June 26, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right-for-gay-couples/

Supreme Court: Marriage is a fundamental right for gay couples
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
June 26, 2015


Play VIDEO -- Same-sex marriage arguments to be heard at Supreme Court Tuesday

In a historic development for gay rights and the institution of marriage, the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the constitutional right to marry.

Specifically, the 5-4 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges declares that the 14th Amendment requires all states to perform same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death," the ruling continues. "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

The ruling extends marriage rights to gay couples in the 14 remaining states where same-sex marriage was previously prohibited. It also validates lower-court rulings in 20 states where marriage bans were struck down by federal judges.

Who is helped by the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare subsidies?
The recent series of court rulings striking down marriage bans, culminating with this Supreme Court ruling, reflects a growing national acceptance of same-sex marriage. A February CBS News poll showed that 60 percent of Americans said it should be legal for same-sex couples to marry. More than half, 56 percent, said same-sex marriage should be left up to the states, though support for that position dropped eight points from a year earlier.

By protecting same-sex marriage nationally, the court is ensuring that same-sex couples are entitled to same state benefits that all married couples receive, in every state. In the Obergefell v. Hodges case, plaintiff Jim Obergefell was specifically seeking the right to be listed on his husband's death certificate. Obergefell and his longtime partner John Arthur were legally married in Maryland in 2013, when Arthur was terminally ill. However, since their home state of Ohio did not recognize same-sex marriages, the state refused Obergefell's request to be listed on Arthur's death certificate.

When CBS News' Jan Crawford asked Obergefell earlier this year what Arthur would think of the ongoing legal battle, Obergefell said, "I think -- I know -- he's proud. I know he would thank me for living up to my promises to him, for living up to my marriage vows to fight for him, to love him, to honor him and to protect him."

Each of the four justices in the minority -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito -- wrote their own dissenting opinion.

"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage," Roberts wrote in his dissent. "And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational."

The chief justice ended his dissent by telling those in support of same-sex marriage, "by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

NOTE: SEE THIS WEBSITE FOR THE COMPLETE 30 SOMETHING PAGED TEXT OF THE RULING.




"In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death," the ruling continues. "It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."

This statement by Justice Kennedy is profound and beautiful. In traditional societies young people have been matched up by their elders, usually based on an exchange of wealth or property and often on a political alliance. Even Queen Elizabeth II probably wouldn’t have been encouraged or even allowed to marry someone who wasn’t of equal social and political status. As a result, most of those royal marriages even today contain lots of shared genes due to first cousin marriages, and that isn’t really a good thing medically.

In recent centuries young people have increasingly picked their own partners, and usually because of a very powerful personal commitment of a sexual nature to their partner. I must consider that a superior reason for forming a marriage. Having to marry and perform sexual interactions with someone to whom we are not sexually attracted seems to me a profound violation of an individual’s inner soul a very much like rape. That was the worst problem between Prince Charles and Lady Diana – Charles was emotionally and sexually committed to another woman who had been considered socially inferior to him, so a marriage between them was not allowed.

We have entered a time period of personal “fulfillment,” which may not even be culturally acceptable, but it is clearly a universal principle. Folk stories from all around the world bear this out, as lovers run away from their parents’ home so that they can be together. “Love” has been around as long as people have, after all. See the Wikipedia articles on some very surprising marriages that are legal and societally recognized even today.

A quick quotation from the article “Types of marriages” states “The type, functions, and characteristics of marriage vary from culture to culture, and can change over time. In general there are two types: civil marriage and religious marriage, and typically marriages employ a combination of both (religious marriages must often be licensed and recognized by the state, and conversely civil marriages, while not sanctioned under religious law, are nevertheless respected). Marriages between people of differing religions are called interfaith marriages, while marital conversion, a more controversial concept than interfaith marriage, refers to the religious conversion of one partner to the other's religion for sake of satisfying a religious requirement. …. Polyandry (a woman having multiple husbands) occurs very rarely in a few isolated tribal societies. These societies include some bands of the Canadian Inuit,[citation needed] although the practice has declined sharply in the 20th century due to their conversion from tribal religion to Christianity by Moravian missionaries. Additionally, the Spartans were notable for practicing polyandry.[1] …. Societies which permit group marriage are extremely rare, but have existed in Utopian societies such as the Oneida Community.[citation needed]

Today, many married people practice various forms of consensual nonmonogamy, including polyamory and Swinging. These people have agreements with their spouses that permit other intimate relationships or sexual partners. Therefore, the concept of marriage need not necessarily hinge on sexual or emotional monogamy.”

