The Cost of Medicaid is Getting To Be Too Much

Link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/08/medicaid-expansion-under-obamacare-raising-costs-concerns-for-opt-in-states/

Date- June 8th, 2015

Summary:

Many of the states had decided to expand the eligibility of Medicaid which is under ObamaCare, and are now regretting the decision to do so. The expansion attracted more people than they had initially thought. Now the states are trying to meet the deadline to pay for it, especially since they have cut some of federal funding that was supposed to go towards the program. Medicaid is healthcare designed for low-income adults, and 1.4 million more people have signed up in seven states, since it opened in October 2013. Many people are wondering if there will be long term effects by expanding Medicaid. While many people are signing up for the program since they believe it is free, that is not the case whatsoever. The funding that is going towards Medicaid is being taken out of important things, such as education. Until 2016, 100% of the costs are being paid for by the federal government, yet every year they are planning to decrease the amount the federal government will pay going to 95% in 2017 and 94% in 2016 and so on. Many people who were for the program are now concerned wondering how the states will be able to pay for the program. The Affordable Care Act which made Medicaid expansion to all 50 states, but The Supreme Court found the mandate unconstitutional, so now states have the option to expand Medicaid or not. 

Questions: Which states are the ones that don't want to have the Medicaid expansion? Why don't they want to have the Medicaid expansion in their states? What is Paul Renner worried about? Why do some states want to get rid of the expansion of Medicaid? Does it concern you as a reader that these many people who need or are eligible for Medicaid expansion can't get it because their state doesn't have the program?

Racial view points arising as presidency campaign proceeds

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/ben-carson-fundraising-muslim-comments-fox-and-friends/

Date: 9-23-2015

Summary:

During an episode of "Meet The Press" Presidential candidate Ben Carson stated that he would not support a Muslim in the White House. Ben Carson, currently in 3rd place, took some big criticism and negative comments regarding his response. Muslim advocacy groups and Democratic and Republican personalities alike were quick to denounce Carson for his comments’ insensitivity. And he walked back his comments in a Facebook post where he acknowledged “peaceful Muslims” but insisted that only Muslims who renounced Shariah could be considered for the presidency.

However, according to a Gallup survey published in June, 38% of Americans polled said that they would not support a Muslim presidential candidate for president. In support of Carson's comment and beliefs, people are sending in a lot of money. CNN reported that "he raised $1 million within 24 hours following the CNN debate on Sept. 16, and that donations have poured in after remarks he made over the weekend about Islam and the presidency." As much as religion and politics have in common, there are things said by political figures that could affect others and in fact harm the outcome of candidate’s popularity and support. Remembering the Adventist experience in American life could point Carson’s campaign in a different direction. This may mean the loss of support from voters who would love to see him deepen his anti-Muslim rhetoric. But it might be worth it, if only eternally speaking.

Question:  Do you think that a comment like this shared on a national level should be allowed ? Do you think that religion should be brought into politics? And lastly would you support or vote against Carson due to his comment?

First Amendment: Corporations (Money Talks)

Link: http://thecomicnews.com/edtoons/2012/0627/citizens/01.php

Date: 6/27/12

Summary: In 1990 the Supreme Court created a precedent that limited corporations use of money and speech in political campaigns. However, due to the McCain-Feingold case (2010), the precedent changed to corporations only being restricted for a number of days prior to the election. With corporations now being able to fund campaigns and ads, their political voice has increased dramatically. Corporations are using this ruling to their advantage by 'buying' the nominees loyalty. Michelle Obama in 2014 informed an audience, the only thing you can do if you want influence in the political process is to "Write a big, fat check... Write the biggest, fattest check that you can possibly write." However, sadly, the majority of America can not do this. Even if they did, the "biggest, fattest check" most Americans could write down would have no significance compared to the corporations contribution. Isn't democracy supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people? In a recent poll made in 2013, the top .01% of the U.S. made 40% of the total campaign contributions. It seems as if the influence of the political process has been hijacked by corporations.

From the other perspective, Kennedy, a justice of the Supreme Court, wrote for majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. "That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those official are corrupt. And the appearance of influence of access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy." He is stating that just because corporations are contributing to the campaign doesn't mean that the elected official will not fail to be democratic and will also listen to the people.




Questions: Are corporations people in your opinion? Why or Why not? What are the down-sides of corporations having so much political power & input? Why do you think the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also apply to corporations? Do you think this decision loses faith in democracy? Why or Why not?

Appeals court reverses ruling that found NSA program illegal

Link - http://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-reverses-ruling-that-found-nsa-program-illegal/

Date- 8/28/2015

Summary - A federal appeals court, in a somewhat surprising move, overwhelmingly reversed a lower appeals court decision in May that said the NSA Surveillance Program was excessive.  The NSA program was created following 9/11, but the extent of phone collection was unclear until Edward Snowden's revelations in 2013 that the NSA collected the phone numbers of all calls made and received as well as the length of each call.  In 2013, a US District Judge ruled that collection was likely unconstitutional but allowed the program to continue while under appellate review.  The DC Circuit is the highest appeals court and all three of its judges spoke negatively of the case.  One judge said the government wouldn't provide the necessary information to help the challenge to the program while another judge said the challengers needed to show they were targeted by the surveillance program.

This decision is especially interesting because Congress passed a law in June that phases out the bulk collection of phone records by the NSA, even though the FISA (double secret classified court) court claimed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 allowed the program.  The new law from Congress requires phone companies to keep all phone records and allows the government to search the records without any warrant.  Any further judicial decisions are irrelevant as the program shifts according to the new law, however, big brother will be collecting all phone records until then.

Question (s) - Do you know what the NSA does?  Are you willing to give up some freedoms in order to have more security?  Is the mass collection of phone records worthwhile?

Immigration Law Stuck in Appeals Court

Link - http://www.latintimes.com/obama-immigration-2015-sheriff-joe-arpaios-lawsuit-dismissed-court-citing-unsupported-335464

Date - 8/17/2015

Summary - President Obama announced an Executive Order on immigration in November of 2014.  His 2012 Order dealt with DACA, deferred action on children, in which the INS would not deport children brought illegally before the age of 18.  The 2014 Order dealt with DAPA, deferred action on parents, in which parents who entered illegally, but whose children are citizens, would not be deported.  A notoriously conservative and outspoken sheriff from Phoenix, Joe Arapaio, brought a suit against Obama by claiming DAPA would lead to an increase in crime.  The D.C. District Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, claiming that Arapaio does not have standing in the case, which means he cannot prove injury.  Arapaio's lawyer hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will agree, though the next step is the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans.  Interestingly, the 5th Circuit is currently deciding a case brought by Texas against Obama for DAPA.  The Texas suit has been granted standing and a federal court issued a ruling in February against Obama's plan.  Texas reasoning was based on the claim immigrants will cost more money for public services, such as driver's licenses.  While the 5th Circuit has not rendered its final ruling, it did rule in May against lifting the hold on DAPA, arguing "public interest favors maintenance of the injunction" against DAPA.

Question(s) - Was Obama within his constitutional powers in implementing an action that is widely popular?  Why did Obama pass this executive order (what does cartoon say)?


By the way, here is a funny video on the bill, I mean executive action.