House Democrats promised in the 2018 campaign that they would beat back the Trump administration’s attacks on the Affordable Care Act, and they are ready to begin their counteroffensive. They are narrowly focused for now — and there’s good reason for that.
The influential Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday on four bills to undo recent actions by the administration that undermine the health care law. The bills are tightly targeted — reversing Trump-issued regulations and restoring funding for enrollment outreach cut by the Trump administration — but they still represent the first legislation to shore up the ACA to get a hearing in the new Democratic majority. They are starting with limited yet broadly popular ideas.
But looming in the background is the immediate existential threat to the health care law, a lawsuit brought by Republican states to overturn the entire statute. The new majority and their legal advisers have decided that, aside from a vote to join the law’s defense in the courts, they should not pass legislation designed to prevent the courts from throwing out the law in its entirety.
Given the success of prior legal challenges thought to be ridiculous that still found their way to the Supreme Court, some liberal legal scholars have argued House Democrats should use their new majority to pass a bill or bills to protect Obamacare from this latest vulnerability.
“There’s no such thing as risk-free litigation,” Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor who has laid out possible actions the House could take, told me. “You should do anything and everything you can to make this misbegotten lawsuit go away.”
But other left-leaning lawyers and high-ranking Democrats see it differently. They believe there is no chance the Republican-led Senate would pass or President Donald Trump would sign such a bill. Moreover, they think Democrats would risk validating the case against the ACA if they tried to pass bills to fix it — by acknowledging that there is a problem to be fixed at all, when the House’s position in the lawsuit is that Obamacare is constitutional as it is.
“Any proposed fixes will likely be partial, would open up the ACA to further amendment in the Senate, and would lend weight to plaintiff legislative history arguments,” says Tim Jost, a health law professor at Washington and Lee University. “This case is winnable in the courts and should stay there.”
That is the prevailing belief among House Democrats right now, and that is why, though they are preparing to start moving bills to shore up Obamacare, they are leaving the most worrisome threat to the law out of their legislative agenda for now.
Democrats are taking up three bills to reverse the Trump administration’s sabotage
The Energy and Commerce Committee will hear testimony Wednesday on a few different bills to reverse the Trump administration’s attacks on Obamacare, usually the precursor to a bill getting a committee vote and then advancing to the House floor.
1) A bill to repeal the Trump administration’s expansion of short-term limited-duration plans
Short-term limited-duration health insurance is not required to comply with the ACA’s requirements around preexisting conditions or essential health benefits. People can be denied coverage based on their medical history, and these plans don’t have to cover basic services like prescription drugs.
And under the Trump administration’s regulations, so-called “short term” insurance — previously limited to lasting just three months — can be renewed for up to 36 months.
The Trump administration projected that 200,000 or so Obamacare customers will switch from marketplace plans to short-term coverage in the coming year. Other groups project even more desertion. Those people will probably be younger and healthier, drawn to the plans by their cheaper prices and because they don’t think they’ll need robust insurance. Actuaries expect that as a result, premiums for Obamacare plans will increase by as much as 10 percent on average, unless states move to regulate short-term plans more stringently.
The Democratic bill would repeal the short-term insurance regulations, blocking them from going into effect.
2) A bill to block the Trump administration’s recent decision to relax regulations for plans sold on the ACA’s insurance marketplaces
The Trump administration released new guidance last fall that would loosen some of Obamacare’s rules for waivers that states can seek to pursue their own health care ideas. One provision would allow customers to use the law’s generous tax subsidies to pay for those short-term insurance plans, heightening the risk that more people would abandon Obamacare for Trump-approved coverage. The requirement that any waiver would cover the same number of people would also be also softened, opening up the possibility that states could get approval for waivers that actually cover fewer people.
The Democratic bill would likewise block the Trump administration’s guidance from taking effect and prevent any similar changes from being implemented in the future.
3) A bill to increase funding for Obamacare enrollment and outreach efforts, which have been cut by the Trump administration
The Trump administration slashed federal funding for outreach and enrollment from $100 million to $10 million in its first year and kept outreach funding at that lower level in its second year. Obamacare enrollment fell off slightly in both those years, and research has shown that many uninsured people who are eligible for the ACA’s financial assistance don’t know that the law’s marketplaces exist or that tax credits are available to them so they can buy health coverage.
The Democratic bill would require the administration to perform enrollment and outreach activities and provide $100 million annually for those efforts.
A fourth bill under consideration would not reverse Trump’s actions, but it would instead force short-term plans to disclose they are not required to comply with Obamacare’s rules for preexisting conditions.
