in progressing our country and economy with positive strides. There is bias towards this candidate for the Democratic Party. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

Ted Cruz Supports Amending the Constitution to End Birthright Citizenship

Ted Cruz Supports Amending the Constitution to End Birthright Citizenship | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
That sets the 2016 contender apart from Republican presidential candidates who have hesitated to call for a change to the Constitution.
Jannell Alino's insight:

Amending the 14th amendment in the Constitution is no new ordeal for the Grand Old Party, but one Republican, Ted Cruz, has revealed his plans for addressing the issue of birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship allows children of illegal immigrants to be gain citizenship in America. Cruz suggested that he would be open to the idea of changing the Constitution although it will be hard to achieve. He also believes that increasing the security of the boarder will help address the problem because it, “wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have people coming in illegally.”  Opponent, Donald Trump says that he doesn’t even believe they have American citizenship and believes that amending the Constitution would be too long of a process. Some generalizations that can be drawn from this article, are that Republicans are going to or want to prevent children from attaining citizenship in the U.S. if they have illegal parents. No this argument is not logical because there are so many other issues that could be addressed and changed that actually possess a critical nature rather than citizenship in the U.S. These children are doing no harm and had no choice where they were born. This information angers me because I see no logical reason to change an amendment that is reasonable. A law that was written hundreds of years ago by our founding fathers. I see bias to all the citizens who are here legally. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

These Aren't Scare Tactics. A Republican President Will Take Away Your ... - Huffington Post

These Aren't Scare Tactics. A Republican President Will Take Away Your ... - Huffington Post | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
This is an issue that Republicans won't be able to avoid come general election time. And it's an issue Democrats must make sure voters remember as well.
Jannell Alino's insight:

                Each Republican candidate that is currently running for the 2016 presidential election is completely supportive of repealing Obamacare, a health care insurance used by approximately 19 million people in the United States. Several candidates have an idea of a plan they want to implement if elected, one being Donald Trump whose plan is going to be,” something terrific.” Thus far, each Republican candidate seemingly with a ‘plan’ is actually, "a jumble of half-measures that don't add up to any kind of system."  Each candidate agrees that being able to buy across state lines will be, “some kind of magic bullet,” that will help us progress and adhere to the public. Many of the new ideas suggest that this health care plan will be for citizens with pre-existing conditions, turning it into Medicare block grants, health savings accounts, refundable tax credits, etc. Unfortunately, the Republican Party has promised their base this too much and too often that if it is not pulled through their base will quickly turn on them. There would be no space to change anyone’s mind if a Republican were to be elected. Whereas the Democratic Party is striving to let the public know they are all for preserving Obamacare. Many citizens need to realize that a vote for a Republican will cause more damage to the economy than what has already happened. Some generalizations that can be concluded from this article is that the proposal to take away Obamacare will hurt the nation. Not only because it will send us spiraling into billions of dollars of debt, or 19 million citizens will be without health insurance, but we will reverse significant strides we’ve made in the last eight years. Yes, this argument is logical because many people are ignorant of the true political platforms these candidates are supporting. Not everyone is aware of the ridiculous and unrealistic plans that could await us if a republican is elected. I believe I am this much more knowledgeable about my vote and that this information is extremely valuable but much overlooked.  There is bias towards the Democratic Party but it is inevitable when the Republican Party upholds no solid plan but has many words to tell to the public. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jannell Alino from Healthcare and Technology news
Scoop.it!

The Supreme Court's Surprise Ruling Saves Obamacare

The Supreme Court's Surprise Ruling Saves Obamacare | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it

The Affordable Care Act survived its second major challenge at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday. In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the Internal Revenue Service can continue to provide health-insurance subsidies to middle-class people living in all states.

 

At issue in the case, King v. Burwell, was whether the subsidies should go to residents of the roughly three dozen states that use the federal health-insurance exchange, in addition to those who live in states that run their own exchanges.

 

It’s a highly technical difference, but had the decision gone the other way, Obamacare might have unraveled. Individuals who receive these subsidies make less than $48,000 per year, and many would struggle to afford health-insurance plans without the government’s financial help. Health-policy analysts feared that, without the subsidies in place, healthy people would withdraw from the health-insurance exchanges in large numbers. That, in turn, would cause premiums to skyrocket, making insurance unaffordable to almost anyone who does not receive insurance coverage through their jobs.

 

The Affordable Care Act gave states the option to either set up their own exchanges or to rely on the federal government’s marketplace through Healthcare.gov. The part of the law that describes the subsidies said they should only apply to people in the exchanges “established by the state.” The plaintiffs in the King case said that clause meant the IRS was offering subsidies to residents of federal-exchange states illegally.

