The big beautiful bill is big and ugly for Colorado ACA/Obamacare customers

 Looking at the Trump bill, I am not sure now that the parliamentarian removed the GOP attempt to eliminate subsidies on Medicaid via a tax credit, how it will affect Colorado. However, so far it appears it was not removed from Obamacare, meaning that individual premiums will double. Since this nastiness was the House's doing, when reconciliation is done, the Colorado GOP House members will have to face voter outrage. The task of Colorado Democrats is to make sure those with GOP House member incumbents know who to blame. Mitch McConnell's assumption saying voters "will get over this" is silly.. Notifications for changes in health care premiums will hit voters before the 2026 midterms. If they"got over it", voters will get an ongoing lasting realistic sticker shock to make a political difference. 2026 rate increases of the ACAwill take place Jan. 1, 2026.... House members Hurd, Evans, Crank, and Boebert originally voted yes for this painful provision. This hit on the affordability of the ACA appears to have survived the Senate, and if it passes them and heads for reconciliation and even a revote in the House, Democrats will have been handed a gift for the 2026 midterms. Congressional votes are already an official public record.

colorado.gov

Congress’ Failure and Devastating, Cruel Bill Could Lead to Tens of Thousands of Coloradans Losing Health Coverage in 2026 | Colorado Governor Jared Polis

DENVER - This week, the Colorado Division of Insurance (DOI) informed health insurance companies that the agency was revising the expected impact of Colorado’s Reinsurance Program to reflect the Republican controlled Congress’s failure to extend enhanced tax credits for the Affordable Care Act (...

All reactions:

22

AI inquiry when Obamacae premium raltes will increase. The enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often referred to as "Obamacare" tax credits, are currently set to expire at the end of 2025. 

Key points:

• Expiration date: The enhanced premium tax credits are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025 unless Congress takes action to extend them.
• Impact on premiums: If the tax credits expire, consumers can expect to see increases in both their net premium payments (the amount they pay after the tax credit) and their gross premiums.
• Potential for further changes: The broader fate of the ACA and its subsidies may depend on the balance of power in Congress. 

Background:

• These enhanced tax credits were initially part of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and were extended through 2025 by the Inflation Reduction Act.
• The enhanced subsidies have significantly increased enrollment in the ACA marketplace by making health insurance more affordable. 

In summary, as of today, June 29, 2025, the enhanced ACA premium tax credits are scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. However, there is ongoing discussion about extending these subsidies, and the final decision will depend on future congressional action.   

Birthright citizenship and the Supreme Court decision June 27, 2025 Updated 6/29/2025

Birthright citizenship and the Supreme Court decision June 27, 2025

Update: 6/29/2025 Both the ACLU and CASA filed nationwide class action suits 6/28/2026  https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/groups-file-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit-over-trump-birthright-citizenship-order

 The near absolute power is being handed step by step to an American president, freed from the fear of being prosecuted for committing a crime, and now given the ability to ignore lower federal  injuncton decisions in the ruling handed down today in birthright citizenship. It is one more gift by the Supreme Court to emasculate the power of the two branches of government, the judicial and legislative branches, designed to check and balance each other and the executive, to bridle government abuse of power, and muzzle the inalienable rights of its citizens using the tools of fear and favor. The branch to which the extra power is given is already an administration dedicated to the unit/ary ability of one branch, the executive branch, which holds the reins of power without challenge, thereby becoming the enabler of an autocracy.

The precedence this decision sets gives Trump powers over other very important cases subject to nationwide injunctions, and most alarming are those concerning voters' rights.  Stay tuned on this one. Trump already has his list. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/28/trump-nationwide-inunctions-supreme-court-ruling/   ...(  such as education and voters' rights?).

Immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, the ACU and CASA, an immigration rights organization, filed class action suits that should force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment to uphold birthright citizenship. However, individuals affected still have the ability, if they have the money or help, to sue, and also groups of those affected can also sue in class action suits, as CASA just did.  That this is retroactive appears not to be the situation, and the Supreme Court case concerns children born in the US after February 19, 2025, when Trump signed the blatantly unconstitutional executive order.  It is possible that the Trump regime could block a class action suit reaching the Supreme Court through a legal maneuver. 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-birthright-citizenship-mean/ "Friday’s ruling addressed three lawsuits that were filed against Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or certain noncitizens on temporary visas. The judges in those lawsuits granted nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, arguing that it violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Nationwide injunctions have been granted against Republican and Democratic policies alike. But SCOTUS ruled that, in most cases, district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block federal policies. They can only grant relief to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit.  This could mean that courts would be forced to allow harmful or unconstitutional policies to take effect in some places or against some individuals while being blocked in others—creating a chaotic and confusing patchwork of rules."

