Hasta La Gadget!

The former senator who nearly blocked Obamacare in Congress may have just helped save it from the Supreme Court.

By now, you may have heard about King v. Burwell, the lawsuit brought by some of the Affordable Care Act’s conservative and libertarian critics. If successful, the lawsuit would cut off tax credits to millions of people currently buying insurance through the law’s new insurance “exchanges.” Without those tax credits, most of those people would have to give up insurance altogether, while prices for others could rise.

The legal dispute, which the Supreme Court will hear in March, isn’t about lofty principles of constitutional law. Instead, it’s about what the text of the statute really says and what members of Congress really meant when they voted for it.

Under the Affordable Care Act, state officials face a choice. They can opt to build and operate their own insurance exchanges, or they can leave that work to the federal government. King’s plaintiffs say this choice carries severe consequences because of some ambiguous wording in one section of the legislation. The part of the law authorizing tax credits refers specifically to exchanges “established by a state.” It says nothing about exchanges established by the federal government.

In other words, if you live in one of the states running its own exchange — California, for example, or Kentucky — then you’re supposed to get those tax credits. But if you live in one of the states where the federal government did the work — Florida, Texas and a bunch of others — then you’re not.

Or so the plaintiffs say. One problem with their argument is that a provision restricting tax credits to certain states would create serious inconsistencies within the statue. Essential provisions, such as the guarantee of coverage for people with preexisting conditions, wouldn’t really work if people don’t have those tax credits — so why would Congress limit their availability? The answer, King’s plaintiffs have said, is that Congress intended to use financial assistance as an incentive for states to act on their own.

This is where Ben Nelson, former senator from Nebraska, enters the story.

Back in late 2009 and early 2010, a key dispute among the lawmakers debating health care reform was over whether to create one giant national exchange or 50 separate state exchanges. House Democrats, liberals in the Senate, and many administration officials felt a national exchange would be better. Nelson, a relatively conservative Democrat and ex-governor, was among those who strongly preferred state-based exchanges — and threatened to withhold his support, depriving Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, if he did not get his way.

The Senate bill, which eventually became the law, was consistent with Nelson’s preferences. And, according to King’s plaintiffs, Nelson felt so strongly about the superiority of state-run exchanges that he wanted to cripple the federally run exchanges — denying them access to tax credits and, in the process, rendering many of the law’s other consumer-friendly reforms unworkable.

“For Nelson and some other Senators, it was important to keep the federal government out of the process, and thus insufficient to merely allow states the option to establish Exchanges, as the House bill did,” a brief by the lawsuit’s plaintiffs argues. “Rather, states had to take the lead role, which, given the constitutional bar on compulsion, required serious incentives to induce such state participation.”

Democratic Senate leaders and their advisers have repeatedly dismissed this theory as nonsense. And now it appears Nelson feels the same way. An amicus brief filed Wednesday by the Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of the law’s congressional architects references a letter, sent recently by Nelson to Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and available publicly, in which Nelson states unequivocally that he never intended to penalize states that opted not to create their own exchanges. “I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange,” Nelson, who is now CEO of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, writes. “The final law also reflects that belief as well.”

Could Nelson be forgetting what he thought and demanded at the time of Obamacare’s enactment? Could he be lying? Sure. But the publication of his letter follows a series of revelations casting yet more doubt on the arguments of King’s plaintiffs.

A series of Republican state officials recently told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that they never thought their decision to let the federal government build their exchanges would mean losing out on the law’s tax credits. Comments and votes by Republican members of Congress — dug up in the last two weeks by the New Republic’s Brian Beutler and Salon’s Simon Maloy — suggest they, too, thought financial assistance should flow in all states.

Of course, what members of Congress actually believed during or immediately after Obamacare’s enactment may not ultimately matter. The ruling could turn entirely on the text itself — although here too, plaintiffs have a high burden to clear, because other passages of the law suggest the financial assistance should be available everywhere. Also, in cases where text is ambiguous, courts traditionally defer to the interpretation of executive branch agencies.

Whatever standard the justices decide to use when they hear this case, they’ll now have to reckon with the fact that a key authority in the plaintiff’s case — in effect, the lead witness for the prosecution — says the lawsuit is bunk.

Sometimes, amid the coffee cups and barf-stained yoga pants at the playground, you meet your mom BFF. And sometimes, well — sometimes, it’s the opposite. In your desperation to speak to someone larger than the average hobbit, it can be easy to overlook glaring personality flaws. But face it: there are definitely some mom friends you don’t need.