In case you wonder about the “normality” of other marriage forms, the incidence of them is pretty convincing to me. One of the most interesting anthropology courses I took at UNC was about up close studies of some half a dozen tribal societies which existed at least into the 1900s, and it included a wide number of surprising aspects which were traditional in those areas and very much considered to be “normal.”

Marriage between two people of the same sex certainly isn’t recognized in many places, but my personal experience in my young years has taught me that trying to make a relationship with a man who is “a confirmed bachelor,” a passive individual, gay or “a commitment phobe” is very unlikely to work out positively and in a sexually satisfying manner. Many of those men are in fact, gay or bisexual after all even though they are afraid of saying so and with good reason. They could be beaten up or even killed because of that. Men and women were highly encouraged to marry a person of the opposite sex and produce children for appearances, but when I was young there were lots of couples who simply “had no children” and lots of men and women who opted out entirely, staying home with their parents and helping out around the house. Wonder why?

In my case, it simply was not possible for me to marry “my best friend” or “a good man” and be satisfied with that. Unfortunately for me, the men I was most attracted to were definitely more into “fighting than fleeing,” and as a result we argued a lot and had conflicts, which obviously makes the up close infighting of the relationship impossible to tolerate for more than a few years. Likewise, I wasn’t one of those women who were docile and would even consider being “obedient.” I “loved” the assertive men and the mutual sexual attraction made me want to have their baby. Personally if a marriage can’t be like that I don’t want to be married, and I’m not. I’ve been divorced twice and have no children. I have had a personally satisfying inner life, however, and have had that fulfilling sexual relationship that I craved. That is enough for me. I have been happy.

As for a mandate to conjoin two expensive properties or rear a dozen children, I wouldn’t willingly do either of those two things without love. I am clearly a romantic, and a “natural woman” in the words of Carol King, which was also sung by Aretha Franklin -- who can out-sing anybody else in my opinion. I am so glad that song came out when I was a vibrantly alive young woman. It put me on a path going away from mental slavery to society’s rules, and made me fully glad that I was alive.

I am glad to see our Supreme Court has voted to allow gay marriages, as a human right. US society has moved further toward individuation as I have grown older, and to me that is what “the pursuit of happiness” means. What else could it mean?





http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/26/417727757/abide-by-the-law-campaign-trail-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-ruling

'Abide By The Law': Campaign Trail Responds To Same-Sex-Marriage Ruling
Amita Kelly
June 26, 2015

After the Supreme Court's decision to effectively legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide came down at 10 a.m. ET, the 2016 hopefuls weighed in quickly.

The Republican side of the field has opposed same-sex marriage, but in responding to Friday's decision, most of the candidates struck a measured tone — many noting they support traditional marriage and religious freedom and disagree with the court, but also stressed the importance of respect and tolerance for all Americans.

Marco Rubio said while he disagrees with the court's decision, "we live in a republic and must abide by the law." Jeb Bush sent a statement saying while he disagrees, "I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments."

Lindsey Graham said that as president he would "staunchly defend religious liberty" but that "while we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people."

For others like Bobby Jindal and Rick Santorum, the tone was not so measured. "This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians," Jindal said.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton, who supports same-sex marriage, tweeted that she was "Proud to celebrate a historic victory for marriage equality—& the courage & determination of LGBT Americans who made it possible." Her campaign quickly changed her "H" logo on social media sites to a rainbow-colored one, and sent out rainbow graphics of the word "History."

