🤢 OBAMACARE

[Wild74]

After watching 24 there is no doubt

They did

[Wild74]

:ph34r:

 

Wasn't Roberts appointed by a republicOn?

no he was appointed by the third party president. :)

[RETIREDFAN1]

http://rare.us/story/the-courts-just-made-a-decision-that-could-completely-undermine-obamacare/

[Wild74]

I know conservative media and blogs are going crazy over this but my understanding it will be appealed to the full court which has 7 democrat appointed judges to 4 republican appointed judges. It will be over turned again. If it can get to the Supreme Court, Roberts can redeem himself again on this. Also the article from one of the dissenters said he reluctantly disagreed...Why reluctantly, just say he is upholding the law not reluctantly upholding the law...

[RETIREDFAN1]

http://rare.us/story/heres-2-big-reasons-why-the-supreme-court-will-likely-uphold-the-halbig-decision/

[KirtFalcon]

good news

[RETIREDFAN1]

good news

unless your gopper hero roberts gets bought and paid for again........ :P

[Wild74]

Would the courts liberals side with conservatives and strike a blow against Obamcare? Maybe, if Kagan and her liberal colleagues value the rule of law over the entitlement state. Like Congress, the judiciary has a constitutional, as well as self, interest in restraining rogue administrations. - See more at: http://rare.us/story/heres-2-big-reasons-why-the-supreme-court-will-likely-uphold-the-halbig-decision/#sthash.IVeDAGnE.dpuf. ... I don't believe for a second they will side against the IRS on this the liberal side that is

[DaveTV1]

It simply shows how the Progressive Communists fail at reading comprehension before they get on the bandwagon to support things. This law was hastily written, and I seriously doubt read by anyone that voted for it. Hopefully it is back to the drawing board. I think we do need some sort of health care reform, but I simply don't think Washington can come up with anything that will solve it. That will have to come from the private sector and charitable hospitals.

[KirtFalcon]

The lawsuit I am most interested in is the "origination clause" lawsuit. If that one goes against Obama, as it most certainly should, Obamacare will be wiped out in it's entirety.

[RETIREDFAN1]

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/09/18/republican-controlled-house-passes-continued-complete-funding-for-obamacare-and-planned-parenthood/

 

 

Tell me again, kirt, about how different things would be if goppers were in charge of everything??????

[DaveTV1]

Shows that Republicans are moving in the Conservative direction slowly, but surely. It's simply a reason I'll continue to vote third party. Kirt will probably come on and say the Republicans had to do it to keep the peace.

[Baron]

The Congress of the United States needs to be scoured clean and have every position up for re-election with term limitations.

[KirtFalcon]

January 7, 2015

How the ObamaCare Death Panel Defies the Constitution

By Peter J. Ferrara

Former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), i.e. ObamaCare, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” That has turned out to be so true. We did have to pass it to find out that what Sarah Palin said about it was right after all.

The Death Panel in Obamacare is named the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). What the law says about the powers of IPAB is horrific, worthy of a Third World, authoritarian autocracy, rather than the world’s leading democratic republic.

The Goldwater Institute, a free market think tank in Phoenix, Arizona, is suing to have IPAB declared unconstitutional. Last November 5, they filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. On December 10, the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), for which I serve as General Counsel, filed a brief in their support.

In the ACRU brief, I stated that,

Implementing the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, the Constitution provides that Congress holds the Legislative Power to enact the laws; the President has the Executive Power to execute, or implement and administer the laws, and the Judiciary has the power to interpret the laws, and adjudicate disputes regarding them. This Separation of Powers was adopted by the Founding Fathers as a key insight arising from the European Enlightenment to provide for effective checks and balances in American government. It was intended, and has long worked, to protect the liberty of the American people from an authoritarian combination of powers in one branch of government, which could then override the rights and liberties of the people, and the operation of democracy.

“The so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “Obamacare”), involves the most comprehensive assault on the fundamental constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers in the history of American law. The ACA, by its express terms, purports to exempt IPAB from any legislative, judicial, and even executive branch oversight. That makes IPAB the most authoritarian and anti-democratic institution in the history of American law, since slavery.”

The most authoritative publication regarding IPAB was written by Diane Cohen and Michael Cannon, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board, PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature,” published by the Cato Institute in 2012. The authors write, “IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.”