1. The Oversharer.

Moms worldwide meet, chat for three minutes, then move into a comparative discussion of vaginal injury. It’s normal to talk about childbirth, boobs, nipple injury, and poop (your child’s) within the first 10 minutes of meeting another mama. But move outside that mommy-experience realm, and you may be riding the crazy train. Things like infidelity, sex toys, drug use, and poop (hers) indicate a serious lack of boundaries. If she’s telling you about her husband’s vasectomy complications in the first five minutes of meeting, what’s she going to tell you five weeks later?

2. The Gossip.

A whispered, “So, what do you think of so-and-so?” might be fun among friends. But if she’s always striking up a conversation that way, she might be an inveterate gossip — and you might be the next target. Your best bet? Pretend you have no idea who she’s talking about. Or that you don’t speak English.

3. The Swinger.

Unless you’re into that, of course. But seriously: if she mentions her “open relationship” too many times, she’s either dying to overshare about her sex life (see above) or asking you out. A normal kinky mama would wait to make friends before she brought you into the tribe. If the first five minutes involve a dating proposition, run.

4. The Peddler.

Beware the multi-level marketing maven. She’s super into selling jewelry/tchotchkes/dildos and gets more cash if you, too, begin selling the same jewelry/tchotchkes/dildos. Most mamas who sell on the side are reputable, normal mommies making some extra money. It’s the starry-eyed saleswomen you have to be wary of. You’ll know them by their cult-like fervor and the way all conversation circles back to the awesomeness of their jewelry/tchotchkes/dildos. Do not under any circumstances give them your contact information — unless you want to be harassed for the rest of the foreseeable future.

5. The Critic.

Mommy opinions are like poop: they’re inevitable and sort of icky. Yes, we all hold strong opinions on diapers/birth/boobs/baby penises. But if a mama needs to constantly critique other mothers, she’s not furthering the cause, she’s validating her own choices. Do you really want to bond with someone by putting everyone else down?

6. The Hoverer.

You don’t get a chance to talk to her often, mostly because she’s always right up Junior’s butt. But when she does strike up a conversation, beware: if you’re not hovering, she’s probably judging. Do you want to make friends with someone who insists you play with the kids during playdates? Go sit on a bench where she can judge you silently. Maybe take out your phone.

7. The Absentee.

On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Absentee Mommy. She doesn’t notice her toddler’s weeping the corner. Her kids dismantle the brick sidewalks with nary a word from her, all while her 4-year-old bashes babies on the heads with a truck. She’s too busy staring vacantly into space or pecking away at her phone to notice. If she tries to talk — and she will, because she doesn’t parent her kids — keep it casual. Otherwise you’ll end up parenting them instead.

8. The One-Upper.

Does your kid know his alphabet? That’s nice, but her kid can read. Your kid scored a goal? Hers made a hat trick and got nominated for varsity. Every conversation with the One-Upper turns back to her — and how she’s better than you. The One-Upper doesn’t make mommy friends. She keeps sounding boards. Sure, she’s actually fueled by a deep well of insecurity. But parenthood doesn’t keep a scoreboard, even if she does.

9. The Drama Queen.

The playground shouldn’t feel like The Jerry Springer Show. If her baby daddy’s always cheating, she’s feuding with another mama, and she wants to tell you all about it, stay away. The DQ lives to draw you into her mama drama, or at least make you pick sides. Stick around, and you’ll end up holding her earrings while she throws down with Jaden’s mommy over a stolen juice box.

@media only screen and (min-width : 500px) {.ethanmobile { display: none; }}

Like Us On Facebook |
Follow Us On Twitter |
Contact HuffPost Parents

Also on HuffPost:

Within 24 hours of Governor Bruce Rauner taking office, numerous media outlets reported on his immediate steps to rectify Illinois’ dire financial situation. While his first acts as governor weren’t earth-shattering, they are more than we’ve seen in recent years as previous administrations have allowed the state to fall further into debt.

Nonessential spending is now frozen and every executive branch agency must report on every contract and hiring decision made after mid-November. Calling it the “road to fiscal responsibility,” Gov. Rauner also is putting a stop to grants and plans to sell excess state property. Click here to read more from the Daily Herald.

These moves already are making waves among politicians who argue the new governor (often criticized for his business approach) is in for a tough time as he learns to play the political game. Unilateral decisions don’t work in politics, and overnight change most assuredly won’t happen, especially with an Illinois deficit at an estimated $150 billion that has taken decades to grow.