The debate over whether House Democrats should pass a bill to stymie the Texas lawsuit
Notably missing from the Democratic menu is any item to address the ongoing lawsuit, brought by Texas and 19 other Republican-led states, to overturn the Affordable Care Act entirely. Legal experts dismiss the states’ argument as “absurd,” yet they worry it could find an audience among conservative jurists, given the prior success of anti-Obamacare lawsuits thought to be spurious that still found their way to the Supreme Court.
That argument has already won in a lower federal court, after all, though the decision is on hold pending appeal.
The foundation of the conservative state’s case is that because the Republican Congress repealed the individual mandate penalty in the 2017 tax law, removing the provision that Chief Justice John Roberts used to justify upholding the law’s constitutionality in 2012, the entire law must now fall under Roberts’s theory. Legal scholars on the left and the right say it’s a ridiculous case; Congress amends laws all the time, and the earlier Congress decided to repeal the mandate penalty while preserving the rest of the law. It’s legally vacuous to try to now apply Roberts’s old logic to a newly amended law.
Some left-leaning lawyers believe House Democrats should still pass a bill to neutralize the threat and either force Republicans to agree or use their inaction as a cudgel against them for failing to protect Americans from the lawsuit’s potential fallout. Bagley and his Michigan colleague Richard Primus laid out some options in the Atlantic in December: 1) increase the mandate penalty to a nominal amount (even $1); 2) pass a bill declaring that the rest of Obamacare should stand even if the mandate falls; or 3) simply repeal the mandate entirely, as it is still technically on the books even though the penalty for not complying is $0.
If any of those options became law, they argued, it would leave the current lawsuit with no legal leg to stand on and remove the threat of conservative judges or the Supreme Court deciding to overturn the entire law, as one judge has already done. If Republicans refused to act, then House Democrats “could hang this case like an albatross around the neck of the Republicans,” Bagley says.
“I’m tired of seeing Congress run for the courts. Protect your institutional interests,” he told me. “This is political hardball being played out in the courts right now. Judges who are ruling against the ACA — they’re not applying the law in a careful, thoughtful way. They are partisan actors in a partisan game.”
But the argument hasn’t found purchase among House Democrats or their legal advisers. The House voted the day Democrats took over to join the legal defense of the law in the Texas case, but leadership seems content to leave it at that.
House Democrats believe there is no chance Senate Republicans or the White House would agree to such a plan without serious concessions — noting that the Justice Department has joined in part the lawsuit overturning the ACA — and that if they moved to fix the law, they would give the Republican states fodder to bolster their case that the law has a legal vulnerability.
“We take very seriously the threat we could have a worst of all worlds: A legislative fix does not become law and only serves to undermine the position of the House, which is that the ACA is constitutional as is,” one House aide told me.
Another source familiar with the situation elaborated: “If there was a chance that a clean fix could be enacted, it would be worthwhile. … But there is zero chance that a clean fix could be enacted, and the downside is it creates all of these other things.”
The internal debate seems to be settled; Democrats have chosen their path. That explains why, even as House Democrats are undertaking the work to protect the ACA, they have left the latest legal threat off their to-do list.
Oakland teachers strike: Union calls strike for pay, smaller classes
Teacher frustration keeps spreading.
Public school teachers in Oakland, California, said they will strike on Thursday, following 18 months of tense negotiations with district officials over pay raises and classroom sizes.
“We have had it. Enough is enough, bargaining with our school district has not worked,” said Keith Brown, a middle school teacher and president of the Oakland Education Association, during a press conference on Saturday. “Our schools have been starved of resources for years.”
If they don’t reach a deal before Thursday, about 3,000 teachers won’t show up to work in one of the state’s largest school districts, which has struggled from years of budget cuts and poor student performance.
Teachers say the lack of investment in city schools is hurting student performance. The cost of living in Oakland has also skyrocketed in recent years, due to an influx of high-skilled workers unable to afford housing across the bay in San Francisco, making it impossible for teachers to live there on their current salaries, Keith said. Teachers want a pay raise, smaller class sizes, and more counselors and nurses.
The strike in Oakland would come a month after teachers in Los Angeles walked off the job with similar demands — and ended up getting a lot of what they wanted. At the time, LA officials said the same thing Oakland officials are now saying: We just don’t have the money.
Oakland schools are facing a $56 million budget deficit in the next two years, so the school board wants to cut school spending, not increase it. School officials are trying to get more money from the state, but teachers are ready to walk out. And they know they have leverage.