The IPA board comprises 15 unelected bureaucrats not personally accountable to the public. After they are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, that is the end of any effective authority that any branch of government has over them.

While the ACA provides that board members may serve up to two consecutive terms, it also says, as Cohen and Cannon write, “If a board member reaches the end of his term and the President declines to appoint (or the Senate fails to confirm) a successor, he may serve indefinitely.”

Moreover, ObamaCare provides that, “[T]he board may conduct business whenever half of its appointed members are present, and may act upon a majority vote by all members present. When there are no vacancies, therefore, the board will reach a quorum whenever as few as eight members gather, and any five members could wield IPAB’s considerable powers,” as Cohen and Cannon further write.

Indeed, it is possible under the express terms of the ACA for the vast powers of IPAB to be vested in and exercised by just one unelected person -- one. Cohen and Cannon explain, “If there are 14 vacancies on the board, the Act allows the sole appointed member to constitute a quorum, conduct official business, and issue ‘proposals.’”

The president, therefore, could appoint just one party loyalist, who can serve for life, to carry out all of IPAB’s vast powers. Cohen and Cannon add, “Or none: if the President fails to appoint any board members (or the Senate fails to confirm the president’s appointments, or a majority of the board cannot agree on a proposal) the Act authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to exercise the board’s powers unilaterally.” And who does the Secretary of HHS answer to? President Obama.

Those powers, moreover, would include the power of the HHS Secretary to assume legislative authority and appropriate funds to his or her own department to administer his or her own directives.

Quality Health Care for All – or Quality Health Care for None?

In order to help finance its new health care benefits, ObamaCare provides for cuts to future Medicare spending of $716 billion over the first 10 years alone, as officially scored by CBO and Medicare’s actuaries. To further ensure funding for its new benefits, ObamaCare created IPAB to adopt further cuts to Medicare to the extent necessary to keep Medicare spending within certain target limits. Beginning in 2018, that target limit will be the rate of growth of the economy per capita plus one percentage point.

For every year that the Medicare actuaries project Medicare spending will exceed the specified limits, the ACA requires IPAB, no later than January 15 of the preceding year, to issue a “detailed and specific… legislative proposal… related to the Medicare program” that “shall… result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending… that is at least equal to the applicable savings target.” Further, it authorizes IPAB to “propose” even greater reductions in projected Medicare spending.

I informed the Supreme Court in the ACRU brief, “If this Court does not act to consider this case, IPAB will be busy rewriting the Medicare Act for many years. Historically, per capita Medicare spending has grown an average of 2.6 percentage points higher each year than per capita GDP. At those current, long term trends, IPAB will be cutting at least 1.6% of Medicare spending each and every year, for many years.” Of course, an Executive Branch board of unelected bureaucrats is not the way to reduce Medicare spending.

Moreover, IPAB’s powers are not limited to Medicare under the language of the Obamacare law. IPAB can issue any proposal “related to the Medicare program.” The board can reason that if it is restricting spending on health care under Medicare, then it must also restrict spending on health care throughout the economy, or doctors and hospitals will flee Medicare and the seniors it is supposed to be serving, to provide better compensated health care to others. Indeed, Medicare’s actuaries are already effectively making just this argument about the impact on Medicare from Obamacare’s restrictions and cuts for Medicare.

As Cohen and Cannon report, ObamaCare “requires IPAB” to produce proposals to “slow the growth in national health expenditures” and “Non-Federal Health Care Programs.” Cohen and Cannon further explain that ObamaCare,

Limiting private medical spending is one of the most effective ways for the government to ration health care. With their compensation so sharply slashed, doctors and hospitals will start to withdraw health care from the market. Investors will begin to divert capital elsewhere for better returns, so health care will not be there when you need it. Investors will increasingly shun innovative health care breakthroughs that the state of health care science could support. When your doctor delivers the bad news that there is nothing further that can be done to save the life of your child or beloved aging parent, you won’t know if that is because of the current state of medical care, or because of all the busybody Obamacare “Progressives.” Your doctor probably will not know either. Most Democrats will not remotely understand this, or what their political party has done to the rest of us.