Here is how the candidates have responded (with updates as we hear more):

Jeb Bush:

"Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage. I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision. I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments. In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side. It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
Ben Carson:

"While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land.
I call on Congress to make sure deeply held religious views are respected and protected. The government must never force Christians to violate their religious beliefs.
I support same sex civil unions but to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form."
Lindsey Graham:

"I am a proud defender of traditional marriage and believe the people of each state should have the right to determine their marriage laws. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional, and I will respect the Court's decision. Furthermore, given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress. Rather than pursing a divisive effort that would be doomed to fail, I am committing myself to ensuring the protection of religious liberties of all Americans. No person of faith should ever be forced by the federal government to take action that goes against his or her conscience or the tenets of their religion. As president, I would staunchly defend religious liberty in this nation and would devote the necessary federal resources to the protection of all Americans from any effort to hinder the free and full exercise of their rights. While we have differences, it is time for us to move forward together respectfully and as one people."

Carly Fiorina:

"Moving forward, however, all of our effort should be focused on protecting the religious liberties and freedom of conscience for those Americans that profoundly disagree with today's decision.
The Court did not and could not end this debate today. Let us continue to show tolerance for those whose opinions and sincerely held beliefs differ from our own. We must lead by example, finding a way to respect one another and to celebrate a culture that protects religious freedom while promoting equality under the law."
Mike Huckabee:

"The Supreme Court has spoken with a very divided voice on something only the Supreme Being can do-redefine marriage. I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch. We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."

Bobby Jindal:

"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.
This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.
The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America's long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.
I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me."
Marco Rubio:

"While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. ...
I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court's decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other."
Rick Santorum:

"As President, I will be committed to using the bully pulpit of the White House to lead a national discussion on the importance to our economy and our culture of mothers and fathers entering into healthy marriages so that every child is given their birthright- to be raised by their mother and father in a stable, loving home. I will stand for the preservation of religious liberty and conscience, to believe what you are called to believe free from persecution. And I will ensure that the people will have a voice in decisions that impact the rock upon which our civilization is built."
Hillary Clinton:

"From Stonewall to the Supreme Court, the courage and determination of the LGBT community has changed hearts and changed laws.
This ruling is an affirmation of the commitment of couples across the country who love one another. ...
So while we celebrate the progress won today, we must stand firm in our conviction to keep moving forward. For too many LGBT Americans who are subjected to discriminatory laws, true equality is still just out of reach. While we celebrate today, our work won't be finished until every American can not only marry, but live, work, pray, learn and raise a family free from discrimination and prejudice. We cannot settle for anything less."

Bernie Sanders:

"Today the Supreme Court fulfilled the words engraved upon its building: 'Equal justice under law.' This decision is a victory for same-sex couples across our country as well as all those seeking to live in a nation where every citizen is afforded equal rights. For far too long our justice system has marginalized the gay community and I am very glad the Court has finally caught up to the American people."




“The Republican side of the field has opposed same-sex marriage, but in responding to Friday's decision, most of the candidates struck a measured tone — many noting they support traditional marriage and religious freedom and disagree with the court, but also stressed the importance of respect and tolerance for all Americans.” I’ve presented the words of each candidate above without any commentary. Each has his own view and the respectful attention to each is what I hope this article will bring. It is very interesting to me and heartening to see how a group of different candidates bow to the will of the Supreme Court in something that they may well be firmly biased against from a religious viewpoint. That is encouraging to me because this nation was set up not as a “Christian nation,” as several have said since the influx of the Tea Party, but a secular nation which welcomes or at least allows almost all types of religion including Paganism and Mormonism. This, to me, is one of the most important of our guaranteed freedoms. We all came here as little groups, partly to gain a better economic footing, but very often to escape religious persecution in Europe and other places. The Protestants and the Catholics spent 500 or so years or so in Europe fighting religious wars. Many people were executed because of their beliefs, not to mention those who were burned as witches. We should spend no more time doing that kind of thing – religion is supposed to bring peace and love, not viciousness and war!!




http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/25/417586527/univision-cuts-ties-with-trump-after-comments-about-immigrants

Univision Cuts Ties With Trump After Comments About Immigrants
Greg Allen
June 25, 2015

Photograph -- Donald Trump is just a week into his presidential bid, and he is in hot water over comments he made about a key voting bloc, Latinos. Jim Cole/AP

Following comments Donald Trump made about Mexican immigrants during his presidential announcement last week, Univision, the nation's largest Spanish-language TV network, has announced it is cutting ties with Trump and dropping plans to broadcast the Miss Universe Pageant.

