The Biggest Threat to Obamacare Yet is Right Around the Corner: Halbig vs Burwell

Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012

By: C. Steven Tucker  -  Gulag Bound  -  TruthAboutObamacare.com  -  h/t to the NoisyRoom

A case about to be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could stop Obamacare dead in its tracks in 34 states. Halbig v. Burwell is based on an illegal action taken by the Internal Revenue Service in 2012. Below I will outline that illegal action and the two sections of the PPACA (Obamacare) that are relevant in this case.

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

Section 1311 of the PPACA describes state-based health insurance exchanges. That section outlines the powers granted to the IRS to provide APTC – “Advance Premium Tax Credits” (a.k.a. ‘subsidies’) that will be used to artificially lower the high cost of health insurance offered in a state-based exchange. Tied to those APTC’s is also the power granted to the IRS to levy a $2,000 or $3,000 excise tax (non-tax deductible) on all employers with 50 or more full-time employees (first 30 employees waived) if they do not provide PPACA approved health insurance. This is a lot of new power granted to the IRS and this is the primary reason the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents.

Section 1321 of the PPACA describes federally-facilitated exchanges and state-federal partnership exchanges – like the exchange the state of Illinois has chosen to establish. In these types of exchanges, the IRS is granted no authority to provide APTC’s or to levy excise taxes on any employer in that state for not providing PPACA approved health insurance. Since the crafters of the PPACA assumed that every state would willingly establish a state-based exchange, there was no money appropriated for federally-facilitated exchanges.

Thus far 34 states have chosen not to open a state-based health insurance exchange. As such federally-facilitated exchanges have been implemented in those states regardless of the wishes of those state’s legislatures.

The illegal action taken by the IRS

Here’s the kicker, in order to ‘fix’ this legal ‘opt out’ that section 1321 provides to states that choose not to open a state-based exchange. The Internal Revenue Service finalized a proposed rule on the 2 year anniversary of the passage of the PPACA that offers APTC’s -Advance Premium Tax Credits – through exchanges “established under section 1311 OR 1321 of the PPACA. Those six characters—”or 1321?—constitute as Cato’s Michael Cannon correctly describes “an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute.” By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule triggers billions of dollars in taxpayer provided “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states. Whether they have a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was illegal. It was not authorized by Congress and as such it should not stand.

Worse yet, President Obama is following this new proposed rule as if it was codified law. This illegal action taken by the IRS and President Obama’s support of it is the crux of the Halbig v. Burwell case. If the U.S. Court of Appeals upholds the rule of law in this case it will mean the end of Obamacare in 34 states. In turn, it may be the final death blow to an unconstitutional and wildy unpopular law.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,IRS,Surpreme Court,Burwell,PPACA. ACA,Affordable Care Act,Halbig v. Burwell,Hope,HealthCare Exchanges,Insurance Exchanges,Knowledge Is Power,U.S. Court of Appeals,Standing-Up,Stand-Up America,Law,Taxpayers

Did NSA Blackmail Roberts to OK ObamaCare?

Klayman: 'Tyranny is greater today than in 1776'!

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obama care after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

 WND - May 18, 2014 – Cross Posted at AskMarion: 

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts may have been blackmailed to approve Obamacare after being spied on by the NSA and CIA, says Larry Klayman, the attorney who has come to be known as “the NSA slayer” for his successful legal battles against the National Security Agency.

During an appearance Sunday night on Aaron Klein’s New York City radio show on 970 The Answer, Klayman suggested the blackmail possibility when asked by a caller if the Supreme Court could be sued for its approval of the Affordable Care Act.

“Unfortunately, there’s no way to sue the Supreme Court for decisions that it makes. There should be, and there should be a way to remove these justices for making decisions like that,” explained Klayman, the founder of Judicial Watch who now heads Freedom Watch.

Chief Justice John Roberts

“But let’s take this possibility: Why did Chief Justice Roberts at the eleventh hour change his decision? He was going to side with the other justices and find that Obamacare was unconstitutional. Is it something that was dug up on him by the NSA or the CIA? Was that used against him to blackmail him?

“These are the kinds of things [the government is doing], and that’s why it’s so scary what’s going on with the NSA and the CIA. It can happen in a democracy. So that may help explain it, and perhaps we can reach these issues through the NSA cases that we brought, the NSA/CIA cases. I intend to get the truth on this.”

Klein himself sounded taken aback by Klayman’s suggestion.

“This is actually a staggering response to believe the government could have spied on a Supreme Court justice … and that information is somehow utilized … against him to pass Obamacare,” Klein said. “This is huge.”

Klayman warned that “every aspect of Americans’ lives is being accessed and monitored by the government.”

“It’s not just telephone metadata that’s being monitored,” he alleged. “They’re also listening to the content, that’s coming out in recent weeks.

“I’m a lawyer. I have an attorney-client privilege, and I can no longer talk to my clients on the telephone and expect that there’s any confidentiality. It changes the whole nature of how you operate.

“We also know that the NSA and CIA – as Communist China, as Russia can do, as any sophisticated country – they can turn your cell phone on anytime and listen to you. And they do.”

Listen to Part 1 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein HERE

Klayman said such activity is “simply not acceptable in a democracy.”

“And even if they are not accessing our records directly, the fact that the American people know about it, and it’s been documented what’s been going on, it has a chilling effect on our ability to communicate and our ability to criticize the government or take strong action against the government.

“If the government wants to destroy you, it has to access the information that it can use to do it, and that’s why this is so frightening. [It has] a greater capability than King George III had in 1776. The tyranny is greater today than it was at the time of the American Revolution.”

Regarding the status of the legal cases against government spying, Klayman said, “The bottom line is this: Our so-called government is trying to delay final adjudication of the constitutionality of the CIA and NSA’s programs, and as a ruse, President Obama is claiming he wants to make modifications to those programs. They’re not modifications at all.”

Klayman also said it’s not just the Obama administration citizens should be concerned about.

“Can you imagine Hillary Clinton having the power to use this?” he asked.