 From an AI inquiry on Google about the CASA class action suit filed June 27:

• "CASA and other groups, who had previously obtained a nationwide injunction against the order, are now seeking class-action relief to protect the rights of a broader group of individuals affected by the order, specifically those who have had or will have children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025. 
• What the lawsuit challenges:

  The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship, arguing it conflicts with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. 
• Impact:

  The lawsuit aims to ensure that the rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants are protected and that the executive order does not create a patchwork of conflicting rules regarding birthright citizenship across the country. 

Birthright citizenship Supreme Court decision June 27, 2025 in Spanish

:

Decisión de la Corte Suprema sobre ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento, 27 de junio de 2025

Update 6/28/2025 https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/groups-file-nationwide-class-action-lawsuit-over-trump-birthright-citizenship-order

La Corte Suprema falló ayer sobre la orden ejecutiva de Trump que habría prohibido la ciudadanía por nacimiento. La Constitución establece claramente que toda persona nacida en Estados Unidos es ciudadana, por lo que la orden fue inconstitucional. Sin embargo, la Corte Suprema no se pronunció sobre la constitucionalidad, sino de una manera técnica que permite que la orden de Trump se mantenga vigente estado por estado. CASA presentó inmediatamente una demanda colectiva y el asunto finalmente llegará a la Corte Suprema. Este asunto solo afectará a los hijos de personas indocumentadas o titulares de ciertas visas nacidos después del 19 de febrero de 2025.

Inmediatamente después de que la Corte Suprema emitiera su fallo, CASA, una organización defensora de los derechos de los inmigrantes, presentó una demanda colectiva que debería obligar a la Corte Suprema a pronunciarse sobre la constitucionalidad de la enmienda que defiende la ciudadanía por nacimiento. Sin embargo, las personas afectadas aún pueden, si cuentan con el dinero o la ayuda, demandar, y también grupos de afectados pueden presentar demandas colectivas, como lo hizo CASA recientemente. Que esto sea retroactivo no parece ser el caso, y el caso de la Corte Suprema se refiere a niños nacidos en Estados Unidos después del 19 de febrero de 2025, fecha en que Trump firmó la orden ejecutiva manifiestamente inconstitucional. Es posible que el régimen de Trump pueda bloquear una demanda colectiva que llegue a la Corte Suprema mediante una maniobra legal. 

El fallo del viernes abordó tres demandas interpuestas contra la orden ejecutiva de Trump, que buscaba negar la ciudadanía por nacimiento a los hijos nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados o a ciertos extranjeros con visas temporales. Los jueces de dichas demandas otorgaron medidas cautelares a nivel nacional contra la orden ejecutiva de Trump sobre la ciudadanía por nacimiento, argumentando que violaba la Cláusula de Ciudadanía de la Decimocuarta Enmienda . Se  han otorgado medidas cautelares a nivel nacional contra políticas republicanas y demócratas por igual. Sin embargo, la Corte Suprema dictaminó que, en la mayoría de los casos, los jueces de los tribunales de distrito no pueden emitir medidas cautelares a nivel nacional para bloquear políticas federales. Solo pueden otorgar amparo a las personas o grupos que interpusieron una demanda en particular.   Esto podría significar que los tribunales se verían obligados a permitir que políticas perjudiciales o inconstitucionales entren en vigor en algunos lugares o contra algunas personas, mientras que se bloquean en otros, creando un mosaico caótico y confuso de normas. 