It’s just the latest strike in what’s becoming a national trend. More than 100,000 public school teachers in six states have walked out of class in the past year, rebelling from years of stagnant wages, crumbling infrastructure, and deep budget cuts to education. The strikes in Arizona, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, and Colorado had broad public support, forcing state lawmakers to raise pay and fueling a national movement to boost investment in public education.
So far, that momentum shows no signs of slowing down.
Funding for public schools in California is a mess
Oakland teachers share a lot of the same frustrations that led LA teachers to walk out of class in January. They say school districts are spending too much money on privately run charter schools that have little public oversight. They also believe they are paid too little working in a state with much wealth.
California is among states spending the least on each student (adjusted for the cost of living), largely because of the state’s strict limits on property tax rates.
The Oakland Education Association, a labor union representing 3,000 educators, has been trying to negotiate a new contract since the last one expired in 2017. Teachers want a 12 percent pay raise over three years, smaller classes, and more support staff. One school counselor for every 600 students is not conducive to a student’s success, says Keith Brown, the group’s president.
The district has offered a 5 percent raise over three years.
Teachers rejected the offer.
“Unless there are dramatic changes to the district’s approach, including spending more money on students and for nurses and counselors, lower class size, and a living wage that will keep Oakland teachers in the classrooms, we will strike,” Brown said.
The school district has said it is willing to keep negotiating for a better deal to avert the strike, and would consider some recommendations from an independent panel, which found that low teacher pay, large class sizes, and school privatization were hurting Oakland schools. The report also acknowledges the state’s “complicated, flawed” system for funding public education.
“Despite our challenges, we are prepared with a comprehensive proposal to reach an agreement. If both sides are committed to settling the contract before a strike occurs —and we are — an agreement can certainly be reached without disrupting the educational experience for students, families and staff,” Oakland Schools Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell said in a statement Saturday.
They have three days to try and reach a deal.
Teachers are leading a national workers revolt
A record number of US workers went on strike or stopped working in 2018 because of labor disputes with employers, according to new data released last week by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. A total of 485,000 employees were involved in major work stoppages last year — the highest number since 1986, when flight attendants, garbage collectors, and steelworkers walked off the job.
Frustrated public school teachers were behind the year’s largest walkouts, but hotel housekeepers and steelworkers also organized strikes that lasted for days.
There are no signs that worker angst has subsided. So far, in 2019, teachers in two major cities have launched their own strikes. And in January, the Los Angeles teachers strike shut down the nation’s second-largest school district for more than a week.
As part of their deal with city officials, teachers agreed to a 6 percent raise and slightly fewer students in each classroom, according to Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, a labor union that represents about 34,000 public school teachers, nurses, librarians, and support staff in the city.
Last week, more than 2,000 teachers in Denver went on strike for three days. The school district ended up giving educators and extra $23 million in pay and agreed to overhaul the compensation system, which relied heavily on annual bonuses.
Now Oakland teachers are prepared to walk out, and Sacramento teachers may follow.
Read Now Go Viral!: The Most Effective Viral Marketing Strategies To Launch Your Online Business
Kamala Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign: news and updates
The longtime lawmaker announced her candidacy at a rally in Oakland, California, on January 27.
Kamala Harris, a California lawmaker and longtime prosecutor, is running for the Democratic nomination for president. She made her announcement during an appearance on ABC’s Good Morning America on Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2019.
Harris is only the second African-American woman to serve in the Senate, and her entry into the 2020 race is potentially historic: If she secures the nomination, she’d be the first African-American woman and the first Asian-American woman to become a major-party nominee.
The lawmaker has a long record of public service. She served as California attorney general and San Francisco district attorney for a combined 12 years before she was elected to the Senate in 2016, and buzz about her potential presidential run has been building ever since. She’s considered a prominent champion for racial equality, though some have questioned her past approach to criminal justice. She has backed some progressive policies within the Democratic Party, including Medicare-for-all and marijuana legalization.
Viral News2 months ago
Tony Robbins: HOW TO START OVER – 2019
Viral News3 months ago
16 Game of Thrones Actors You Wouldn’t Recognize Without Makeup
Viral News2 months ago
15 Famous Men We Didn’t Know Were Handsome in Their Youth
Viral News3 months ago
10 Star Couples We Couldn’t Think Would Be Together, but It’s So Cool to See Them Happy
Viral News2 months ago
12 Celebs Who Got Tired of Their Image and Decided to Change Beyond Recognition
Viral News3 months ago
10 Weird Facts Proving Your Body Is a Mysterious System
Viral News2 months ago
We Imagined What 20th-Century Style Icons Would Look Like Today, and the Results Are Curious
Viral News3 months ago
20 Fantastic Tattoos That Make Birthmarks and Scars Come Alive