Listen to Part 2 of Larry Klayman’s appearance with Aaron Klein HERE

No wonder the White House counsel picks show Obama preparing to be impeached…

Related: 

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? Senator Mike Lee Presents the Evidence 

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare…

Technorati Tags: NSA,Surveillance,CIA,SCOTUS,Supreme Court,Big Brother Tactics,Obamaland,ObamaCare,High Crimes and Misdemeanors,John Roberts,Balance of Power,Corruption,Impeachment,Separation of Powers,Tyranny,Thuggery,Wake-Up,Chief Justice John Roberts

It’s Official: The IRS Will Raid Your Tax Data Through Obamacare

“Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!” as Gomer Pyle used to say… except for those who read the bill… and exactly why they have been working so hard to wake America up.

So, it is official, the IRS will be getting personal data from the healthcare exchanges in order to help it implement Obamacare… And as Americans continue to be corralled into a government-mandated healthcare plan, it will be even more difficult to protect personal data.   (AP Photo/J. David Ake, File)

The Blaze: The Internal Revenue Service this week will publish a final rule requiring Obamacare health insurance exchanges to hand over key personal data to the IRS, which will use the information to implement the tax aspects of the controversial health care law.

The IRS rule covers health exchanges that sell insurance to individuals, and it takes effect this year. That means people enrolled in an Obamacare exchange this year will have their information given to the IRS as soon as it’s needed for tax purposes.Information to be handed over from Obamacare exchanges includes names, addresses, taxpayer identification numbers, insurance premium amounts, the name of the insurance issuer, and the insurance plan policy number issued by the exchanges.

The IRS says this data is needed to assess whether people are eligible for a health insurance tax credit. “This tax credit can help make purchasing health insurance coverage more affordable for people with moderate incomes,” according to the IRS.

The rule is being published amid ongoing concerns about data security, and after the troubled launch of the healthcare.gov website that exposed many technical glitches. Those issues have some worried that the personal data people give to the exchanges will be at risk.

House Republicans have passed a few bills aimed at addressing this potential problem. In January, for example, the House passed the Exchange Information Disclosure Act, which would require the government to tell people whenever their personal information has been compromised.

Republicans have also passed legislation requiring weekly updates from the administration on how the law is being implemented, including details about website glitches.

So far, however, only the House has passed these bills, and the Senate has not given any indication it will consider them.

The final IRS rule follows draft regulations that were issued last summer. Those rules were put out for public comment, and the final rules to be published this week were tweaked in some ways in response to those comments.

But the IRS also ignored some requests to alter the rule. For example, the draft rule said exchanges must tell the IRS whether a person enrolled in an Obamacare plan by a taxpayer is that taxpayer’s dependent. The commenter said the IRS should have that information, and that it therefore doesn’t need to be reported.

But the IRS said it would not change this rule.

“The final regulations do not adopt this comment because information the IRS provides as part of the verification process is from the taxpayer’s most recently filed tax return, which may be two years old,” the rule states.

The final IRS rule is due to be published on Wednesday.

The IRS Will Now Be Able to Seize Individual’s Personal Information Through ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: IRS-gate,ObamaCare,ObamaCare Surprises,Wake-Up,Taxes,ObamaCare Taxes,Alert

Eleven AGs slam Obama's healthcare fixes; Greg Abbot says Obama is acting like a king

Greta with Texas Attorney General Abbot:

Video: Eleven AGs slam Obama's healthcare fixes; Greg Abbot says Obama is acting like a king

Published on Jan 2, 2014

Eleven attorneys general slammed Obama, saying that he is breaking the law by repeatedly making changes to Obamacare without going through Congress. The AGs specifically criticize President Obama's executive action that allowed insurance companies to keep offering health plans that had been canceled for not meeting ObamaCare's more rigorous standards.
"We support allowing citizens to keep their health insurance coverage, but the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action," the attorneys general wrote in a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "The illegal actions by this administration must stop." They say the healthcare fix was "flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law."

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey wrote the letter, which was signed by his counterparts in Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia.

Signatories include Gregg Abbott of Texas — who's running for governor this year — and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia.

James D. "Buddy" Caldwell of Louisiana was previously a member of the Democratic Party, but switched to the GOP in 2011.

The change, the Republican attorney generals argue, exceeds precedents set by Supreme Court decisions.

The officials point to the 1985 Heckler v. Chaney case, in which the Supreme Court concluded that some enforcement actions of laws might be subject to judicial review first.

House Launches Investigation Into Obama’s Blatant Political and Illegal Delay of ObamaCare

Well folks… we are being played again!!

JoshuaPundit: With everything else that's going on, this hasn't gotten as much notice as it should. Even the drones at CBS can't conceal what a trainwreck this is. And now the President is simply manipulating things to move past the 2014 midterms, and not even the Obama Media can avoid it.

Oh, one more thing...it's totally illegal.The law does not allow any discretion whatsoever in its timetables. The President is simply taking unprecedented powers - again- while the media covers for him and the Republicans in the House let another opportunity go by.

The truth of the matter is that ObamaCare is truly a poorly thought out piece of legislation. That's because it was shoved through in a quasi-legal fashion using the reconciliation process reserved for budget matters to avoid having to bring the House bill to a confirming vote in the senate after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts.

The individual provisions of ObamaCare, the taxes, the fines, the obscene diktats - still remain and will kick in 2014. After the midterms, in 2015, you will indeed see massive layoffs and workers thrown out of their company health plans to be forced into ObamaCare health exchanges...which are still in the process of being defined!

One thing we already know is that a minimum coverage Bronze level policy will cost $20,000 per year for a family of five, that rationing will be the new normal and that long waits to see a doctor if you're even allowed to have a procedure will be standard. And amnestia? Any bill that provides amnesty for the 11 to 12 million illegal aliens now in the U.S. and gives them access to Obama Care (and it's difficult to see how they can or should be excluded)is going to exacerbate these problems.