In his speech earlier this month, Gov. Rauner also stressed the importance of education, citing a need to invest in adequate training for future generations. Given that legislators are considering redirecting MAP grant funds and reducing higher education funding by 20 to 30 percent, the state of education funding in Illinois remains unknown. As I have predicted for many years, it is my belief that funding for higher education will continue to evaporate over the next several years and state leaders will focus education solely on K-12. In fact, the last time most institutions have received their full 33 percent of operating funds from the state dates back to the 1980s.

Gov. Rauner has said he’s open to extending the five percent personal income tax rate, as expected, but he also has plans to expand Illinois’ sales tax base. These are lofty goals for a four-year term. Fixing the situation will require tough, tangible decisions and somewhere along the line cuts — deep cuts — should be expected.

With these cuts comes no other option for many institutions but to put the cost of higher education on the backs of students. During President Obama’s State of the Union address on January 20, the President mentioned the Federal administration’s proposal to offer free community college tuition. The details of the America’s College Promise are, at this point, vague. Click here to read an article from Community College Daily.

What we do know is that the program will cost an estimated $60 billion and to participate, states will have to partner with the federal government and pledge to fund 25 percent of this expense. To be eligible for free tuition at a community college, students will have to maintain a 2.5 grade point average and not all college programs will qualify. Not surprisingly, the state funding portion of this proposal is likely to cause problems for a number of states, including Illinois.

Aside from funding, however, there are other concerns. If this program is implemented and community colleges throughout the country see an influx of students, are these campuses equipped to accommodate the growth? College of DuPage already is near capacity at peak hours during the week. We’re currently taking steps to construct a new instructional building. We are fortunate enough to be in a financial position to allow for this type of expansion, but many schools are not. How then are they to prepare without additional funding?

I have no doubt that free community college would benefit a large number of students. Community colleges can and do change lives. (Click here for a recent Op/Ed piece written by Tom Hanks on his experience at Chabot College in California.)

Bringing “free college” to the larger national stage, however, is a huge undertaking. It will be interesting to see what the federal budget and state buy-ins reveal in terms of this proposed initiative.

Note: A portion of the following article written by College of DuPage President Dr. Robert L. Breuder was printed in an internal newsletter for COD employees on Jan. 20, 2015.

Snapchat just dropped a big-time update. It’s an extremely ambitious and aggressive move, and I was blown away by their guts given that the product was working so well already.

Many successful mobile apps make small adjustments and focus on growing their user base until they get bought out. I believe that’s because making an app that people love to use and love to use all the time is incredibly difficult and delicate. On mobile, you have very little real estate to work with. Your product has to be simple, useful and sexy all at once. That almost never happens. Just look at how many apps you use every day versus how many are created and raise money. Up to now, only a product with very few users could afford to make such radical changes overnight as Snapchat.

It took me a while to notice all the updates. When I navigated to the discover page, I ended up watching the entire 25-minute VICE piece on the old Japanese man who lives alone and naked on a deserted island on my phone, forgetting that I was draining the remainder of my monthly data. I never watch TV, but here the experience felt so immersive that I was sucked in like at the movies.

I try out a lot of apps and have never seen anything that flows as nicely between video, photo and text on mobile. I actually felt love when using the product. Josh Elman, famous product-lover and investor put it perfectly: “discover is what media looks like when it is designed by mobile natives for mobile natives. Nothing else comes close.” Compare this with other content/news aggregators or even to Twitter where you’re always tapping on a link and a new screen annoyingly pops up. More than ever, all of those other mobile experiences feel very much as relics of the past. They belong in museums. Snapchat is the only thing that feels new.

Snapchat have also done something else amazing in this big release which is that they’ve included themselves among the content providers, as a legitimate channel snuggly lodged between the Daily Mail, Comedy Central, ESPN and National Geographic. They have crowned themselves as a new authority, most likely heading for the music label ambition that we heard about during the Sony Leaks. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Snapchat channel is where they are going to feature up-and-coming artists.

I do have a few concerns though. Evan Spiegel has repeatedly expressed his admiration for companies like Tencent which owns WeChat and which use messaging as an entry point to becoming platform apps that do a bunch of things and have in-app transactions. That’s interesting and original, but so far the apps that have continued to thrive at least here in the U.S. have focused on doing one thing well. That’s it. The boldest things we’ve seen are Tinder’s moments and Instagram’s one-to-one messaging and those both failed.

