In it, but not of it. TPM DC

Facing a possible Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare that could cost residents millions of dollars in subsidies to buy health insurance, Delaware has put in motion a plan that could protect the state from the effects of such a decision.

Rita Landgraf, Delaware's health and social services director, confirmed to TPM Wednesday that the state has filed a "blueprint" to the federal government to take more responsibility for its Obamacare exchange to blunt the potential effects of a pending Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell.

Currently Delaware's exchange is a state-federal hybrid-run marketplace, but this week Delaware submitted what Landgraf called a "plan for a plan" to move to a federally-supported state-based marketplace.

"I feel moving to a [federally] supported state-based market place is not that heavy of a lift for us," Landgraf said. She emphasized that her department is continuing to do the financial due diligence to determine what the change would cost the state and consumers. She said Delaware will consider the move even if the Supreme Court rules to uphold the subsidies in King v. Burwell.

Read More →

Pennsylvania became the first state Tuesday to publicly put in motion a back-up plan to protect its federal health insurance subsidies in the event the Supreme Court dismantles a key part of President Obama’s health care law.

Tuesday evening, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf announced the state this week had submitted an application to the federal government to take over the state's federal exchange. The move would allow Pennsylvania residents to continue to receive federal subsidies towards purchasing health insurance if subsidies on the federal exchange are invalidated by a ruling in the King v. Burwell case expected later this month.

Pennsylvania would also need the approval of its GOP-led legislature if it wanted to set up its own exchange.

"There is no reason to deal with it right now," Steve Miskin, spokesman for the state’s House Republicans, told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Read More →

The idea that U.S. presidents look out for the wealthy and powerful over the mass of ordinary Americans is nothing new. But a new study claims to confirm that assumption with hard data while seeking to spur a conversation over the flagging health of American democracy.

Read More →

Edward Blum has been trying to take down “one person, one vote” -- a tenet of modern voting rights law -- since 1997. Last week brought him his biggest breakthrough yet, with the Supreme Court surprising many election law experts by taking up a redistricting case that has the potential to redefine "one person, one vote" and fundamentally alter how electoral districts are drawn nationwide.

The case also fits into Blum’s undeniably successful crusade to dismantle longstanding civil rights laws and remove race as a factor in governmental decision-making.

“That’s the bulk of the reason I pursued this,” Blum told TPM last week after the Supreme Court announced it was taking the case. “The effect that this policy has on race is surely one of the reasons I’ve been interested in it and many others have. But also a question of fairness in our democracy drove the filing of the suit.”

Read More →

LiveWire