 De una consulta de inteligencia artificial en Google sobre la demanda colectiva de CASA presentada el 27 de junio:

• CASA y otros grupos, que previamente habían obtenido una orden judicial a nivel nacional contra la orden, ahora buscan una solución mediante una demanda colectiva para proteger los derechos de un grupo más amplio de personas afectadas por la orden, específicamente aquellas que han tenido o tendrán hijos nacidos en Estados Unidos después del 19 de febrero de 2025. 
• Lo que la demanda cuestiona:

  La demanda cuestiona la constitucionalidad de la orden ejecutiva del presidente Trump, que busca limitar la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento, argumentando que entra en conflicto con la garantía de ciudadanía de la 14ª Enmienda para todas las personas nacidas en los EE. UU. 
• Impacto:

  La demanda tiene como objetivo garantizar que se protejan los derechos de los hijos de inmigrantes nacidos en Estados Unidos y que la orden ejecutiva no cree un mosaico de normas conflictivas respecto de la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento en todo el país. 

Immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, CASA, an immigration rights organization, filed a class action suit that should force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment to uphold birthright citizenship. However, individuals affected still have the ability, if they have the money or help, to sue, and also groups of those affected can also sue in class action suits, as CASA just did.  That this is retroactive appears not to be the situation, and the Supreme Court case concerns children born in the US after February 19, 2025, when Trump signed the blatantly unconstitutional executive order.  It is possible that the Trump regime could block a class action suit reaching the Supreme Court through a legal maneuver. 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-birthright-citizenship-mean/ "Friday’s ruling addressed three lawsuits that were filed against Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or certain noncitizens on temporary visas. The judges in those lawsuits granted nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, arguing that it violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Nationwide injunctions have been granted against Republican and Democratic policies alike. But SCOTUS ruled that, in most cases, district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block federal policies. They can only grant relief to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit.  This could mean that courts would be forced to allow harmful or unconstitutional policies to take effect in some places or against some individuals while being blocked in others—creating a chaotic and confusing patchwork of rules."

 From an AI inquiry on Google about the CASA class action suit filed June 27:

• "CASA and other groups, who had previously obtained a nationwide injunction against the order, are now seeking class-action relief to protect the rights of a broader group of individuals affected by the order, specifically those who have had or will have children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025. 
• What the lawsuit challenges:

  The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship, arguing it conflicts with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. 
• Impact:

  The lawsuit aims to ensure that the rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants are protected and that the executive order does not create a patchwork of conflicting rules regarding birthright citizenship across the country. 

Bingo: a key:word: affordability. Bingo: freedom to pursue life, liberty, and happiness ;messaging again

 I see the 2026 midterms shaping up on two key issues: affordability for everyday life for the non-wealthy and the preservation of democracy. Historian John Meacham put his finger on it: the Declaration of Independence, which states that a government should help its citizens pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and to do so, needs to be free from a tyrannical "king". Credit Rep. Zohran Mamdani, who just won the Democratic party nomination primary for New York mayor, for coining a winning campaign word: affordability. He hit a nerve, and it's his use of it that bested an old generation of pols. Like him or not, he gave those searching for better messaging the winning one word for the 2026 and 2028 election cycles.

 In truth, both the issue of affordability and the protection of democracy are related. Dissent, protest, and freedom of speech are  needed for people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness when government overreaches or ignores their pain..  That is the tie that binds both freedom and the affordability of living for all, not just for the privileged few or  those of a certain race or religion or who swear loyalty to a king. That is the reason we declared independence from a tyrannical king, and the document of the Declaration of Independence remains the best stand-alone reason why democracy should be upheld instead of the dictatorship of one or a few, whether you call it a king, a strongman, or an autocracy. 

The abject failure of Trump to live up to his promise to make life more affordable is a fact of life happening before our very eyes. Protecting democracy as we have known it is more than just an anti-Trump, anti-Trumpism attack campaign strategy; it is a positive sales message on how, going forward, it is an advantage for people themselves to have the freedom, to complain, and to vote in free and fair elections for representative who prioritize their constituents interests. fear from threats of fear or favor..

The near absolute power is being handed step by step to an American president, freed from the fear of being prosecuted for committing a crime, and now given the ability to ignore lower federal court decisions in the ruling handed down today in birthright citizenship. It is one more gift by the Supreme Court to emasculate the power of the two branches of government, the judicial and legislative branches, designed to check and balance each other and the executive, to bridle government abuse of power, and muzzle the inalienable rights of its citizens using the tools of fear and favor. The branch to which the extra power is given is already an administration dedicated to the unitary ability of one branch, the executive branch, which holds the reins of power without challenge, thereby becoming the enabler of an autocracy.

