Supreme Court opens the door to Trump's troubled Muslim ban

Donald Trump's Muslim ban has struggled badly in the face of multiple legal challenges, and has already run into trouble in two separate appellate courts. But the Republican White House has some allies at the U.S. Supreme Court, who appear to be approaching the controversy from a different perspective.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to reinstate much of President Donald Trump's travel ban before hearing the case this fall, dealing a partial victory to the administration in one of the most divisive policy battles of his presidency.

The Supreme Court said the ban cannot be enforced for people from six nations -- Iran, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen -- who have relatives in the U.S. and want to travel to America.

However, the ban can be enforced for refugees and those who do not have that personal relationship.

Note, this wasn't a ruling on the constitutionality of the administration's policy on the merits. Rather, the Supreme Court agreed this morning to hear the White House's appeal, and in the interim, the justices said parts of Trump's policy can be implemented. That's a break from the status quo: previous courts that have heard challenges to the policy did not allow the administration's ban to go into effect.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch -- by most measures, the high court's three most conservative members -- said they wanted to go further, allowing all of Trump's policy to go into effect immediately.

Oral arguments in this case will be heard in the fall, but in the meantime, this policy will get a little tricky.

read more

Eager for branding credit, Trump undercuts the GOP on health care

Barack Obama had quite a bit to say last week about the latest Republican health care plan, but the former president specifically made the case that "if there's a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family," the GOP legislation "will do you harm." Minor tweaks, he added, "cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation."

The written statement brought to mind Donald Trump's reported comments to senators, to whom the president described the House-passed health care overhaul as "mean," "cold-hearted," and a "son of a bitch" in a recent private meeting.

But did Trump really call the legislation he publicly celebrated "mean"? Whether Obama intended to bait his successor or not, the president admitted in yet another Fox News interview that the reports were true.

"Well, [Obama] used my term, 'mean.' That was my term because I want to see -- and I speak from the heart -- that's what I want to see. I want to see a bill with heart."

Trump was so eager to claim branding credit for himself, he ended up publicly confirming an assessment that made his own House allies look bad. The president also didn't do himself any favors: Trump initially described the House GOP bill as a "great plan" that he backed with enthusiasm. Now we know he didn't like the legislation after all.

There's a substantive angle to this that's worth watching: Trump is now saying all kinds of nice things about the Senate Republicans' bill, but if it passes and it's poorly received, the president is making clear right now that he'll turn around and condemn it later, separating himself from a policy the American mainstream may perceive as cruel.

In other words, if you're an on-the-fence Senate Republican weighing your options, Trump is making clear that he'll sell you out in a heartbeat in the hopes of saving his own skin.

read more

Why some on the right see the GOP plan as 'Obamacare Lite'

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), reviving an old, awful argument, said over the weekend that the Republican health care plan must be better than the Affordable Care Act -- because it has few fewer pages. Politico's Blake Hounshell noted in response, "It's short because it leaves the basic structure of Obamacare in place."

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's important to understand why Hounshell's response is accurate.

I've heard from a few readers who've expressed confusion about the competing messages. Opponents of the Republican plan from the left condemn it as a needlessly vicious monstrosity that will hurt millions. Critics of the plan from the right dismiss it as "Obamacare Lite." Clearly, they can't both be right.

Or can they?

The answer has to do with the structure of the system in the broadest possible sense. Imagine looking at the models from 20,000 feet, where relevant details are harder to see. The core of the ACA model is a system that provides tax credits to consumers to purchase health insurance. At the core of the Republican alternative is a system that provides tax credits to consumers to purchase health insurance.

The profound differences matter, obviously, and in many cases, would quite literally be a matter of life or death. But when you hear someone like Rand Paul or Mike Lee say the bill reminds them too much of the Affordable Care Act, the comments aren't entirely ridiculous. Their perspective is incomplete in a way that paints a misleading picture, but they're saying they prefer an entirely different model -- as opposed to an ungenerous version of the status quo.

Indeed, the Senate Republicans' bill maintains the ACA's model even more than the House bill, since it relies on income-based tax credits -- as opposed to age-based tax credits -- just as "Obamacare" does.

read more

An inconvenient truth in the health care debate: 'People will die'

On Friday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) raised an important argument against the Republican health care plan: "Let us be clear and this is not trying to be overly dramatic: Thousands of people will die if the Republican health care bill becomes law." Soon after, Hillary Clinton added, "Forget death panels. If Republicans pass this bill, they're the death party."

Such talk didn't impress Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). "The brief time when we were not accusing those we disagree with of murder was nice while it lasted," the Republican senator wrote.

The idea that the GOP's legislation may lead to preventable American deaths appears to be a touchy subject for some on the right. Republicans no doubt expect pushback on their regressive health care proposal, but to argue that people will quite literally die as a consequence of GOP senators' actions is apparently a talking point some on the right consider offensive and inappropriate.

The trouble is, whether the truth hurts Republicans' feelings or not, there's ample reason to believe Sanders' and Clinton's point is true. The Washington Post ran this striking quote over the weekend:

"There has never been a rollback of basic services to Americans like this ever in U.S. history," said Bruce Siegel, president of America's Essential Hospitals, a coalition of about 300 hospitals that treat a large share of low-income patients. "Let's not mince words. This bill will close hospitals. It will hammer rural hospitals, it will close nursing homes. It will lead to disabled children not getting services.... People will die."

Atul Gawande also spoke to Vox about the available evidence. "The bottom line," the surgeon and scholar said, "is that if you're passing a bill that cuts $1.2 trillion in taxes that have paid for health care coverage, there's almost no way that does not end up terminating insurance for large numbers of people. If you are doing that, then there's clear evidence that you will be harming people. You will be hurting their access to care. You will be harming their health -- their physical health and mental health. There will be deaths. As a doctor, I find this unconscionable."

read more

Republicans reduced to lying about GOP health plan's Medicaid cuts

Donald Trump promised Americans, over and over again, in writing and in public remarks, that he would never cut Medicaid. And yet, the president is now an enthusiastic proponent for a Republican health care plan that makes brutal cuts to Medicaid.

I've been curious as to how the White House and its allies would defend this. Now we know: they're defending it by lying.

The first real indication of the GOP's rhetorical direction came on Friday, when White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer had this exchange during the official briefing:

Q: When you look at the House bill and the Senate legislation, is the Senate legislation the preferred vehicle for this going forward?

SPICER: I think the President is very supportive of the Senate bill. There's a lot of ideas in there. He's talked about having heart, and he likes a lot of the reforms that have been in there. He's committed to making sure that no one who currently is in the Medicaid program is affected in any way, which is reflected in the Senate bill, and he's pleased with that.

For anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the Republican plan, the idea that Medicaid beneficiaries won't be "affected in any way" is hopelessly bonkers.

And yet, Spicer isn't alone in pushing this outlandish line. Asked yesterday about the GOP plan's Medicaid cuts, Kellyanne Conway said with a straight face, "These are not cuts to Medicaid." HHS Secretary Tom Price made the same argument.

The nonsense isn't limited to Trump administration officials. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), for example, argued yesterday that "no one" would lose coverage through Medicaid from his party's plan. (The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 14 million Americans who rely on Medicaid would lose coverage under the House bill, and the Senate bill cuts deeper.)

Around the same time, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) bragged about his party's proposal to increase Medicaid spending.

We're stuck in a very strange conversation, but no one should be confused about reality.

read more