States of Medicaid Expansion

According to the New York Times, 22 governors have committed to expanding their state's Medicaid program, including seven states with Republican governors.  In the wake of the 2012 Supreme Court decision that made an expansion of government-sponsored health care for lower-income people a state decision, Medicaid expansion has been a polemic issue at the state level.

The federal government has agreed to pay all costs of such an expansion from 2014 to 2016, afterwards paying 90% for an unspecified time, but some governors were not swayed.  Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida are the seven states with Republican governors that now voice support for the bill.  These changes of heart are due to government funding, consumer advocacy, and the health care industry.  Many hospitals are voicing support for the expansion, claiming that the less expensive Medicaid insurance will make up whatever losses the hospitals might incur by the volume of the newly insured.  Were all 22 states to choose to expand Medicaid, the 60 million covered by Medicaid currently would increase to 77 million insured people.

40 Years of Roe v Wade

Wednesday marks the 40^th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Roe v Wade regarding the legality of abortions.  The Economist’s Daily Chart notes this anniversary by highlighting the trends in abortions and abortion-related deaths in the United States since 1965.  The graph to the right illustrates an oft-overlooked statistic: although Roe v Wade is the national milestone for abortion rights, abortion laws had already been liberalized in fifteen states three years earlier.  In fact, abortion-related deaths saw an extreme decline between 1970 and the 1973 Supreme Court ruling, from roughly 140 deaths in 1970 to approximately 40 in 1973.  In a similar trend, abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 began to steeply increase in 1969 and continued at a similar increase throughout the 1970s.

Since 1980, abortions have been on a steady decline, from almost 240 per 1,000 women to less than 20 in 2008. The Economist also points out that many states have been attempting to curb abortion rates in their states, introducing 135 provisions and regulations in the past two years.  In addition, sixteen states retain laws which would ban abortions if Roe v Wade were ever overturned.

The Economist's article primarily used data from the US Census Bureau's Statistical Abstract, found here.

Americans Weigh in on the 2010 Health Care Law

March 29^th marks the completion of the final day of the Supreme Court’s health care hearings.  The Court is expected to make its ruling in late June.  In conjunction with the final day of arguments, The New York Times released its polling data on the public’s support and comprehension of the Affordable Care Act and its implications.  The poll finds that 47% of Americans disapprove of the legislation, while 36% approve.  In addition, while the public can only speculate on the outcome of the health care hearings, the American people have specific opinions on how the Supreme Court should handle the case.  26% believe the law should remain intact, 29% favor overturning the individual mandate, and 38% would prefer the Court to find the entire law unconstitutional.  Americans are much more favorable of the law’s specific provisions.  

Aside from the individual mandate (51% of Americans disapprove of the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that Americans purchase health insurance), the majority of Americans support: (1) the Act’s requirement that health insurance companies cover those possessing existing medical conditions, (2) The provision permitting children to remain on their parents’ policies until age 26, and (3) the Affordable Care Act’s attempt to close the prescription drug coverage gap, commonly known as the “doughnut hole.” 

In terms of the personal effects of the 2010 health care law, most Americans believe the legislation will not have much effect on their overall health care benefits or the quality of care they receive, but they do expect their health care costs to increase as a result of the legislation.

Lastly, it appears that many Americans are confused with how the Affordable Care Act will affect them and their families.  48% of the public does not understand the 2,700-page act and the effects it will have on their families, while 47% say they do understand the law.  

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance On the Decline

Paul Krugman and Reed Abelson, writing with the New York Times, recently highlighted a study displaying the trends within the sources of health insurance for nonelderly Americans.  The study, carried out by the National Institute for Health Care Reform (NIHCR), looked at the form of health insurance coverage for Americans from 2001 to 2010.  The study found that the share of Americans under 65 who receive coverage from Medicaid has risen over 8 percent, up from 9.5 percent in 2001 to 17.6 percent in 2010.  This trend illustrates the paradox of government-sponsored insurance in times of a recession; as people begin to lose their jobs and income, they are more likely to fall under the umbrella of Medicaid.  With the diminishing revenue from income tax, however, the state and federal governments have less funds to support Medicaid.  When a recession hits, more people need Medicaid, but there is less money to fund the program.  The NIHCR data displays this trend, but it also shows the rapidly declining percentage of nonelderly Americans who receive health insurance from their employer.  The share of Americans under 65 who receive employer-sponsored coverage is down from 69.8 percent in 2001 to 53.5 percent in 2010.  This severe drop in employer-sponsored coverage can be attributed to the rise in unemployment over the past decade in conjunction with the decline of employers willing and/or able to provide coverage to employees.  The final notable trend illustrated in the NIHCR study was the growing number of uninsured nonelderly Americans.  The share of Americans under 65 who remain uninsured rose from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 19.5 percent in 2010.  The recession clearly had notable impacts on health insurance coverage, but it will be interesting to see how the recently passed Affordable Care Act, which will not be fully implemented until the beginning of 2015, will affect the NIHCR’s numbers in the future.  In addition, the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (specifically, the individual mandate) is currently under review by the Supreme Court, so the outcome of the case will also have significant implications for health insurance coverage.