Needless to say, the Leftist elites from President Obama on down who lied to you aren't going to be faced with this choice...they have their own plan that covers themselves and their families that's far cheaper, better and more inclusive.

I agree with talk show host Mark Levin here. Instead of allowing the Prevaricator-in chief to get away with this, what if Boehner(or hopefully someone more articulate) went on television and simply told the American people that they were shutting down the government for a week or however long it takes to slash the money going into ObamaCare to protect their healthcare, to keep their premiums from going up, to allow their employer to keep from laying them off or make them switch to part time work. That President Obama was acting illegally to try and shove through a poorly thought out and highly damaging law, and that the House, with the power of the purse was going to act for the benefit of all Americans by exercising this oversight.

As a matter of fact, the House could have stopped ObamaCare or any of this presidents other serial abuses of power at any time simply by refusing to fund them. But that would have taken courage and  principle.

How long, O Lord?’

Well low and behold… Speaker Boehner with a print out of the ObamaCare Bill… and still growing at his side actually did step up and speak out… just not vehemently enough:

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 16: Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) stands next to a printed version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during a news conference on Capitol Hill May 16, 2013 in Washington, DC. On top of calling for the repeal of Obamacare, Boehner fielded questions from reporters about the Obama Administrations’ subpoena of AP phone records, the IRS scrutiny of conservative political groups’ applications for tax exemption and other issues. Credit: Getty Images

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Republicans finally seized upon the administration’s abrupt delay of the employer mandate in the health care law as fresh evidence that President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy is unworkable and should be repealed, an argument that energizes the party base ahead of 2014 congressional elections. 58% of Americans now want ObamaCare repealed in its entirety.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration’s unexpected postponement of a key provision designed to insure more Americans was an admission that the 2010 law is unfeasible. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce’s oversight panel embarked on an investigation of the decision, seeking documents from the Treasury and the Health and Human Services departments.

“House Energy and Commerce Committee leaders today wrote to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, requesting documents and information regarding the administration’s decision to delay full implementation of the health care law’s employer mandate for one year. The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA), has held a series of hearings on the president’s health care law and will examine the administration’s delay of the employer mandate in the coming weeks,” read a statement from House Republicans.

But the White House’s willingness to respond to the concerns of business – and avoid the specter of job layoffs due to the unpopular health care law – spares Democrats one political headache in next year’s races.

“The best delay for Obamacare is a permanent one,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Wednesday, hours after the administration announced a one-year delay in requiring businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage for their workers or pay a penalty.

Success in midterm elections depends in large part on turning out the party’s core voters, and Republicans see the latest twist as an opportunity to further vilify the health care law and ignite a GOP base already strongly opposed to Obama’s overhaul. GOP members of Congress pounced on the administration’s decision to make a point they hope will resonate with voters in their states.

“I’ve heard from countless employers in Maine who say that the onerous penalties and provisions in Obamacare provide perverse and powerful incentives to not hire new workers or to cut back on the hours that their employees are allowed to work,” said Senator Susan Collins, who faces re-election next year.

In their strategy for next year’s elections, Republicans were determined to focus on how medium and large businesses would respond to the law’s requirement and the possibility that would translate into job losses. The GOP was ready to place the blame on Democrats who voted for the law if companies had to lay off workers.

The one-year delay to January 2015 largely erases that aspect of the health care criticism in the midterm-election year.

Ken Hoagland, chairman of the conservative Restore America’s Voice and a fierce opponent of the law, said it spares House and Senate Democrats who voted for the law.

“Pushing back the economic damage of Obamacare past the next election won’t change the reality of harm to employees or to the overall economy,” Hoagland said in an interview. “It just seeks to protect those responsible for the legislation.”

Democrats sought to cast the issue as the administration listening to the business community.

“The administration has demonstrated its commitment to implement the Affordable Care Act with increased flexibility for the 4 percent of America’s businesses impacted by the employer responsibility requirement,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement Wednesday.

Pelosi argued that a significant majority of businesses already provide health insurance to their employees. The California lawmaker who was instrumental in ensuring the law’s passage when she was speaker of the House insisted that Americans will soon benefit from increased access to affordable health care.

Democrats have always been dogged by the fact that few Americans understand the law and many fear its effect.

In the most recent polling, the Kaiser Family Foundation found that more Americans view the law unfavorably than favorably, a negative tilt that has remained steady since Obama signed it in March 2010. The foundation’s survey this spring found 43 percent with an unfavorable opinion of the law, 35 percent with a favorable view and 23 percent undecided.

The poll also found more people saying the nation will be worse off under the law than better off, a switch from public opinion immediately following its passage.

Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said Americans opposed to the law remain vehement while other Americans are waiting to see what happens.

The administration’s one-year delay “impacts a very small number. … A lot more people are going to be impacted by their ability to get insurance in the exchanges, removal of pre-existing conditions and by ultimately what the price is going to be. … I think in terms of the `14 elections, I just don’t see this particular decision having much impact.”

Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee, called the move “the worst of all worlds for Democratic candidates” because it will frustrate liberals who support the law while doing little to quiet Republican derision.

“What is a Democratic candidate supposed to say in light of this?” Dayspring said. “‘Yes, I supported Obamacare, but thankfully we delayed it to protect you from how bad it is’?”

Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who won last year in Republican-leaning North Dakota, offered a template for how Democrats could respond when faced with questions about the health care law and the administration’s latest move.

“I have repeatedly said that there is good and bad in the health care law, and we need to improve it. One improvement needed is to make it as simple as possible for our businesses to comply. I applaud the administration for delaying this requirement until there is a system in place that is workable for businesses,” she said in a statement.

Thus far the response from the Obama Administration:

There are people working on alternatives out there… people like Dr. Ben Carson.  Get-involved and educate yourself on this law.

Comments:

desertspeaks

Jul. 4, 2013 at 10:36am

Avoiding Obamacare! Rescind your signature with social security, and yes it is possible and legal!