Snapchat is becoming a very complex, deep product. They initially rocketed because there was no faster, more lightweight way of sending a photo. Now their new content channels are hard to find all the way to the right of the app. I don’t know how often I’ll go there. Snapchat could very easily have kept the same story format to test out their CNN, VICE and other channels and see if people actually want to watch this type of content on the app. Yes it is a great way of monetizing and Facebook discovered the same thing, but is it what people actually want? Do I open Snapchat with the idea of watching shows and reading stories? I don’t know. Facebook and Snapchat have now both realized that there is lots of money to be made from media. The main difference is that Facebook was web first and that the Facebook apps are split up. Messaging is one entire app.

Snapchat is mapping new territory. It’s still just as easy to take and share photos, but not all features are as intuitive. I’m incredibly impressed by the risks they’re taking because they don’t have to. Maybe they will prove to us that a unified complex mobile app can exist, that includes messaging, posting stories, chatting with friends, watching shows, reading news and sending money all gracefully.

How do we map out where we are and where we want to go?
How do we stay with difficult emotions so that we know where to go from there?
How do we empower ourselves to change?

“They always say time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.” -Andy Warhol

We underestimate the importance of staying in the moment
Of being with those small
Beautiful things that surround us
But it is from there that we can
create a feeling in the body
The feeling
of Flow
Of being in sync
With whatever needs to happen next
With what ever is calling our attention
Whatever needs to be addressed

Fine tuning to make decisions
Fine tuning to the clearest thinking part of ourselves

Our mind may believe
that
we need to react
That we need to address
those triggers
that we are faced with a tiger
that we have to act NOW
that the jaws of fate will snap shut

on us
if we do not
make it happen

Reactive
We are lost
in the signals, sounds
and impulses
that do not belong to us
truly

that are not
at our core

The screams of our mind
even our more quiet thoughts
capture
the attention away

When stressed
When triggered
our focus is directed
solely
on where we do not want to be
not on where we actually are
We constrict
we run
we argue
We look the other way

No wonder that we feel
lost at times
and are unable
to admit
to this state
of rebellion
against what already is

we plug
into the landscapes
of inner storms

and are not even aware of
the existence
of our map
let alone where we
stand
in it

Breathe
Stop
slow down
and
we can then
see
see where we are
see where we want to go

Feel
the beat of our hearts
in our hands
the movement of the breath
with its own momentum
We can just let go into it

There
we meet our present state
in clarity
non reactivity
and
openness
We can observe
without
being pulled into
the
turmoil
of what should be
what could be
waves of fear
are replaced
by the moments
in between the breaths
From there
there
we can we see where to go

Finding our road
getting our bearings

Finding that moment
in between
the breaths
that moment
of sensing into our being
to find the road
to find
and
keep the compass
at our side
We can head
in the direction
with clarity
intent and strategy

We need to see where we are
to navigate from there
to make sense
of our next steps
to integrate
the last steps

to come to fruition
right in this moment

We find
there
the move
into our vision
The clarity
shining through

We can spring forth then
Whole
from that
very bottom of our well
of our own truth
our own
inner being

When we are stressed we have lost focus of where we are
We are solely aware of where we don’t want to be
We are focused
on
Fight
Flight
or Freeze
We are that-

If just for a moment
we manage to
Focus
on the dance
of the emotions

even if unpleasant
Observe
how they sway
how they dance
and maybe
they will open
to whisper
to us
the message
of their inner
being

And there
amidst the indentation
of that
particular moment
lies a beauty
right
there
in the anger, frustration
and
grief
we can find
where
we are
on our own
map

and trace our next steps
forward

It is there that we meet
the moment
and the clarity
the breath
and the
heartbeat moving with it
the moments
between the breath

in grace
and power from within
we are immersed in our own ocean

From there we can experience the transition to
Calm
But if we don’t pay attention to where we are
If we are not there
not
in our map

Or if we stand in someone else’s
We are covered in haze
ripped by the currents
of reactivity
and chance
ruled
by walls and
violence
and
delusion

We are adrift
In the storms
whether
interior
or exterior

Coming to
our own map
heals our inner being
and our outer ability
to change
according
to what is truly needed
Adapting
Flowing
Embodying our very own expression of being

Defining our stress level
Helps
As it
Opens the doors
To know exactly
Where we are
We can move from the
stress response
to the
self soothing response
of our
parasympathetic
ventral vagal system
Our body
wants to return to its own
balance
to homeostasis

Science
Polyvagal theory-CCARE conference, lecture by Porges on the Polyvagal Theory Stanford 2014

Lecture 2o12

Coaching
Toni Robbins-The decision Map
Daniel Goleman-points for further self reflection

Art work
Josh Farkas-Cubicle Ninjas

Crooked Gremlins

Noble Norse Studios-Holographic Glitch

Eric J. Heller Gallery, digital fine art. Where science inspires art and art informs science