“‘provides that if the Medicare actuaries project that the growth rate of national health expenditures will exceed that of per-enrollee Medicare spending, IPAB’s ‘proposals shall be designed to help reduce the growth rate [of national health expenditures] while maintaining or enhancing beneficiary access to quality care under [Medicare].’ This is a clear mandate to reduce both government and private sector health care spending. Indeed, the simplest way to reduce overall health care spending while maintaining access to care for Medicare enrollees is to limit spending on patients outside of Medicare.”

This is exactly what conservatives have feared all along, and exactly what Sarah Palin warned us about. Obama and his Democrats sold Obamacare on the grounds that it meant health care for all. But what they are doing with Obamacare in redistributing health care is analogous to what always happens with such government redistribution -- lowering the standard of health care for all in the process. And we don’t even get health care for all under ObamaCare, as even the Establishment CBO projects that 30 million Americans will still be uninsured 10 years after this hideous law is fully implemented. In fact, it is not even clear yet whether the net effect of ObamaCare will be to lower or raise the number of uninsured. So, conceivably, we could end up spending far more money while providing far less health care to far fewer people.

Worst of all, under the ObamaCare statute, IPAB’s so-called proposals are not proposals at all. ObamaCare's language provides for them to automatically become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or possible subjection to a presidential veto.

As Cohen and Cannon explain,

Under the ObamaCare statute, Cohen and Cannon add, “To prevent an IPAB proposal from becoming law, Congress must offer substitute …legislation that achieves the same budgetary result. [Alternatively], the Act requires a three-fifths vote of all the members of the Senate to waive [this requirement].” Otherwise, “IPAB’s legislative proposal automatically becomes law, and the Act requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it.”

“IPAB’s proposals will have force of law. The reasons for this are twofold. First,
[the Obamacare statute] requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
implement them. Second, it severely restricts Congress’ ability to block their
implementation by rejecting them or offering a substitute proposal. These
provisions will effectively make IPAB’s proposals law without the approval of
Congress or the signature of the President.”

Moreover, 'after 2020, Congress loses the ability even to offer substitutes for IPAB proposals,” Cohen and Cannon add. “n that case, the Act requires the Secretary to implement IPAB’s proposals even if Congress does enact a substitute.”

Constitution? What Constitution?

Most outrageously, the law also purports to sharply limit the legislative power of the Congress of the United States to ever repeal IPAB. Under the ACA, Congress can only ever repeal IPAB by introducing a specifically worded “Joint Resolution” in the House and the Senate between January 1, 2017 and February 1, 2017. Then it must pass that resolution with a three-fifths vote of all members of each house by August 15, 2017.

As Cohen and Cannon summarize:

“Congress has only about 15 business days in the year 2017 to propose [a] joint

resolution of repeal [of IPAB]. Otherwise, the Act forever precludes repeal [of

IPAB]. Congress must then pass that resolution with a three-fifths supermajority

by August 15, 2017, or the Act forever precludes repeal…. If Congress fails to

follow these precise steps, then [the ObamaCare statute] states the American

people’s elected representatives may never repeal IPAB, ever.”

So the ObamaCare law not only shifts the legislative power of Congress to an Executive Branch agency under Obama, it also sharply restricts the legislative power of Congress itself. I wonder what the Democrat staffers must have been drinking and smoking when they came up with this.

In a final insult to constitutional injury, the law provides that, “Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.” Cohen and Cannon state, “Finally, [the ACA] gives IPAB and the Secretary the sole authority to judge their own actions by prohibiting administrative or judicial review of the Secretary’s implementation of an IPAB proposal.”

Cohen and Cannon conclude,

“The Independent Payment Advisory Board is worse than unconstitutional -- it is

anti-constitutional. Congress’s legislative powers do not include the power to

alter the constitutional procedure required for passage of laws. Nor does it

include the power to entrench legislation by preventing it from being altered by

future Congresses.”

Note that President Obama has not made any appointments to IPAB. That means that the Secretary of HHS, Sylvia Matthews Burwell, who has held office since last June and reports directly to President Obama, now personally holds all the powers of that board. That includes plenary powers to reorder anything related to health care, as if property rights, freedom of contract, the rule of law, the Constitution, and democracy do not apply to any business or transaction related to health care. In other words, within the Affordable Care Act, President Obama has set himself up as a health care dictator.