Secondly, know that UNLESS you are a naturalized citizen, you are NOT a US CITIZEN! only US CITIZENS are subject to Obamacare!!!
STATUTE AT LARGE to become a US citizen, act of Congress of April 1802, (2 Stat. 153, c. 28, § 1; Rev. St. § 2165 THAT ACT SAYS, and PAY ATTENTION; provides that “an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following manner, AND NOT OTHERWISE!!.”

The following of the act is paraphrased to save room for this to post!

1) That YOU 2 yrs prior to admission absolutely renounced and abjure all allegiance and fidelity “before a court” to any potentate or sovereignty.
2) And had given YOUR intentions to the court to become a U.S. Citizen / SUBJECT of a corporate nature in writing.
There is no other provision of the acts of congress under which YOU could have been naturalized. The Court and public law, did State” AND NOT OTHERWISE.” “which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.” And since the STATUTE AT LARGE, NOT code, says IT SHALL BE RECORDED in fact two.
3) reside “within” the US for 5 yrs, 1 yr in the state or territory where such court is and be a “MAN” of good moral character.
If you haven’t done ALL the above, YOU ARE NOT A US CITIZEN!

Your welcome!

See more comments at TheBlaze

Related: 

Obama Administration Guts Obamacare

5 Effects Obamacare Will Have on Working Americans

McCaughey: Obamacare is About Funding Democrats

California Schools To Train Kids To Sell ObamaCare

Washington Examiner: Kaiser: Most Say Nation Will be Worse Off Under Obamacare

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ObamaCare?

Mendacity and ObamaCare: "It is better to do this right than fast."

Consequences of ObamaCare Delays

UnitedHealth Leaves California Insurance Market

ObamaCare’s Death Knell

Desperate Congress Realizes They're Getting ObamaCare, Seeks a Waiver

Books: 

ObamaCare Survival Guide  -  Nick Tate

Beating Obamacare  -  Betsy McCaughey

 Obama Health Law  -  Betsy McCaughey

By Marion Algier  -  cross-posted at AskMarion

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,ObamaCare,ObamaCare delay,watch the other hand,politics,repeal and replace ObamaCare,defund ObamaCare,ObamaTax,manipulation of the public,The Blaze,Speaker John Boehner,Ben Carson,ObamaCare lies,John Roberts,smoke and mirrors,stand-up America,get-involved,Betsy McCaughey,Election 2014

BIG STORY: Lawsuit Could Potentially Undo ObamaCare!

Jared Law – the 9.12 Project: This is one of the dozens (okay, thousands) of reasons that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, a horrible idea, and why it must be eliminated, rooted out completely, ASAP.

The fact that ObamaCare originated in the U.S. Senate makes it unconstitutional, independent of its thousands of alternative violations of our NATURAL LAW, Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
You see, when the U.S. Supreme Court ignored the Constitution and ruled ObamaCare legitimate and Constitutional, their reasoning was that ObamaCare penalties and fees were actually taxes.

But any bill that generates revenue for the federal government through taxes MUST NECESSARILY, BY CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE, ORIGINATE IN THE U.S. House of Representatives!

This has been brought up before, but now a lawsuit is alleging the same.

This is WONDERFUL NEWS!

Here's the story from The Washington Times and The Blaze:

Lawsuit Over Health Care Tax Could Kill ‘ObamaCare’

By Valerie Richardson | Sunday, March 31, 2013

"ObamaCare" looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define ObamaCare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their "aha" moment.

"The court there quite explicitly says, 'This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,'" foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. "Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and "has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis."

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department's motion "any day now," said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn't the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as "gut and amend" and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Using H.R. 3590 as a "shell bill" may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

"This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause," said the brief. "It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause."
The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.

"Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue," said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. "Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable."

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.

The Affordable Care Act's central purpose is to "improve the nation's health care system," and it fulfills that goal "through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue," said the government brief.

Mr. Sandefur disagrees. "What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?" he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, "[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act."

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit "may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it."

"And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again," Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against ObamaCare.

"The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as ObamaCare litigation is concerned," Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. "The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found."

Could This Lawsuit Really Kill ‘ObamaCare’?

Apr. 1, 2013 6:34pm Becket Adams

Although it’s widely believed that “ObamaCare” is here to stay, one lawsuit is threatening to undo President Obama’s landmark health care bill.

“A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House,” the Washington Times notes.

You may recall in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled on “ObamaCare” that Chief Justice John Roberts defined the bill as a tax, not a mandate. This, according to the Times, is where PFL attorneys saw their opening.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said recently. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”

The Times explains the details:

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against ObamaCare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Though unorthodox, the government motion argues that using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” is not unconstitutional.

“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”
The brief notes several cases where shell bills have been upheld by courts.

“[B]ut foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another,” the Times notes.

The DOJ also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate provided “the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.”

“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

The point of “ObamaCare” is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it does that “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.
But Sandefur disagrees.

“What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.
Although it’s unclear whether PFL’s lawsuit will scuttle the president’s health care law, one thing is certain: “ObamaCare” has at least one more hurdle to clear before final implementation.

Click here to read the full report.

Related:

Fun with ObamaCare

A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,taxes,defund ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare UnConstitutional

A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare

The Foundation

The Patriot Post: "In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any." --James Madison

Editorial Exegesis

"[T]he Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is no more popular now than when it was passed, as Americans have come to realize that it will neither protect patients nor provide for affordable care. While full repeal of the law is not within the realm of short-term political reality ... repeal should nonetheless remain the end goal, either one piece at a time for now or root and branch. The price tag for Obamacare has gone from shocking to preposterous. In March 2010, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the ten-year cost of the law at $898 billion; by February 2013, that number had climbed to $1.6 trillion, and it is likely that further revisions will be in the upward direction. ... As mind-boggling as its price tag is, expense is not the main reason to repeal Obamacare. What is not sufficiently understood is that Obamacare does not reform or regulate health insurance: It effectively abolishes health insurance. ... In short, the system created by this ill-advised law would prevent the emergence of normally functioning markets in medical services and health insurance. Instead, it establishes a top-down system of price controls and subsidies that will discourage healthy people from buying insurance in the first place, reward those who exploit the system's defects, and discourage doctors and other health-care providers from extending their care to those who most need it. ... Republicans made a critical error during the debate over Obamacare when they left the impression that they approved of the U.S. health-care system. In truth, that system was deeply defective before Obamacare was passed.... With a functioning market in place, offering assistance through tax benefits or direct subsidies becomes a much simpler set of challenges, as does enacting targeted, narrow regulation to curb the abusive practices toward which the health-insurance industry is occasionally inclined. ... Republicans can and should begin taking it apart and building something better on the ruins." --National Review