Trump, the businessman and now-presidential candidate, co-owns the pageant.

"When do we beat Mexico at the border?" Trump said during his lengthy presidential announcement speech at Trump Tower in New York. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Trump's main theme was that the country is in serious trouble. He talked about the need for America to begin beating China in trade and Japan in manufacturing.

But it was Trump's comments about immigrants from Mexico that have earned him the anger of many Hispanics.

"I was listening to it in the car on the way to work, and by the time I got to the office, everybody was talking about it," said Roberto Orci of Acento Advertising, a Hispanic agency in Los Angeles.

Trump's comments are just the type the Republican Party has been looking to avoid. The Republican National Committee underwent serious self-reflection following President Obama's re-election, initiating an "autopsy" of what went wrong. It determined it had to reach out to minorities to strike a more inclusive tone.

After Trump's speech, Sean Spicer, the RNC's chief strategist, said on CNN that Trump's "broad brush" on Mexican Americans is "not helpful to the cause."

Trump didn't limit himself to insulting Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. Later in the speech, he blasted immigrants coming from "all over South and Latin America."

"With one short speech about us," Orci said, "he tarred the entire Latino culture as being rapists and murderers and terrorists."

In the days following the speech, Hispanic leaders and commentators excoriated Trump. Jorge Ramos, Univision's news anchor, said Trump had become "the Hispanic community's most hated man."

Now, Univision has backed up Ramos' comments with action. The network announced it is ending its relationship with Trump and the Miss Universe Pageant, which he co-owns. It is an announcement that likely comes with a cost. Univision just signed a five-year deal with the pageant in January. The Los Angeles Times reports Univision has already paid $2.5 million for this year's pageant rights — rights the company now says it will not exercise.

With his comments, Trump has alienated a key part of the pageant's core audience. Viewership for the Miss Universe Pageant has declined steeply in recent years among every demographic group except one — Hispanics.

Carlos Santiago advises companies on how best to reach the growing Hispanic market. He said Trump's comments have hurt the pageant's connection to Latinos.

"Donald Trump himself has been extremely marketing-oriented and growing brands," Santiago said. "So, he must know the value that the pageant and the Miss Universe brand has among Hispanics."

Trump said he plans to sue Univision for breach of contract. And today, he blamed Univision's actions on the Mexican government. He claimed Mexico was putting pressure on the network because of his opposition to trade deals with that country.

Miss Universe is scheduled for January. But the Miss USA Pageant, a Miss Universe preliminary, is set for next month. Following Univision's decision, the pageant hasn't just lost a broadcaster; two of the event's hosts said they were also dropping out.

The controversy seems unlikely to fade, especially now that Trump is an official candidate for president. With his high name recognition, he places highly in many polls and is likely to be included in the first two Republican presidential debates scheduled for August.




"When do we beat Mexico at the border?" Trump said during his lengthy presidential announcement speech at Trump Tower in New York. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." …. "I was listening to it in the car on the way to work, and by the time I got to the office, everybody was talking about it," said Roberto Orci of Acento Advertising, a Hispanic agency in Los Angeles. Trump's comments are just the type the Republican Party has been looking to avoid. The Republican National Committee underwent serious self-reflection following President Obama's re-election, initiating an "autopsy" of what went wrong. It determined it had to reach out to minorities to strike a more inclusive tone. …. Trump didn't limit himself to insulting Mexican immigrants and Mexican Americans. Later in the speech, he blasted immigrants coming from "all over South and Latin America." "With one short speech about us," Orci said, "he tarred the entire Latino culture as being rapists and murderers and terrorists." In the days following the speech, Hispanic leaders and commentators excoriated Trump. Jorge Ramos, Univision's news anchor, said Trump had become "the Hispanic community's most hated man." …. With his comments, Trump has alienated a key part of the pageant's core audience. Viewership for the Miss Universe Pageant has declined steeply in recent years among every demographic group except one — Hispanics. …. Trump said he plans to sue Univision for breach of contract. And today, he blamed Univision's actions on the Mexican government. He claimed Mexico was putting pressure on the network because of his opposition to trade deals with that country. …. . Following Univision's decision, the pageant hasn't just lost a broadcaster; two of the event's hosts said they were also dropping out. The controversy seems unlikely to fade, especially now that Trump is an official candidate for president. With his high name recognition, he places highly in many polls and is likely to be included in the first two Republican presidential debates scheduled for August.”