Support for Death Penalty Down from Last Year, but a Majority Still Favors its Use

A recent Gallup poll shows that 61 percent of Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder; another 52 percent believe the dealth penalty is applied fairly through the country's criminal justice system. The approval rate represents a three percent decline from last year, when 64 percent of Americans were in favor of the penalty. According to Gallup, this year's mark indicates "the lowest level of support since 1972, the year the Supreme Court voided all existing state death penalty laws in Furman v. Georgia."

Gallup writes that views on the death penalty in murder cases have "varied substantially" over time. In 1936, the first year Gallup began asking respondents about the death penalty, "59% of Americans supported it and 38% opposed it." This was followed by "a period from the late 1950s to the early 1970s when less than a majority of Americans favored it." And "support climbed to its highest levels from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s, including the all-time high of 80% who favored the death penalty in 1994."

The 52 percent who say they believe the penalty is applied fairly also represents a decline from last year, when the figure stood six points higher, at 58 percent. Additionally, 40 percent of Americans state the dealth penalty is not used enough, "the lowest such percentage since May 2001, when Gallup first asked this question." Further, "twenty-five percent say the death penalty is used too often, the highest such percentage yet that Gallup has measured."

Americans view the death penalty issue along strongly partisan lines. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of the practice, as compared with 46% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Gallup writes: "Additionally, men, whites, and those living in the South and Midwest are among those most likely to support the death penalty."
Gallup conducted the poll following the controversial execution of Troy Davis, who was put to death in Georgia this past September. Politicians' stances on the death penalty may play a role in the upcoming presidential race; at a recent GOP debate, Governor Rick Perry was asked about his views on the practice--and how it is applied in his home state.

NH cf

Hatch: Leading the Charge Against Kagan?

Some time ago I realized that simply being a voter was an insufficient enough participation level for me to consider myself a defender of the Constitution. That is a fundamental reason why I created themostsearched.

Likewise, with the regard to the nomination of Elena Kagan, it is insufficient enough for me to have my two Senators--Hatch and Bennett--simply verbally oppose the nomination of yet another Constitiution-ripper-upper. I need action. Every legal action possible. And with a scheduled July 13th vote in Committee, time is drawning short.

Judiciary Committee veteran Hatch must be found "Leading the Charge" (as the title of my autographed Hatch biography states he does) of a massive filibuster of this nominee Kagan whose ideology would veer from the strict power granted the Federal Government by "We the People." Hatch's judicial nominee opinions seem to carry a large amount of weight in the Senate. If Hatch is unwilling to use the power we the citizens of Utah have vested in him to defend our Constitution, then then time is ripe in 2012 to find another more willing to do so.

Senators Hatch and Bennett: will accept your duty as vested you by the People of the State of Utah and Lead the Charge? Or, Senator Hatch, must we find another to Lead the Charge as we found Mike Lee to replace Bob Bennett?

SCOTUS: 6 Catholics, 3 Jews?

Imagine for a minute there were two sitting justices on the SCOTUS who were Mormon by religious affiliation. The only Protestant on the Supreme Court was retiring and the POTUS nominated yet another Mormon to the bench. How would you feel? Would you feel like somehow though the various Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals) comprise a majority of religious adherents in the US that you had no representation? Would you wonder why a US religion registering around 2% was getting a third justice while your religion had no representation? Would you protest or accuse the POTUS of being a religious bigot? (SCOTUS religious stats here)

Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!

I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.

What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.

I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.

++++ Update 7/10

I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies
have no right to be delivered.’"

“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”

"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.

You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.

Sotomayor: Unfit for Supreme Court

Sotomayor uses her judicial appointment to create policy.

Is this on tape? Um, themostsearched knows we don't make statements like this. We know. We know. themostsearched isn't promoting this statement or advocating this statement. Um, ok, having said that this blog is where that statement is percolating.



And what is percolating isn't good. It appears in addition to her philosophy of using the judgeship for something outside of the checks and balances of our government, she is bigoted, elevating Hispanics not equal, but superior to other races:

In her talk, she disagreed with an approach to judging expressed by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the US Supreme Court. Justice O'Connor was frequently quoted as saying that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.

"I'm not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Christian Science Monitor)

In asserting her bigotry we also submit the pending case Ricci v. DeStefano appealed from Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court where the city of New Haven refused to grant firefighters promotions simply because no black scored high enough on a test administered by the city. Sotomayor sided against the firefighters in favor of the city.

Judging judges is a difficult task. There are complex issues involved with reaching implications. Yet Sotomayor's actions do not seem consistent with being a blind (fair, impartial) judge of the law. Nevertheless, we have a review process in place beginning with our Senate Judiciary Committee and Sotomayor will have opportunity to discuss her positions. Interviews such as yesterday's Fox News with Senator Orrin Hatch of the Committee reveal that Hatch has many more questions about her qualifications based on her past rulings.

themostsearched opposes Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. However, we will also reserve final judgement until the Judiciary Committee has a chance to thoroughly question Judge Sotomayor.