Upright

"OK, Obamacare. Up on the table. It's time for your annual physical. Three years old, eh? ... I can see one problem already. Have you seen these tax hikes? Let's see -- five, 10, 15, 18 tax hikes in all. ... It all adds up, Obamacare. It's not healthy. Hate to tell you this, but it gets worse. See this? That's the number of people who are going to lose their current health insurance because of you. Not thousands, but 7 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ... Wait. Obamacare, didn't you say that nobody who liked his current plan would lose it? Yes. You promised it, in fact -- repeatedly. I'd better note that in your chart. You may be getting uncomfortable, but we're not done yet. Over here, there's another serious problem: You're hurting hiring.... There's more. It's a good thing you're sitting down. It turns out you're making it more difficult to access Medicare services. ... Finally, I see that insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under you. It's those coverage mandates you put in place; they're the culprit. ... You can pay the receptionist on your way out. No, I'm afraid we don't accept that insurance plan anymore." --Heritage Foundation president Ed Feulner

"We could improve America's future just by recognizing what so-called 'public choice' economists started to realize around the time of World War II: that government isn't just a 'public servant.' It's not a demon, either. But government and its employees are selfish, like anyone else. That explains most of their behavior better than occasional shifts to the political left or right. We all tend to overspend and act lazy when we can get away with it. In the private sector, though, that eventually means that you get fired or realize you're depleting your bank account. In Washington, the Fed just prints more money. As long as Washington spends other people's money, there will be little incentive for them to be prudent -- or humble." --columnist John Stossel

"Three weeks ago we gave Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood government a $250 million economic stimulus package, and this week we decided to double-down in our national support for anti-Semites by giving the Palestinian Authority its own $500 million bonus. ... It is beyond strange how a Western elite so carefully attuned to racism or even racial insensitivity allows itself to not just turn a blind eye to the avalanche of anti-Semitic hate pouring out of the Muslim world, but then denigrates its critics as 'Islamophobes' and subsidizes some of the worst offenders. ... I'm reminded of the scene from the movie adaptation of The Two Towers when King Theoden observes the approaching army of Saruman and asks, 'What can men do against such reckless hate?' Apparently the American answer is, 'Give it lots of money.'" --National Review's David French

Insight

"Nothing just happens in politics. If something happens you can be sure it was planned that way." --President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 - 1945)

"There should be a tax on every man that wanted to get a government appointment, or be elected to office. In two years that tax alone would pay our national debt.'" --humorist Will Rogers (1879 - 1935)

Demo-gogues

"[ObamaCare] helped us honor our promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the American people. ... And just think, if you could be a photographer or writer, start your own business, be self-employed, as well as change jobs or start a business and not have to be constrained by whether you had affordable and accessible quality health care. Well that's what this legislation does." --House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

"[Sequestration] will cause pain. It will cause economic dislocation. And then, the wailing will begin. ... And they'll say, 'Well, okay, instead of the sequester which is causing all this pain, let's cut Social Security. Let's cut Medicare. Let's cut medicaid.' This is the first step down a slippery slope toward 'you work until you die.' And that's why this has to be fought so vigorously." --Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL)

"We're talking about millions of kids dying -- being shot down by assault weapons. This is not just a political issue, it's a moral issue." --Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) (Fact is, of the 12,664 murders in 2011, the most recent year for complete FBI statistics, there were 323 homicides committed with a rifle of any type, and likely fewer than 50 children (those under age 18) killed with rifles. By comparison, there were 496 murders committed with hammers in the same year.)

“Think about what happened out in -- where Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally [sic] wounded. Think about when that young man had to try to change the clip. Had he only had a 10-round clip when he changed the clip and fumbled and had it knocked out of his hands, how many more people would have been alive? And tell me, tell me how it violates anyone's constitutional right to be limited to a clip that holds 10 rounds instead of 30, or in Aurora, 100." --Joe Biden

Dezinformatsia

"I wonder, in Noah's ark, when God had pairs of everything, were they, were they male-female, or could they have been lesbian or homosexual couples? I betcha a few, a few lesbian or homosexual couples snuck through there." --radio host Dr. Mike Newcomb

"You do understand Dr. Carson's success is, in part, thanks to government assistance aka college loans? No one builds it alone." --MSNBC's Toure

"When the media covers something, it's important to do basic homework. You can't just repeat something over and over again until it sounds true. It's not fair." --NBC's Matt Lauer

"90% of Americans want universal background checks. ... Among those people who own guns, 85% support. Are you thwarting the will of the American people by standing in opposition to universal background checks?" --NBC's David Gregory to NRA's Wayne LaPierre

"In the months since the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, some gun rights supporters have repeatedly compared U.S. gun control efforts to Nazi restrictions on firearms, arguing that limiting weapons ownership could leave Americans defenseless against homegrown tyrants. ... But comparisons between a push by gun control advocates in the U.S. and Hitler have become so common ... they're often asserted as fact, rather than argument." --Associated Press writer Adam Geller

Newspulper Headlines:

We Blame Global Warming: "Challenge to Australian Prime Minister Evaporates" --Associated Press

That's Actually Fewer Than We'd Have Expected: "12 People Left Behind During America's Recovery" --Huffington Post

The Lonely Lives of Scientists: "Giant Squid DNA Study Produces 'Tantalizing Questions' for Scientists" --Agence France-Presse