More than one of the Tea Partiites have made a number of annoying to downright shocking comments, and have had to back down and eat crow publically. About a year ago a Western state Republican said that if his constituency backed it, he would willingly “vote for slavery.” That shows what his idea of the place in our society for a statesman is – a “Yes man” to the richest supporters. See the following websites: (eaglerising.com/2617/tea-party-republican-jim-wheeler-vote-slavery/); Tea Party candidate says he won’t pay taxes if blacks get reparations (http://thegrio.com/2014/04/10/tea-party-candidate-says-he-wont-pay-taxes-if-blacks-get-reparations/); CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel: It Gave ‘Food And Shelter’ To Blacks, (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/15/1729331/cpac-slavery-minority-outreach/); Tea Party Groups In Tennessee Demand Textbooks Overlook U.S. Founder's Slave-Owning History (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/tea-party-tennessee-textbooks-slavery_n_1224157.html). It has been growing ever more clear what the most rightwing of our currently elected Republican leaders actually do want, and it is nothing short of the destruction of our government. As for Trump, he is not of a very high order of intelligence, as shown in more than one incident since he entered politics. He was a strong advocate of the "Birther" doctrine. I think the more he says the more his position as an actual candidate rather than a comedian will be weakened. It’s truly funny.





http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/06/26/417733970/5-challenges-still-facing-obamacare

5 Challenges Still Facing Obamacare
Kaiser Health News
June 26, 2015

Photograph -- President Obama and Vice President Biden shake hands after the president spoke in the White House's Rose Garden Thursday about the Supreme Court decision in favor of Obamacare.
Carolyn Kaster/AP

In its first five years, the Affordable Care Act has survived technical meltdowns, a presidential election, two Supreme Court challenges — including one resolved Thursday — and dozens of repeal efforts in Congress. But its long-term future still isn't ensured.

Here are five of the biggest hurdles that remain.

Medicaid Expansion

About 4 million more Americans would gain coverage if all states expand the state-federal Medicaid programs to cover people with incomes at or slightly above the poverty line. So far, 21 states with Republican governors or GOP-controlled legislatures, including Texas and Florida, have balked, citing ideological objections, their own budget pressures, as well as skepticism about Washington's long-term commitment to pay for most of the costs.

Anemic Enrollment

Eighteen million Americans who are eligible to buy insurance in federal and state marketplaces haven't purchased it. Those marketplaces have had particular trouble enrolling Hispanics, young adults and people who object to being told to buy insurance. Federal funding used by state marketplaces to enroll people and advertise is drying up. Many state marketplaces haven't figured out how to be self-sustaining. Vermont, Hawaii, Colorado and Rhode Island are among those states searching for more money. The penalty for going without coverage rises next year to $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of family income—whichever is larger.

Market Stability

Nationally, premiums haven't gone up too much on average in the first two years of the marketplaces, but that could change. The federal government has been protecting insurers from unexpectedly high medical bills, but that cushion disappears after next year. At the same time, insurers finally have enough experience with their initial customers to figure out if their premiums are sufficient to cover medical costs. If they're not, expect increases.

