LyrArc Article Gist
This NYT editorial on June 26, 2015, says the arguments of the plaintiffs before the U.S. Supreme Court for the Affordable Care Act were specious, based as they were on a reading of four words phrase in the Act leaving ambiguity about what exchanges were covered by health care subsidies. It says the plaintiffs with strong emotions on the subject decided to pull their argument out of thin air. That only one Justice acted as the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, shows the Supreme Court like the rest of the nation is not above emotion- Justice Scalia called the 6-4 decision based on "jiggery-pokery" and not "honest jurisprudence"- and needed Chief Justice Roberts to provide the larger view in 2015 as he did in 2012.

LyrArc Article Gist
State based exchanges in New Mexico, Oregon and other states have experienced difficulties setting up and running the exchanges. Many states have turned to the federal government to operate the exchanges.

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...

LyrArc Article Gist
IKEA is raising the minimum hourly wage by 10% in 2016. From Jan 1, 2016 the minimum hourly wage at its existing U.S. stores will go up from $10.76 an hour to $11.87 an hour. IKEA is working to reduce staff turnover by raising the wages. In 2014 IKEA indicated that it would calculate the minimum wage taking into account local living costs in each market.. That action resulted in a 17% increase for half of IKEA's employees in 2014, according to IKEA.

LyrArc Article Gist
Four former close advisors of U.S. president Obama in a public statement say they fear the current Iran negotiations fall short of reaching a 'good' agreement. The statement says " We fear that the current negotiations, unless concluded along the lines outlined in this paper and buttressed by a resolute regional strategy, may fall short of meeting the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." The advisors are Dennis Ross, David Petraeus, Gary Samore, Robert Einhorn and James Cartwright. It sets strict inspections for all sites, including Revolutionary Corps and military sites, as a precondition for any significant lifting of sanctions. The statement goes further in saying about Iran's development of a nuclear weapon: "The United States must go on record now that it is committed to using all means necessary, including military force, to prevent this." The statement was released from a study group of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Ayatollah Khamanei in a televised speech on June 23, 2015, stated military and Revolutionary Corps sites would not be included in snap inspections, and economic sanctions should be lifted immediately. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A study group at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy sends a public letter to U.S. president Obama on the Iran negotiations. It says the nuclear agreement negotiated with Iran "may fall short of the administration's own standard of a 'good' agreement." It is signed by some of Mr. Obama's main advisors during the first term. Some of these officials told the NYT that the letter was the result of serious concern that Mr. Kerry and other negotiators were moving towards major concessions that would weaken the international inspections of Iran's facilities, back away from making Iran reveal suspected past work on weapons, and allow Iranian R&D to move ahead with making nuclear fuel once the accord expires. The five Obama advisors from the first term who signed the letter are: Dennis Ross, Middle East negotiator, David Petraeus, CIA director, Robert Einhorn, State Department proliferation expert, Gary Samore, chief advisor on nuclear policy, Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman Jt. Chiefs of Staff. Gary Samore is president of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran. The letter was also signed by President Bush's national security advisor during his second term, Stephen Hadley. Such a large group of advisors to presidents Bush and Obama familiar with the details of Iran's development of nuclear technology and weapons capabilities could give Republicans support to kill any agreement that falls short on inspections during Congressional Review. On this key factor where only vague assurances are made by the Iranian side- such as signing an International Atomic Agency convention giving inspectors broad rights to visit suspicious sites, followed by Ayatollah Khamanei ruling out military sites- the letter is specific. Inspections it says " must include military (including Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps), and other sensitive facilities. Iran must not be able to deny or delay timely access to any site anywhere in the country." Inspections work rigorously done is set as a precondition before any significant relief from economic sanctions on Iran....

LyrArc Article Gist
Britain's banks still owe the government 100 billion pounds ($158 billion) from the bailouts that followed the 2008 financial crisis. The incentivizing of risk by pay structures and bonuses was seen as a big part of the problem. LIBOR manipulation abuses by banks are still on regulators minds. The Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England's Prudential Regulation Authority, have set new rules to correct the problem. Earlier EU rules limited bonuses to 100% of salary. The new FCA rules require a 3 year period for traders and risk managers have to wait 5 years for performance awards in full. Top executives have a ten year wait to be certain claw back provisions do not go into effect. Andrey Bailey at the PRA says the rule is designed so "that people in positions of responsibility are rewarded for behaviour which fosters a culture of effective risk management and thus promotes the safety and soundness of individual institutions. "