Immediately after the Supreme Court handed down its decision, CASA, an immigration rights organization, filed a class action suit that should force the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the amendment to uphold birthright citizenship. However, individuals affected still have the ability, if they have the money or help, to sue, and also groups of those affected can also sue in class action suits, as CASA just did.  That this is retroactive appears not to be the situation, and the Supreme Court case concerns children born in the US after February 19, 2025, when Trump signed the blatantly unconstitutional executive order.  It is possible that the Trump regime could block a class action suit reaching the Supreme Court through a legal maneuver. 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/what-does-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-birthright-citizenship-mean/ "Friday’s ruling addressed three lawsuits that were filed against Trump’s executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents or certain noncitizens on temporary visas. The judges in those lawsuits granted nationwide injunctions against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, arguing that it violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Nationwide injunctions have been granted against Republican and Democratic policies alike. But SCOTUS ruled that, in most cases, district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions to block federal policies. They can only grant relief to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit.  This could mean that courts would be forced to allow harmful or unconstitutional policies to take effect in some places or against some individuals while being blocked in others—creating a chaotic and confusing patchwork of rules."

 From an AI inquiry on Google about the CASA class action suit filed June 27:

• "CASA and other groups, who had previously obtained a nationwide injunction against the order, are now seeking class-action relief to protect the rights of a broader group of individuals affected by the order, specifically those who have had or will have children born in the U.S. after February 19, 2025. 
• What the lawsuit challenges:

  The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of President Trump's executive order, which seeks to limit birthright citizenship, arguing it conflicts with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship to all persons born in the U.S. 
• Impact:

  The lawsuit aims to ensure that the rights of U.S.-born children of immigrants are protected and that the executive order does not create a patchwork of conflicting rules regarding birthright citizenship across the country. 

Declaration of Independence: A Transcription | National Archivesn n

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Governor Gavin Newsom delivers a bill of particulars against Donald Trump..Links to video/transcript

Does Trump deserve credit for getting NATO members to pay 5%?

 Donald Trump is doing a victory dance.  He had demanded that NATO members pay dues of 2% (I had no problem with demanding NATO members pay their share), and now they agreed to 5% (all but Spain, now threatened by Trump with tariffs). Does Trump deserve credit? Yes, but not exactly for the way you might think. He had cajolled NATO members since his first term, teased them that he would not support them if invaded, and they did get the average up to 2% with significant holdouts..  However, it was not until the Oval Office ambush of Zelensky and where clearly Trump took Putin's side, and Trump failed to persuade Putin to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine,  that they agreed to the 5% at the meeting this week. (3.5 for military and 1.5 for related expenses).

 So give Trump credit. Now that he "won," forcing NATO to pay its fair share plus, he still will not firmly commit to Article 5 (the attack on one member is an attack on all) though he hinted at it, and he still has not yet committed to sending Ukraine the needed missile defense and other weapons Congress wants to fund.  Hopefully, now, he will have an excuse to do both. His self-imposed demand of 2% has been met and more than doubled. No more excuses, please. And no more thinking he can charm Putin. Putin only understands power. and NATO just delivered that message to him. As always with Trump, look at what he does, not what he says. He will get blowback from MAGA isolationists, and hope he does not TACO.

The real reason Europe at the NATO summit upped the goal to 5%?  Europe does not trust Trump to support Ukraine, and they are going to try to do it themselves, even if Trump walks. (Tough to do because the US has some strategic weapons they need that they cannot produce themselves)  It had become clear 1)  the US is not a reliable NATO member to provide aid to Ukraine; 2) if Ukraine fell to Russia, they all would be destabilized and may have to go to war.  

FYI. Trump's BS about the 2 to  5%. That is not dues to NATO.  That is a commitment of member nations to allocate that percent of their GDP (gross domestic product) to their own military defense. The US contributes 4%.   

One holdout had been Germany, and now Germany is gung-ho to rearm with a committed new chancellor, Friedrich Merz. Germany's public opinion against militarism after the shame of WWII,  reversed itself,  having disbanded the old Wehrmacht and had begun rearming, but now in high gear much thanks to the unintended consequences of the Oval Office ambush. This occurred in the midst of the German national elections this spring, contributing to Merz's rise to the chancellorship. 