In the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts dismissed the idea that the fate of the entire Obamacare law should hinge on such a technicality.

“In petitioners’ view, Congress made the viability of the entire Affordable Care Act turn on the ultimate ancillary provision: a sub sub-sub section of the Tax Code,” he wrote. “We doubt that is what Congress meant to do.”

 

Many patient advocates cheered the decision. “It means that millions of people with serious health conditions such as cancer will continue to have access to essential treatment and care, and millions of others at risk for disease will be able to afford preventive screenings and tests that could save their lives,” said Chris Hansen, president of the American Cancer Society’s advocacy arm, in a statement.

 

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented, writing, “Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State.’”

 

Roberts concludes by saying that the Court is attempting to respect what Congress hoped to accomplish in passing the law: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”


There are still a few, more minor, legal challenges to Obamacare remaining. But at least for now, the law lives to see another day.


Via Technical Dr. Inc.
Jannell Alino's insight:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court ruled that the IRS will be able to continue to administer health insurance to middle class people to all in the United States. If this did not pull through Obamacare would have left thousands of people without insurance and helpless. Many who are on Obamacare make less than 48K a year and need assistance from the government. If this were to happen a large number of healthy people would withdraw from health insurances causing prices to go up and then no one would be able to afford health insurance! The Affordable Care Act gives states the option to set up their own exchanges or rely on the government. With the passing of this act people suffering from serious illness will be able to care and have access to treatment as well as others who are susceptible to illness. Some conclusions that can be drawn from this article are that by the passing of this act thousands of citizens are still able to have health insurance and do not have to pay with an arm and a leg. Yes this argument is logical because it would be irrational to take away a program that has aided so many Americans in getting the health care they need. This relates because if this act was to fail our health insurance prices would go up and going to get a simple checkup would cost a fortune! I think it is great that the congress passed this act because I would want everyone to be able to have the privilege to seek out help if they were ill. No there is no bias, it is objective to all citizens in the united states. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

Opinion: Feel disrespected? Pull a gun - CNN.com

Opinion: Feel disrespected? Pull a gun - CNN.com | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
Carol Costello says American gun bravado promotes a trigger-happy culture
Jannell Alino's insight:

Thousands of reporting’s for accidental gun fire have been reported in only the span of a year. Innocent lives have been taken because of one sentiment of anger, of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or accidently saying something to set the other off.  Many underestimate the true power a gun has. It has the power to end a life. One shot is all it takes. Some gun owners use their guns to “fix” a problem or to punish a simple one. Gun control is out of control. Guns are too easily accessible and for what reason? Everyone takes advantage of having them, especially police officers. Killing recklessly and aimlessly. Many forget that guns are provided for protection not to kill someone who cut you off or broke a law. It is believed that guns make you look more macho and strong whereas that is the complete opposite. Guns are weak. Guns are the easy way out to problems. Stricter policies are implemented when gaining the ability to drive while a simple form and background is enforced when buying a destructive weapon. Gun violence is at unacceptably high rates and nothing is being done to lower them. Conclusions that can be drawn from this article is that gun restrictions are not being implemented as strictly as they could be and that innocent lives are being lost because of it. Yes the argument is logical because as far as I’ve seen there hasn’t been a day that a gun owner whether it be a police or not, did not take advantage of having a gun. This relates because our second amendment says that we have the right to bare arms. I agree with this information because I do not want to be driving accidently cut off the wrong person and be shot because of it. I want to be safe where ever I am whether it be driving, in the moves, or school.  This is objective because it is not being biased toward a specific group of individuals. 

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

The Republican Conception of Conception - New York Times

The Republican Conception of Conception - New York Times | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
The battle for the presidential nomination has produced an unexpectedly intense burst of attacks on women’s reproductive rights.
Jannell Alino's insight:

During this presidential campaign there have many aggressive attacks on women’s reproductive rights from the Republican Party on the right to abortion and the use of contraception. A vast majority of the candidates have said that they are against abortion even if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest. This stance puts them against a majority of Republican voters. The 15 Republican Candidates argue that contraception is when life begins and that using IUD’s and the morning after pills are abortifacients. In order to win the presidency, Republicans must appeal to larger numbers of women but with their stance on reproductive issues it will be unlikely. GOP candidates are also aiming to defund Planned Parenthood in an effort to reduce the number of abortion clinics. Some generalizations that can be concluded from this article are that the current Republican candidates are going to decrease or even take away women’s rights to abortion and using contraceptives. This argument is completely irrational and illogical. Why would abortion due to rape or incest be illegal when those two circumstances were beyond the woman’s control? No one should have the right to limit what a female wants to do with her body and should be granted all the proper and necessary tools to do so. I am strongly against this and will riot if things like the morning after pill or Planned Parenthood are removed from my country. I should have the right to make my own choices and do what I feel is best for myself and baby. I believe this is biased towards males who do not understand the female body and the circumstances that we have to go through. Also the fact that many of them have agreed that even if rape or incest has occurred the pregnancy should be kept says so much.  