Affordability

People who get their insurance through their employer have mostly been spared jolts from the health law. But the federal government begins taxing expensive health plans in 2018. The "Cadillac tax," created by the health law, will pressure employers to offer skimpier health coverage or pass the taxes' cost on to their employees. Also, individuals buying their insurance on the health law marketplaces continue to risk large out-of-pocket costs if they need lots of care. Their maximum financial obligations for next year are $6,850 for individuals and $13,700 for families. Those who choose to go out of their insurance network may have no ceiling on how much they may have to pay.

Political Resistance

Thursday's ruling did little to diminish the GOP's zeal to repeal the health law. Republicans on both sides of the Capitol pledged to continue their efforts to kill the ACA. A lawsuit filed by House Republicans last year alleges the president overstepped his authority when implementing the health law. The topic remains grist for the 2016 presidential campaign, with several Republican presidential candidates – including Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — reiterating their desire to repeal the law. If the Republicans capture both the White House and Congress in 2016, all bets are off over whether the law survives intact.

Kaiser Health News writers Julie Appleby, Mary Agnes Carey, Phil Galewitz and Jordan Rau contributed to this report.




“So far, 21 states with Republican governors or GOP-controlled legislatures, including Texas and Florida, have balked, citing ideological objections, their own budget pressures, as well as skepticism about Washington's long-term commitment to pay for most of the costs. …. Eighteen million Americans who are eligible to buy insurance in federal and state marketplaces haven't purchased it. Those marketplaces have had particular trouble enrolling Hispanics, young adults and people who object to being told to buy insurance. …. Nationally, premiums haven't gone up too much on average in the first two years of the marketplaces, but that could change. The federal government has been protecting insurers from unexpectedly high medical bills, but that cushion disappears after next year. …. People who get their insurance through their employer have mostly been spared jolts from the health law. But the federal government begins taxing expensive health plans in 2018. The "Cadillac tax," created by the health law, will pressure employers to offer skimpier health coverage or pass the taxes' cost on to their employees. Also, individuals buying their insurance on the health law marketplaces continue to risk large out-of-pocket costs if they need lots of care. …. Republicans on both sides of the Capitol pledged to continue their efforts to kill the ACA. A lawsuit filed by House Republicans last year alleges the president overstepped his authority when implementing the health law.”

Bernie Sanders and others have been in favor of a “one payer” system in which the federal government pays for everything. I know I wasn’t able to pay for health insurance before I became old enough for Medicare, so I would have had to pay the Obamacare tax penalty. So, I personally am in favor of Sander’s recommendation. It’s simpler to just tax the wealthy and corporations more rather than have this system of subsidies and state run marketplaces. There’s a great room for error in that. Some things like this, I think, are more efficient and logical to be run from the top down. It would also be more fair to individuals or groups within the states who are given short shrift by the state government – there is a great contempt among some conservative Americans for “welfare mothers,” for instance.

A one payer system would also give the federal government the ability and right to regulate what payments the insurance companies and medical providers can demand for their services as well. For some reason there is presently a ban on Medicare’s bargaining with providers and insurers to bring costs down, I heard. That just makes good common sense to me! Democrats like that, and Republicans hate it – it smacks of regulating just how wealthy an individual is allowed to be, and sounds to them like Socialism, however the high cost of medical care – docs and hospitals – is one of the worst problems we’re having right now. Medical providers are grasping to make more and more money. An article a few months ago about a series of large hospitals which are supposedly for the poor, but which actually are gouging those very people monthly. Likewise are the insurance companies. Gone are the days when the local doctors were relatively well off but not among the superwealthy. I sometimes think that one of the bad things that has happened in this country (and world) is the growth of huge insurance companies whose whole goal is to make ever more money.

Luckily I had very few health problems before I made it to the age of 65, so I just went without insurance. I had a “Shands Card” which is an extension of Medicaid through the state of Florida. This current Obamacare plan, though a grand experiment, is, in my opinion, dangerously unwieldy with the effort to see to it that poor people have to “pay their fair share” out of what must be very tight incomes for most of them.