The isolationists are still at the defense gate, and still have on their agenda the pulling out of Europe US forces stationed there. Careful .. Let us not be as stupid as we once were.  So long as once and now neo cold warrior Putin is driving his goal to reassemble the old Soviet Union satellites into his new Russian empire, these ideologues are as smart as the American Firsters and isolationist of the 1930's...and we know where that got us..  WWII.   Isolationism was perceived by our enemies as a sign of weakness, a favorable time to attack us or our allies.. The Major Trump Question Left Unanswered at NATO Summit - Newsweek

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/26/nx-s1-5445845/trump-nato-summit 

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-backfire-to-on-camera-trumpvance.html

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/06/germanys-rearmament-is-spurred-on.html

https://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2025/03/trumps-epic-miscalculation-on-ukraine.html

My own thoughts on the US bombing of Iran

My thoughts on the US bombing of Iran.  My initial thought was good. I am glad we did it. We would not be here if Trump had not torn up the nuclear deal of the past, and it was the ultimate irony that Trump is now willing to risk war to get it renegotiated. That is for the good. History will ultimately make the judgment call on the attack's value and fallout on the future of the region. 

I wrote in a Facebook comment that my initial response to the US bombing run was only a concern that there would be retaliation upon retaliation that would result in US boots on the ground.  "One and done' at least demonstrated the military reach and the ability to execute such a mission, even if it failed to destroy forever Iran's nuclear military ambitions.  The question of whether this was a good judgment call to destroy Iran's weaponization of nuclear ability is yet to be seen, as damage assessment is not complete and controversial. Does it justify the strike? This is a question that is not settled. However, the timing was fortuitous, and it is legitimate to say the US took advantage of the situation, planned or not. The opportunity to be successful was the best in years, with the Israelis damaging Iran's air defense. The goal is understood: to destroy Iran's nuclear plans, but whether it has accomplished it is yet to be seen. 

So far, retaliation has been more symbolic than significant, but if it does prompt Iran to negotiate a nuclear deal, that would be a positive outcome and the best we could hope for. How long this cease-fire lasts is yet to be seen, but we can hope.  

 Now, what happens going forward?

If there should be a strengthening of the War Powers Act by Congress, it is more of a domestic conflict over executive power overreach and diminishing the checks and balances of the legislative branch, rather than moral ideological differences.  Whatever comes out of that, one-and-done strikes are risking war, but not always an act of war itself, and the preservation of the element of surprise is critical. The real issue is when Congressional action is required and whether the trigger would be boots on the ground or something less. In that respect, I hope that any revision of the War Powers Act would require a majority of Senate approval, limited to whether US boots would be on the ground, and that the end result, "the day after", would be carefully addressed as part of the war plan in the revision.  Remember that this act would also affect any party occupying the White House in the future.  What is good for the goose needs to be good for the gander.

 I do not believe there was an immediate threat that the Trump administration has given the reasons for the bomb raid.  What I do buy as a legitimate reason is that Israel had weakened and destroyed Iran's proxies and air defense with their actions, and that this would be the best advantage for success now and in the foreseeable future.  Pragmatically speaking, the US failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an invasion and ground war with Iran would make Afghanistan and Iraq look like child's play. Iran is a significant, technologically advanced, and well-educated country, predominantly cohesive in its nationalism, although there is growing resistance due to the strict enforcement of religious law. It is ethnically proud of its past as Persia, with a dominant religion and language distinct from those of its Arab neighbors.  It had few friends in the region, and the Arab neighbors had a history of conflicts with them. Still, Iran has always seen that the guarantee of its national security and survival was to be a nuclear military power. Their best friend, Russia, is otherwise occupied in Ukraine. 

I understand and do not condemn Israel's actions against Iran's proxies to the north and east. I get and support Israel's attempt to survive as a nation.  The Gaza action was to me a matter of condemnation of both Hamas and Israel for crimes against humanity and examples of the worst behavior of mankind. Equivalents are beside the point; human suffering of non-combatants is my issue. I have written similar and consistent comments about both issues in past published columns and blogs over the years.