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Jannell Alino
Scoop.it!

Bernie Sanders deserves to be the Democrat nominee - Communities Digital News

Bernie Sanders deserves to be the Democrat nominee - Communities Digital News | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it
If Democrats will just once stand for something and are willing to finally stop lying about who they are, they will nominate Bernie Sanders to be president.
Jannell Alino's insight:

Bernie Sanders, the honest Abe of the 21st century. Bernie Sanders deserves to be 2016 Democratic nominee but stands a little chance against Hilary Clinton. Bernie is said to like his people, and be honest with what he believes. He is one of the rare candidates that is not lying his way to the presidency. What many do is falsely or avoid what they stand for. Clinton has yet to fully express her ideals while Bernie clearly states is plans and what changes he wants to see. Clinton has many people behind her for the wrong reasons. Many females are voting for Hilary simply because she is a woman and are ignorant to what policies she will implement. Sanders is not afraid of telling the public that he believes the rich are too privileged and  should pay for things like free/ reduced education for the public. Sanders is unique in the fact that he is running a policy based campaign. He wants to be elected for his beliefs and the truth. With the election of Sanders, we will be able to debate and hear the truths and different perspectives he attains. While Clinton is beating around the bush we are all clueless as to what she believes. Some conclusions that can be drawn from this article is that Bernie is the best Democratic Nominee for the 2016 election. He is truthful and is not trying to win the people over with false truths. Yes this argument is logical because many are not informed on Clinton’s proposals and are only voting for her because she is a familiar face or is simply a women. This relates because it is directly affecting us and our future. I agree with this information because I can say that I was one of those girls who wanted to vote Hilary simply because she was sort of advocating for female rights, but with research Bernie sounded better and better. Yes there is bias towards voting for Sanders. 

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Jannell Alino from SCUP Links
Scoop.it!

How Going To College Could Change Under Hillary Clinton's New Plan

How Going To College Could Change Under Hillary Clinton's New Plan | A.P U.S. Government and Politics | Scoop.it

The US presidential candidate's plan pulls together ideas to make a college degree more affordable and easier to attain.


Via Society for College and University Planning (SCUP)
Jannell Alino's insight:

Jannell Alino

AP U.S. Government and Politics

August 12, 2015

How Going to College Could Change Under Hillary Clinton's New Plan

            Democratic presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, shared her new campaign proposal known as the New College Compact. This proposal is a compilation of numerous ideas from other presidential candidates such as: Bernie Sanders, Martin O’ Malley, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush. Each candidate’s ideas range from a free tuition to lowering cost overall. Each candidate’s proposal shares a common interest of appealing to college affordability. Within Clinton’s proposal are new, innovative ways to obtain a college degree. Some of the ideas that Clinton is attempting to implement are making public two-year colleges tuition free, offering incentive grants to states that agree to a, “no-loan tuition”, making going back to college as a parent easier etc. Clinton’s plan is to provide student aid to any organization if it is able to show results no matter the institution.

            From this article, it is apparent that change within our education system regarding financial aid will become more affordable. Not only is this change visible in presidential candidate, Hilary Clinton, but it is easily seen in a vast majority of the candidates. Affording an education after high school is becoming a rising issue within the nation and is the “crowd pleasing” problem that everyone seems to want to solve. In my opinion, the argument to implement policies that allow post-secondary education to be more affordable or even free is reasonable. As a senior in high school, this is a pressing issue. Financial aid is essential to paying for my degree and being able to attend the four-year public university that I so desire. This relates to government because financial aid is being given through the government and it is an issue that directly impacts them. I agree with this issue 100%, and I believe college tuition prices are unreasonably high and the government should not expect me to be able to pay thousands of dollars for something that should be free and available to anyone who wants to seek out an education. I do not see bias in this article because I feel that this is a topic that everyone can relte to and it is not just focused on certain people. 

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/08/11/431253299/how-going-to-college-could-change-under-hillary-clintons-new-plan

more...
No comment yet.