Help Wanted: "Porta-Potty Serial Arsonist Sought" --Seattle Times

Bottom Story of the Day: "Public Opinion Stays Static on Affordable Care Act" --NationalJournal.com

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

Village Idiots

"Did you realize that over 90% of the guns in this country are owned by white people in the suburbs and in rural areas? Ninety-percent of our guns are not owned by African-Americans, hispanics, minority groups, they're owned by white people. Now what are these white people so afraid of out in the suburbs?" --filmmaker Michael Moore

"We're going to work on this ['assault weapon' ban]. We're going to find the votes. And it deserves a vote and let's see if we can get it done." --White House chief of staff Denis McDonough

"Scientific evidence affirms that children have similar developmental and emotional needs and receive similar parenting whether they are raised by parents of the same or different genders. If a child has 2 living and capable parents who choose to create a permanent bond by way of civil marriage, it is in the best interests of their child(ren) that legal and social institutions allow and support them to do so, irrespective of their sexual orientation." --American Academy of Pediatrics endorsing same-sex marriage

"'Cold Dead Hand' is about you heartless motherf-----s unwilling to bend for the safety of our kids. Sorry if you're offended by the word safety!" --actor Jim Carrey on his new "song" about the bitter people who cling to their guns.

"What the extremists do is spread fear and unrealistic theories of conspiracies and the citizenry that needs to be armed because the government is possibly tyrannical, and they need their arms to defend themselves against the tyrannical government." --NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo

"I do think there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom. ... [I]f you want to smoke, I think you have a right to do so and I would protect that. ... You certainly have a right to have a gun if you want. If you want to eat a lot and get fat, you have a right to do it. But our job as government is to inform the public." --New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Essential Liberty

"New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that he thinks 'there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.' If he really believes that, then he truly is a little tyrant. ... If the state can infringe on freedom at 'certain times,' then it can do it at any time. Once that wall has been breached, it's only a matter of how far government goes. And as we've seen, and as Thomas Jefferson foresaw, the trend has been for government to grow and liberty to yield. That wall has been breached and it only gets bigger as the invaders drive deeper into occupied territory. The Declaration of Independence rightly said that people are born with unalienable rights given them by their Creator. ... Our rights, our freedoms, our liberties are with us when we are born, and we lose them only when they are stolen from us, when lawmakers impose their views on others. There is no balance, no halfway mark or compromise that produces some ill-defined greatest good. ... Not so many years ago, H.L. Mencken thoughtfully noted that 'The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.'" --Investor's Business Daily

Short Cuts

"In case you missed it, on his first mission as Secretary of State, John Kerry boasted to a group of Germans, 'In America, you have a right to be stupid.' A right?! For years now, the Democrats have relied on it to win elections. As for horse-faced John Kerry, were it not for the terminally stupid, he would have spent the last 30 years not in the Senate, but in a stable." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

"A 28-year-old woman from Serbia has a rare brain condition where she sees everything upside down. The good news? She's now been given a job at the White House as President Obama's economic adviser." --comedian Jay Leno

"President Obama's limo wouldn't start at Ben Gurion Airport after they rolled it off the U.S. transport plane. It turns out the Israeli ground crew filled it up with the wrong type of fuel and it wouldn't start. They filled the tank with water instead of wine." --comedian Argus Hamiton

"You can't be against fascism and for government expansion. That's like being against mass shootings while arming the mentally ill. If the push for gay marriage is like the civil rights movement of the 60s, did the civil rights movement have this much self-back patting?" --humorist Frank J. Fleming

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare alternatives,wake-up America,step-up America,The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

“Death Panel” Three Years Later

by Sarah Palin on Monday, June 25, 2012 at 11:11am – on Facebook

As we wait for the impending Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, I reiterate what I wrote in my first post on this topic nearly three years ago. I stand by everything I wrote in that warning to my fellow Americans because what was true then is true now, and it will remain true as we hear what the Supreme Court has to say.

It was a pretty long post, but a lot of people seem to have only read two words of it: “death panel.” Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that Obamacare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about health care funding. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), and its purpose all along has been to “keep costs down” by actually denying care via price controls and typically inefficient bureaucracy. This subjective rationing of care is what I was writing about in that first post:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Health care by definition involves life and death decisions. Human rights and human dignity must be at the center of any health care discussion.

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors.

We must step up and engage in this most crucial debate. Nationalizing our health care system is a point of no return for government interference in the lives of its citizens. If we go down this path, there will be no turning back. Ronald Reagan once wrote, “Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Let’s stop and think and make our voices heard before it’s too late.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t strike down Obamacare entirely, then Congress must act to repeal IPAB and Obamacare before it is indeed “too late.” All of Obamacare must go one way or another.

- Sarah Palin

Related:

Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Eugenics In Action: 3 Year Old Girl Denied Kidney Transplant …

"People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"

Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

Obama “Fixed” Medicare…With Rationing

FYI: Every American Concerned With Health Care Needs To Read This Conversation

UPROAR OVER OBAMACARE‘S ’RATIONING PANELS’ INTENSIFIES

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

ObamaCare and me – Doctor Zane F. Pollard, MD – For Anyone Who Still Doesn’t Believe in Rationing and Death Panels if ObamaCare Passes

Life With Trig: Sarah Palin on Raising a Special-Needs Child

Soylent Green Anyone???

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,death panels,rationed healthcare,Sarah Palin,repeal and replace ObamaCare,seniors,disabled persons,IPAB,soylent green,wake-up,Independent Payment Advisory Board,America,stand-up America,rationing for seniors,special needs children,Supreme Court,Affordable Care Act,Palin

Judge Opening Door to Obamacare Secrets?

A federal judge hearing a case alleging Barack Obama conspired with Planned Parenthood and other special interests in the development of his health-care bill says the plaintiffs may be able to seek evidence of a secret advisory panel handpicked by the president.

Obamacare now is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a challenge to its constitutionality, and a decision is expected within weeks.

The law also is targeted in the district court case.

“In general, summary judgment ‘is proper only after the plaintiff has been given adequate time for discovery,’” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts in his latest order in a case brought by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch Inc.

