Each morning, Bill Scher and Terrance Heath serve up what progressives need to effect change on the kitchen-table issues families face: jobs, health care, green energy, financial reform, affordable education and retirement security.
OurFuture.org's Terrance Heath:  "It's a victory for 30 million previously uninsured Americans who got health insurance, and would have lost it if the ACA had been repealed It's a victory for the 32,000 Americans might have otherwise died because they would have lacked health insurance ... it's a victory for as many as 112 million Americans who have pre-existing conditions (including yours truly) who cannot be denied insurance on that basis ... It's a victory for 54 million Americans who have coverage for preventative care, without a co-pay ..."
Ruling renews hope of a historic ideological shift. NYT:  "What the Supreme Court’s decision does do is preserve Mr. Obama’s status as the president who did more to expand the nation’s safety net than any since Johnson. It preserves a bill intended to push back against rapidly rising income inequality ... 'Historians will compare this to F.D.R.’s Social Security and Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare,' said the historian Robert Dallek..."
But Roberts' ruling limits Commerce Clause. Slate's Jeff Shesol:  "Roberts insists, implausibly and a bit defensively, that he has to settle this Commerce Clause business before he can even consider 'saving' the ACA on other grounds. But Justice Ginsburg and the court’s liberals, in their concurring opinion, make clear what is really happening here: The establishment of 'a newly minted constitutional doctrine'—a sort of de facto, save-it-for-later majority opinion, effectively endorsed by the four dissenters."
Working poor face uncertainty over Medicaid expansion. NYT:  "The Supreme Court said on Thursday that a huge expansion of Medicaid envisioned in the 2010 health care law was an option, not a mandate, for states ... Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the federal government could not compel states to comply by cutting off all the federal money they receive for existing Medicaid programs ... Senior administration officials said Thursday that they were confident states would expand Medicaid when it was offered to them as an option. However, Republican governors like Mitch Daniels in Indiana and Bob McDonnell in Virginia refused to make commitments."
But American Prospect Garrett Epps downplays:  "The federal government can’t coerce states by threatening to cut off existing program funding as a penalty for refusing to accept more money for new programs, the important opinion said. That means the ACA can go ahead as planned—because the government wasn’t making that threat ... in other words, that the government shouldn’t do exactly that thing that it never had done, probably can’t do under the statute, and definitely doesn’t want to do."
Insurance industry relieved to have "certainty." USA Today:  "Insurance companies hailed the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, saying it gives them certainty about the rules they'll face as they push to cut administrative costs and reward doctors who contain health care costs by emphasizing preventive care."
But Romney repeal push feeds uncertainty. CNBC:  "GOP candidate Mitt Romney vowed again Thursday to repeal the act if elected, while President Obama said he would move forward in implementing it. That means businesses will have a hard time budgeting for health care costs and are likely to delay hiring even further."
House Republicans ready repeal bill. The Hill:  "Just hours after the Supreme Court upheld the requirement to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty, 120 House Republicans proposed legislation to eliminate the mandate ... The House has scheduled a vote in early July to repeal the law."
Republicans try distorting decision to label health reform a "middle class tax increase." ThinkProgress debunks:  "The mandate can indeed be characterized as a tax, as the Court found. But it is not a massive tax hike on the middle class, much less the biggest tax hike in American history. The tax imposed by the individual mandate amounts to either $695 or 2.5 percent of household income for those who don’t have insurance and are not exempt based on income levels. By comparison, the payroll tax cut extension Republicans repeatedly blocked earlier this year would have added 3.1 percentage points to the tax and cost the average family $1,500 a year. The mandate, meanwhile, would hit a small amount of Americans — somewhere between 2 and 5 percent..."
Romney responds to ruling with lies. Politifact:  "How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit? ... We asked the Romney campaign for their evidence for this statement, but we didn’t hear back."
"Transportation bill inching forward to passage" reports Politico:  "The conference report still hadn’t been filed in the House as of early Thursday evening, but all indications were that enough lawmakers had signed off on the deal so forward movement is just a matter of time."
Oil lobby slams Interior drilling plan. The Hill:  "The Interior Department on Thursday rolled out its final offshore oil-and-gas leasing plan for 2012-2017, drawing immediate criticism from Republicans and industry groups who say it leaves too many areas off-limits to drilling rigs. The plan calls for a total of 15 lease sales in Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska, including two sales of tracts in Arctic waters off Alaska’s northern coast ... Republicans and industry groups attacked the plan. They have been pushing for leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, arguing the areas should not be kept off-limits because formal leasing bans expired in 2008, and they also want a more aggressive leasing program in the Arctic."