If it’s to be a one payer system, some new taxes would presumably be needed to pay for it. The wealthy and corporations would presumably have to put up a greater share. To allow an income source which the poor can use to “pay” their premiums, the government has instituted the subsidies system which the Supreme Court just barely allowed yesterday. Hopefully it could force some states to pony up their own state marketplaces and increase coverage under Medicaid as recommended, rather than reneging. The money to make the plan work has to come from somewhere, and at this point I don’t see clearly where that will be. However one “conservative” attempt to dismantle the Affordable Care Act has been disallowed by the Court. We seem to be one step ahead on the road.





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417457888/study-reveals-what-happens-during-a-glacial-earthquake

Study Reveals What Happens During A 'Glacial Earthquake'
Nell Greenfieldboyce
JUNE 25, 2015

Photograph -- One of the 20 GPS sensors deployed on Greenland's Helheim Glacier to track its movement. Alistair Everett/Swansea University

When giant icebergs break off of huge, fast-moving glaciers, they essentially push back on those rivers of ice and temporarily reverse the flow.

That's according to a new study of "glacial earthquakes," an unusual kind of temblor discovered just over a decade ago.

Glacial earthquakes happen when a really large hunk of ice breaks off a glacier in Greenland or Antarctica, says Meredith Nettles of Columbia University at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.

"We're talking about something that is a gigaton of ice," Nettles says. "That's sort of the size of an ice cube you would have if you filled up Central Park in New York City to the top of the Empire State Building."

A few years ago, her team was fortunate enough to see this kind of massive breakup of ice as they approached the front of a glacier in a helicopter.

"You see an enormous chunk of ice gradually start to tilt over, and it just lifts up all the water on top of it right up toward you as the iceberg continues to fall over. And you really see a mass of ice and water just flowing out into the fjord," she says. "And then very quickly, everything is still again."

Instruments around the world can pick up the resulting seismic rumbling, which can be like a magnitude-5 on the Richter scale.

"They are different from regular earthquakes. One way in which they are different is they take longer to happen," Nettles says. Instead of taking just seconds and generating rapid shaking, like an earthquake from the San Andreas Fault, a glacial earthquake can last a minute. This different signature in the seismic data is why scientists only recently discovered these earthquakes.

Nettles and her colleagues wanted to understand what exactly was happening when the earth shakes in this way. "We're really trying to understand, how does that seismic signal get created, when this ice detaches from the ice sheet," she explains.

Researchers used a helicopter to fly and land close to the calving edge of Helheim Glacier in Greenland. They put out a network of suitcase-sized GPS sensors that could precisely track the movement of the glacier. Over about two months, they captured information on 10 large calving events, all of which coincided with glacial earthquakes.

In a report published by the journal Science, they say a giant iceberg falling over generates a big enough force that it actually pushes back on the glacier, making it move backward and downward for several minutes.

"Imagine that you could go and just push on the front of the glacier with your thumb, really hard, so hard that you could reverse the direction that the front of the glacier is moving," says Nettles, "and then you let it go. And that backward and then forward motion is actually recorded in the GPS data from the front of the glacier."

The research team also set up a pretend glacier in the lab, using a tank of water with a plastic iceberg in it. The front of the fake glacier was outfitted with force and pressure sensors, so that it could be monitored as the fake iceberg tipped over and floated away.

"And what they see matches very closely what we see with the GPS data and the seismic data," Nettle says. "That allows us to actually build a better model for how the earthquake source works."

She says watching for the seismic signature of glacial earthquakes could give scientists a new way to measure the rate at which large glaciers are calving. That's important because ice is lost not just through melting, but also from calving, which is responsible for roughly half the ice mass being lost from Greenland.

"This is a great new way to monitor it quite inexpensively and accurately through time," agrees Eric Steig of the University of Washington, who called the new research "very convincing."

"This is a very cool piece of physics, so it's just fundamental science, which is just interesting," Steig says, "and it has direct relevance to things we ought to care about, like sea level."