Perhaps it's time to officially rename the Department of Health and Human Services the Department of Health and Human Suffering.

Peter Ferrara is General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the Heartland Institute. He has written or co-authored 16 briefs for the ACRU challenging Obamacare in the federal courts.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/how_the_obamacare_death_panel_defies_the_constitution.html#ixzz3O8XXngei
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[KirtFalcon]

February 24, 2015

ObamaCare at the Crossroads

By Jon N. Hall

On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell. On Fox News recently, George Will opined that King is the most important case the Court will hear this year. The issue at hand is the legality of the IRS regulation that ObamaCare subsidies can be awarded for health insurance policies purchased at the federal exchange, contrary to the stipulations in the law. If the Court finds for the plaintiffs, ObamaCare subsidies will be available only in the 13 states that developed their own exchanges.

 

Unlike NFIB v. Sebelius, King does not seek to overturn ObamaCare; the law’s constitutionality is not the issue in King. So if the plaintiffs prevail, ObamaCare will still stand. “Seven myths about King v. Burwell” at the SCOTUSblog provides a quick summary for getting up to speed on this suit.

 

There are four suits that challenge the IRS regulation, three of which have received a judgment in the lower courts. Pruitt and Halbig resulted in wins for the plaintiffs, but in King the government prevailed.

 

The idea men behind these suits are Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon. They became the progenitors of these subsidy suits with their July 2012 paper: “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.” The revised version of 2013 appeared at Health Matrix. With the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the King case last November, Adler and Cannon filed an amicus brief in December.

 

The subsidies (i.e. tax credits) are the worst feature of ObamaCare. For years we’ve heard bipartisan tax reformers, such as the Bowles-Simpson commission, call for Congress to “broaden the base,” which means eliminating the Tax Code’s exemptions from paying taxes. But ObamaCare goes in the opposite direction. With the ObamaCare subsidies, one’s income taxes won’t go to the U.S. Treasury to pay for the federal government, but instead will go to an insurance company to pay for one’s own health insurance premiums. In October 2011, Forbes ran “JCT: Obamacare's Subsidies Remove 8 Million More Americans from the Tax Rolls” by Avik Roy, who wrote:

 

One of the most perilous developments of recent years has been the rise in the percentage of Americans who pay no income tax. According to the Tax Foundation, 59 million Americans -- 42 percent of all filers -- had zero or even negative income tax liability. Now, a new report from the Joint Committee on Taxation says that, thanks to Obamacare’s exchange subsidies, an additional 8 million Americans will no longer have an income tax liability.

 

Already, the bottom two quintiles have a negative income tax liability. Also in 2011, the Heritage Foundation ran “Obamacare Tax Subsidies: Bigger Deficit, Fewer Taxpayers, Damaged Economy” by Paul L. Winfree, who wrote:

 

Obamacare’s tax subsidies are one of the primary reasons to repeal Obamacare. […] Obamacare tax subsidies create a scenario in which about half of all households will have zero or negative income tax liability.

 

In a January 2015 report, the CBO and JCT estimate that the gross cost of the subsidies, Medicaid expansion, etc. for 2016-2025 will be $1.993T, which will be offset by $643 billion in revenue (PDF-page 2). So the net cost of ObamaCare over those 10 years will be $1.35T.

 

Mitigation of soaring insurance premiums and medical bills wasn’t what the Democrats had in mind with ObamaCare; their aim was getting more people “covered.” What the folks who were actually paying wanted from healthcare reform was lower prices, not subsidies so they can pay ever-higher prices.

 

The affordability of the Affordable Care Act, however, is not what the Court’s decision in King will hinge on. Rather, it is language: what the law says and what the lawyers arguing the law say. The Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments (audio) on May 14, 2014, and they delivered their 3-0 decision on July 22. (By the way, when the Fourth Circuit took up the case, it was known as “King v. Sebelius,” as HHS Secretary Sebelius had yet to resign.)

 

The brief that the government filed with the Supreme Court has a bit of language in it, (for all the briefs, click here). The term “cooperative federalism” appears eight times in the government’s brief. On page 15, we read: “the availability of tax credits in every State is essential to the Act’s model of cooperative federalism.” And on page 35: “Interpreting Section 36B to make tax credits available through the Exchanges in every State is essential to the effective operation of the Act’s insurance market reforms and to its framework of cooperative federalism.”