Klayman noted that Freedom Watch has requested discovery to depose Kimberly Harris, a deputy assistant and deputy counsel to the president in the Office of the White House Counsel.

“The parties therefore will be ordered to show cause why the government’s supplemental memorandum should not be treated as a motion for summary judgment, and Freedom Watch will be permitted to justify its request for discovery,” the judge said.

Klayman has alleged that Obama’s multiple meetings with representatives of Planned Parenthood and other organizations constituted a federal advisory committee. He contends that refusing to release details about the meetings violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

It was last August when Roberts ruled that part of the case could advance, determining that Klayman “has alleged sufficiently … that the committee here was an advisory committee under the FACA.”

He noted at that time that Freedom Watch “may be entitled to mandamus review against the president, and dismissing the complaint [as the White House wanted] on separation of powers grounds would be premature.”

Later Klayman filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging that the White House is flouting the court and its orders.

“In an attempt to circumvent the court’s order, defendant President Barack Obama’s supplemental memorandum on mootness effectively rebukes and thus ‘thumbs its nose’ at the court’s memorandum of opinion and order of Aug. 12, 2011,” the motion explains.

Klayman explained that the White House did not respond to questions about whether the special advisory committee still is meeting.

“Plaintiff had consistently and meritoriously maintained that such ongoing meetings and/or communications must still be taking place, since implementation of what has become known as ‘Obamacare’ involves thousands of regulations, and there is much at stake concerning such healthcare reform, particularly during this period leading up to the presidential elections in 2012,” Klayman argued.

He noted that the court agreed with his argument that “a de facto federal advisory committee could exist was properly pled.”

“The court [ordered] defendants to advise whether meetings and/or communications were still ongoing with nongovernmental persons and entities,” he wrote. “Despite defendants’ own acknowledgment of the court’s unequivocal order, defendants have opted to avoid compliance, seeking to side-step answering candidly and honestly. … Defendants have merely submitted the disingenuous, nonresponsive, and misleading sworn declaration of Kimberly D. Harris, deputy assistant and deputy counsel to the president in the office of the White House Counsel.

“In this sworn declaration, defendants to seek to sidestep perjury allegations they were forced to admit that such meetings and communications were, in fact, taking place in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,” Klayman wrote.

Now, Roberts has filed the order outlining issues he thinks are in the case, including the fact that the government said the group has discontinued meeting and what he wants regarding the minutes of the meetings that were held.

Klayman, in response, said his organization, as the plaintiff, needs a deposition of Harris.

“As set forth in the complaint and plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss, there were widely reported accounts in credible news sources that the president had specific groups, namely pharmaceutical companies, AARP, Planned Parenthood, US. Chamber of Commerce and other private lobbyists who ‘regularly attended and fully participated in non-public meetings of the OHRDFAC,’” Klayman responded.

“In fact, defendants have admitted as much in the affidavit of Ms. Harris, where they confirmed these meetings in the past,” he continued. “And, the advisory committee is likely to continue to meet even if the Supreme Court rules the ‘Obamacare’ legislation unconstitutional, in whole or in part. It will obviously continue to meet in furtherance of new compliant legislation and rulemaking for the implementing government agencies.”

Klayman argued Harris omitted any reference to ongoing meetings, which would mean the action is not moot.

And, he argued, “even a group formed by private industry becomes an advisory committee if it is ‘utilized’ by the president or by one or more agencies of the government.”

“Defendant is holding onto the information and the facts and is attempting to dismiss this action by claiming that plaintiff should simply trust defendant. This goes specifically against Congress’ intent in establishing FACA to ‘keep Congress and the public informed of their activities.’”

Klayman cited earlier ramifications from a similar argument involving the proposed government-run health care plan promoted by then-first lady Hillary Clinton in the 1990s.

“In an earlier landmark lawsuit involving a healthcare advisory committee chaired by Hillary Clinton in the 1990s, the lower court granted summary judgment, accepting the affidavits of the Clinton administration without allowing discovery by the nonmovant. This ruling was overturned on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and when the discovery did finally go forth … it was learned that the Clinton administration had lied in its affidavits.”

Earlier in the new case, Harris admitted PlannedParenthood and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “along with many other individuals and entities, attended meetings at the White House, at times in groups, to express their views on health care reform.”

But then she explained “there was and is no such committee [so] there are no committee documents and no past, present or future committee meetings.”

Previously the White House refused to give up information about negotiations with various groups over Obamacare, saying Obama has a “privilege” to keep such communications concealed.

Among other arguments, a letter from Marcia Berman, a senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, told Klayman, “Defendants object to the subpoena on the grounds that it seeks information that is protected by various recognized privileges, such as the deliberative process privilege and the presidential communications privilege.”

Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and, more recently, Freedom Watch, is in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., contending the president’s conduct falls within the scope of the act that “requires the president to come clean on why he has caved in to the pharmaceutical industry, preventing the importation of prescription drugs that would lower prices for consumers, why he has become the lackey of Planned Parenthood in championing government financed abortions, and why the AMA (American Medical Association) and AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) are now his great friends.”

Klayman, the only lawyer ever to have obtained a court ruling that a U.S. president committed a crime, has pursued cases against the Clintons, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He built a reputation that inspired writers for the NBC drama series “The West Wing” to create a character, “Harry Klaypool,” based on his work.

by Bob Unruh - WND

 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Unconstitutional,Planned Parenthood,lobbyists,Obamaland crumbling,Big Pharma,Repeal and replace ObamaCare,special interests and ObamaCare,U.S Chamber of Commerce,Obamaland,ObamaCare Secrets,death panels,Freedom Watch

The Patient OPTION Act: True Patient-Centered Care

FreedomWorks

As we eagerly await the upcoming Supreme Court decision here at FreedomWorks, we’ve been reviewing our favorite bills to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

One of the most comprehensive “replace” bills we’ve seen so far is the Patient OPTION Act (H.R. 4224) introduced by Congressman Paul Broun, M.D. (R-GA). The Patient OPTION Act fully repeals and replaces ObamaCare with a system that puts more choice and freedom in the hands of the patient. Rather than focusing on “expanding coverage”—a goal that puts policymakers in a trap that inevitably leads to more centralized government control, a la ObamaCare—this plan focuses on two commonsense goals: (1) reduce costs through greater choice and competition, (2) expand individual liberty.