“When giant icebergs break off of huge, fast-moving glaciers, they essentially push back on those rivers of ice and temporarily reverse the flow. That's according to a new study of "glacial earthquakes," an unusual kind of temblor discovered just over a decade ago. …. Instruments around the world can pick up the resulting seismic rumbling, which can be like a magnitude-5 on the Richter scale. "They are different from regular earthquakes. One way in which they are different is they take longer to happen," Nettles says. Instead of taking just seconds and generating rapid shaking, like an earthquake from the San Andreas Fault, a glacial earthquake can last a minute. This different signature in the seismic data is why scientists only recently discovered these earthquakes. …. They put out a network of suitcase-sized GPS sensors that could precisely track the movement of the glacier. Over about two months, they captured information on 10 large calving events, all of which coincided with glacial earthquakes. In a report published by the journal Science, they say a giant iceberg falling over generates a big enough force that it actually pushes back on the glacier, making it move backward and downward for several minutes. …. "This is a very cool piece of physics, so it's just fundamental science, which is just interesting," Steig says, "and it has direct relevance to things we ought to care about, like sea level."

I did wonder what happens to the sea water when a chunk of ice that large falls into it. It apparently rises up, just as the sea level is met by meltwater from those glaciers. Waterworld, here we come!





http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417440765/tama-the-cat-that-saved-a-japanese-train-station-dies

Tama, The Cat That Saved A Japanese Train Station, Dies
Lucy Perkins
June 25, 2015

Photograph -- Tama had held sway as stationmaster of the Kishi train station since 2007. Toru Yamanaka/AFP/Getty Images
A calico cat in southeastern Japan has left some big paw prints to fill. Tama, who served as "stationmaster" of the Kishi train station near Wakayama City, died Monday from acute heart failure, according to CNN. She was 16 (about 80 in cat years), the network reports.

Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.)


The railway system's president, Mitsonubu Kojima, said he visited Tama the day before she died and that she "stood up and let out a strong meow."

Tama's station is on the outskirts of Wakayama City, according to a CNN report in 2013. Aside from local residents, not many people traveled through the station. The current railway operator selected Tama, who was owned by a local family, as stationmaster in 2007 to try to bring in more travelers.

She had a noticeable impact, according to Kyodo News:

"The number of passengers on the line jumped to 2.27 million in fiscal 2014 from 1.92 million in fiscal 2005. Photos of Tama and other merchandise also sold well, leading to her appointment to acting president of Wakayama Electric Railway in January 2013."

Here's more from CNN's 2013 story:

"Kishi station currently houses a Tama-themed cafe, as well as a souvenir shop with items ranging from the usual array of pens, staplers and other supplies, to Kishi Station uniforms.
"Tama's cuteness is exploited wherever possible — from the chairs to the cakes in the cafe to the cat-shaped station building itself.
"There's also a cat stationmaster apprentice, Nitama, who shoulders some responsibilities for Tama. Sleeping and doing nothing is hard work, you know?"
A memorial service reportedly is set for Sunday.




“Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.) Tama is credited with saving the train station from financial ruin. Tourists would come to the station to see her hanging out in her office — a converted ticket booth — wearing a railway hat and collar. (A stationmaster is, generally, the human in charge of running the facility.) …. She had a noticeable impact, according to Kyodo News: "The number of passengers on the line jumped to 2.27 million in fiscal 2014 from 1.92 million in fiscal 2005. Photos of Tama and other merchandise also sold well, leading to her appointment to acting president of Wakayama Electric Railway in January 2013." …. "There's also a cat stationmaster apprentice, Nitama, who shoulders some responsibilities for Tama. Sleeping and doing nothing is hard work, you know?" A memorial service reportedly is set for Sunday.”

The Japanese must be very fond of cats. There are also a number of “cat islands” in or around Japan according to http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2015/03/a-visit-to-aoshima-a-cat-island-in-japan/386647/. That article says, “A Visit to Aoshima, a Japanese 'Cat Island', Alan Taylor, -- Aoshima Island is one of about a dozen "cat islands" around Japan, small places where there are significantly more feline residents than people. In Aoshima more than a hundred cats prowl the island, curling up in abandoned houses or strutting about in the quiet fishing village. Cats outnumber humans six to one on the island. Recently becoming popular online, tiny Aoshima has seen a steep rise in tourist visits, overwhelming the handful of permanent residents.” The photographs with this article are beautiful to examine. Take a look.