 

What is the government talking about? The term “cooperative federalism” never appears in the text of the ACA. There’s no cooperative federalism in the program, as 74 percent of the States aren’t cooperating. Did Congress cooperate with the States by consulting them when they passed the ACA? (The Solicitor General might read up on cooperative federalism, perhaps even the Cliff Notes.)

 

Some warn of dire consequences were the Court to rule for the plaintiffs in King. ThinkProgress warns that “7.3 million people could lose out on $36.1 billion in subsidies by 2016.” Some say that the new Republican Congress must have a fix waiting in the wings in case the Court finds for the plaintiffs.

 

Why? Republicans don’t believe in any of this; not a single one of them voted for ObamaCare, and they’ve voted repeatedly to repeal it. ObamaCare is an entirely Democrat concoction that was rammed down Americans’ throats against their wishes. Republicans shouldn’t be expected to fix, save, or otherwise bail out Democrat ideas on legislation.

 

In the landmark 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court “rewrote” the ACA. “Rewrite” and its variants occur seven times in the dissent. What would it say about the Court if it again “rewrote” this law? The ACA was a mess to begin with, but it has been made even more incoherent by the Court itself. Shall the Court once again “rewrite” the law in order to save it? Is that the function of the high court, or is it to call balls and strikes? One reason the Court should strike down the IRS rule in King is because they should have struck down the entire ACA in NFIB. The reason the country is going through all this is because the Court didn’t read the law correctly back in 2012.

 

Regardless of what happens -- whether the Supreme Court strikes it down, or a future government repeals it, or it implodes in a brilliant death spiral and gets sucked into the “super-massive black hole” at the center of the galaxy where all Bad Ideas eventually go to die -- ObamaCare shouldn’t be seen as a total and hugely expensive waste of time and money, but as a civics lesson.

 

One of the lessons we should learn from this episode is how far America has fallen from her Founding; for instance, the 1942 decision in Wickard v. Filburn. That Supreme Court decision, cited 25 times in NFIB, allowed the government to deny Americans the right to farm their own land for the purpose of feeding themselves and their families. That’s not America.

 

Perhaps the biggest reason to hope that the Supreme Court will find for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell and strike down Obama’s IRS regulation is to see what will happen next. Would Obama ignore the Court and continue awarding the illegal tax credit subsidies? And if the president does flout the Court, defiantly proclaiming “I will not go back,” what will Congress do about it?

 

 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/obamacare_at_the_crossroads.html#ixzz3SiQY96Jw

[RETIREDFAN1]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/justice-kennedy-s-comments-stir-the-tea-leaves-on-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

[Wild74]

Kennedy voted against it to start with, at least in the beginning, Roberts is the turn coat.

[KirtFalcon]

Hopefully, Roberts comes to his senses this time around ....

[RETIREDFAN1]

Hopefully, Roberts comes to his senses this time around ....

 

Roberts will do what his masters tell him to do......he's bought and paid for by the Rothschilds.......

[KirtFalcon]

 

Roberts will do what his masters tell him to do......he's bought and paid for by the Rothschilds.......

 

No, it's not a selfie of me ... it's Colmes and his laundry list of conspiracies ......

 

[RETIREDFAN1]

No, it's not a selfie of me ... it's Colmes and his laundry list of conspiracies ......

 

Now be honest.....we know that's you..... :P

[Wild74]

Nope the Falcon doesn't wear ear rings

[KirtFalcon]

Nope the Falcon doesn't wear ear rings

 

It's Colmes and he knows it. He's the one with all the nutty conspiracy theories .....

[trueblue82]

 

It's Colmes and he knows it. He's the one with all the nutty conspiracy theories .....

You got a better explanation for why a guy that claimed upon his nomination to be a Constitutionalist, then schooled all the dems in the senate on The Constitution, twisted himself into such a pretzel in an effort to save the worst bill Congress ever passed?

[Wild74]

I was surprised by Roberts, Kennedy is the one that always like the spotlight as the swing vote, I guess Roberts wanted to be a swinger also