For more information about this bill, including a summary of its major provisions, you can view our guide to the Patient OPTION Act.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor the Patient OPTION Act!

Patient_OPTION_Act_Summary.pdf - 657.14 KB

 

Technorati Tags: Health Care Reform,Congressman Paul Broun,health care reform,ObamaCare,OPTION Act,Patient OPTION Act,C4,repeal and replace ObamaCare,FreedomWorks

Barney Frank: Obamacare Was a 'Mistake'

As far back as Fall 2011 Liberals were saying: Obamacare was a mistake

Via Noel Sheppard at News Busters comes word that Chris Matthews asked panelists on some round table show he runs, “What has been President Obama’s biggest mistake in his two and a half years so far?” Readers already knew the answer. Obamacare. Barack Obama wasted political capital on this half-baked attempt to have the government take over health insurance. I have said this repeatedly. But now it is dawning on the political insiders that maybe instead of playing hardball with the opposition, Barack Obama should have tried to swing a few Republican votes his way.

From News Busters, the transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: This week we want to do something slightly different with our “Tell me Something” segment. Let me ask you all, all four of you, what has been President Obama’s biggest mistake in his two and a half years so far? Howard.

HOWARD FINEMAN, HUFFINGTON POST: Chris, on things under his control, not the wars so much because they were built in, his decision to spend all of his political capital in a year and a half of his time on the health-care reform law I think was his biggest political mistake.

MATTHEWS: Wow. Smart statement.

And then there was this exchange with another panelist:

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST: I would agree with Howard. The idea of launching a major change in social legislation without having a consensus in the country and in Congress about what that should look like was a mistake. That’s just not how a president makes good policy.

MATTHEWS: Wow.

Wow indeed. What does Obama have to run on next year? The economy? Foreign policy? I suppose. One thing he cannot run on is the centerpiece of his domestic policy: Obamacare. Suddenly Obamacare vindicated the late Roberto Goizueta — the CEO who gave the world New Coke.

h/t to Don Surber  -  September 6, 2011

Forbes:

Well now Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), who is retiring from the House this year, now says that President Obama made a “mistake” in pushing for his signature health law. “I think we paid a terrible price for health care,” he told Jason Zengerle of New York magazine. “I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after [Republican] Scott Brown won [Sen. Kennedy’s old seat in Massachusetts], I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care.” But Frank’s reasoning carries pitfalls for conservative reformers as well as liberal ones.

Frank explains that it’s difficult to enact reforms that threaten to disrupt the arrangements of those who already have health insurance and are happy with the care they get. “Obama made the same mistake Clinton made,” says Frank. “When you try to extend health care to people who don’t have it, people who have it and are on the whole satisfied with it get nervous.” (h/t Jim Geraghty.)

Obama, says Frank, over-interpreted his mandate from the 2008 election. “The problem with health care is this: Health care is enormously important to people. When you tell them that you’re going to extend health care to people who don’t now have it, they don’t see how you can do that without hurting them. So I think he underestimated, as did Clinton, the sensitivity of people to what they see as an effort to make them share the health care with poor people.”

Let’s leave aside Frank’s accusation that the reason Obamacare is unpopular is because the middle class doesn’t want to “share the health care with poor people.” (The middle class does plenty of sharing already.)

Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman and the Washington Post’s David Ignatius also both agree with the majority of Americans that socialist ObamaCare was President Downgrade’s biggest mistake.  See Video

Wouldn’t it be fascinating if media members that helped this President pass ObamaCare against America’s wishes came to the conclusion this was his biggest mistake?

On Sunday’s “The Chris Matthews Show,” the Huffington Post’s Howard Fineman and the Washington Post’s David Ignatius both told a somewhat startled host that Obama spending so much of his time and political capital on passing healthcare reform was his worst decision to date. 

Love Chris Mathews at the end, “wow.”

Two other Democrats not runing re-election came out this week and announced that voting for ObamaCare was a mistake.  And even AARP admitted that supporting ObamaCare was a mistake for its members. Members' premiums up 8-13% for just next year. Spokesman on Fox twisting and squirming, admitting supporting ObamaCare might have been a mistake.

But before Republicans start chortling at Barney Frank’s admission of Obamacare’s unpopularity, it’s worth remembering that the overall problem he identifies makes sweeping market-oriented reforms difficult too.

That’s why, for example, Democrats go on about Republicans supposedly “ending Medicare as we know it,” even though that is patently dishonest, and why the new Republican plan for Medicare, endorsed by Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney, (1) doesn’t affect anyone over the age of 55, and (2) retains an option for people to stay on traditional Medicare if they so choose.

Many Republicans have aggressively pushed the critique that Obamacare prevents people from keeping their current arrangements, if they like them. But that critique would also apply to any plan that, say, eliminated the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance, in order to help fund universal coverage (an idea favored by people like me).

If Republicans are lucky enough to gain power in November, they will face two challenges. Democrats will instinctively push back on any changes to our three health-care entitlements: Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer tax exclusion. In addition, much of the conservative base does not appreciate that health care reform is urgently needed, because conservatives tend to be the people who are happiest with their current arrangements.

What’s the solution? The solution has two parts. First, any proposals to replace Obamacare must be implemented gradually, over time, so as not to overly disrupt the arrangements that many Americans like. Secondly, the solution ought to be bipartisan, by pairing free-market reforms with expansion of coverage (a liberal priority).

For all the partisan bluster right now, if Obamacare is overturned or repealed, it’s hard for me to see centrist Democrats voting against a significant expansion of coverage sponsored by Republicans, out of spite. But I could be wrong.