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

OpEd: Real Healthcare Reform Should Focus On Care, Not Just Coverage

O-Care’s one-size-fits-all failure

By: Nancy Pfotenhauer  -  The Hill  -  May 8, 2016

Many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree that universal health insurance is the central goal of a successful health care reform. The left sold the Affordable Care Act to the American people on this promise; the right hopes to do the same with an alternative plan set to be unveiled later this year.

Both sides are trying to fix the wrong problem. Universal health insurance is profoundly different from better health care—and so long as reformers focus on the former, the latter will continue to deteriorate.

Real healthcare reform must improve the quality of America’s healthcare system. At its most fundamental level, healthcare exists to improve individuals’ health outcomes and overall well-being. Beneficial reforms will thus improve those outcomes, increase healthcare’s quality and lower its costs, with the ancillary effect of expanding its availability.

This is a more worthy goal than putting a health insurance card in everyone’s hand, a la ObamaCare and its Republican replacements. Universal health insurance is merely the provision of a service regardless of that service’s quality. This cannot be achieved without the assistance of a massive bureaucratic apparatus in Washington that stifles innovation, limits consumer choice and increases its costs. Thus, reforms that seek universal health insurance decrease healthcare’s quality, and they don’t deliver on their promise to make coverage universal.

Better healthcare will not be realized without unleashing market-driven innovation. Reformers can’t pretend that this existed prior to Obama-Care’s passage. Then, as now, federal regulations hemmed in consumers and innovators on every side. ObamaCare’s mandates only expand this restrictive regulatory regime.

Innovators and consumers should be unshackled from the reams of red tape. This starts by putting patients—not bureaucrats or insurance companies—at the center of health care. Patients must be free to choose a health plan that is tailored to their needs, not one with benefit mandates created by special interests. Patients need access to real-time health care provider data that doesn’t hide costs or quality behind an impenetrable wall of bureaucratic regulations. Patients should be empowered to improve their own health using breakthrough technologies and personalized treatments.

Thus free to choose, consumers will seek out products and services that actually fit their needs. Innovators will concurrently strive to develop treatments and health care options that consumers want—and at a price they can afford.

No one-size-fits-all federal policy can accomplish this goal.

For instance, several state and federal laws prevent innovators and consumers from working together. So, multiple policy proposals targeting these barriers should be considered and challenged. 

National Center for Policy Analysis President John Goodman’s ideas about improving the poor’s access to care can be coupled with Cato Institute Director of Health Policy Studies Michael Cannon’s ideas about getting prices closer to consumers. Sen. Tom Coburn’s (R-Okla.) idea about equalizing the tax treatment of insurance policies can be one of a number of policies, along with Rep. Steve Scalise’s (R-La.) and Rep. Tom Price’s (R-Ga.) slightly different approaches. Economist John Cochrane has proposals to help those with pre-existing conditions; Bob Graboyes, a senior research fellow at George Mason University, details how we can unleash healthcare innovation. And ideas by the likes of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), and many others all have promise.

Every proposal should be judged by whether it leads to better healthcare for individuals and families, not whether it gives them a health insurance plan they don’t want or can’t afford. Until this shift happens, the country’s healthcare system will continue to serve Washington’s whims rather than Americans’ well-being. 

Pfotenhauer is the president of MediaSpeak Strategies and a senior adviser with Freedom Partners, a nonprofit advocate for free-market policy.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Healthcare Reform,Health Insurance,Universal Healthcare,Wake-Up,Socialized Medicine,ObamaCare Surprises,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare

Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, plans pose actuarial and rate challenges for insurers, rate to skyrocket in 2015

By Jay Hancock, Saturday, April 26, 3:06 PM  -  Washington Post  -  E-mail the writers

With the results sure to affect politics as well as pocketbooks, health insurers are preparing to raise rates next year for plans issued under the Affordable Care Act.

But how much depends on their ability to predict how newly enrolled customers — for whom little is known regarding health status and medical needs — will affect 2015 costs. 

Republicans have been sharply critical of the rule and of the many ways people can skirt it.

“We’re working with about a third of the information that we usually have,” said Brian Lobley, senior vice president of marketing and consumer business at Pennsylvania’s Independence Blue Cross. “We’ve really been combing the data to get a first look.”

At stake are price increases that buyers on the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov, and other online marketplaces will encounter when they get renewal notices this year. Forecasting success or failure could also affect whether insurers stay on the exchanges, a key pillar of the health overhaul.

The 2014 enrollment period closed at the end of March for most consumers. But carriers selling medical plans on HealthCare.gov must file initial 2015 rate requests with federal regulators in late May or June — even though they have little idea about the health and potential costs of their newly enrolled members. Deadlines also loom for state-run exchange filings.

WellPoint, the biggest player in the online exchanges, is talking about double-digit rate hikes for 2015. Such increases would give ammunition to Republican critics before the November elections.

Analysts’ expectations vary, but nobody is predicting decreases.

“We’ll see rate increases in the marketplaces, but I think it’s anyone’s guess” about what the precise changes will be, said Sabrina Corlette, project director at the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms. “It’s like nailing Jell-O to a wall.”

The health law required insurers to accept all applicants this year for the first time without asking about existing illness. That reduces what they know about customers and raises the likelihood that they’ll sign sicker, more expensive members who were previously denied coverage.

At CoOportunity Health, a nonprofit carrier in Iowa and Nebraska, many enrollees scheduled medical treatments — including surgeries — as soon as possible after their coverage began Jan. 1, said chief operating officer Cliff Gold. Among the procedures were several expensive transplant operations, including heart and lung procedures that can cost more than $1 million each.

But insurers tend to receive pharmaceutical claims long before hospital bills. They are poring over these early prescription records for clues about new members’ medical status.

Pharmacy-benefit manager Express Scripts published data April 9 showing that marketplace enrollees in January and February were substantially more likely than average to have HIV infections, chronic pain, depression and other high-cost ailments.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean average costs will soar.

For one thing, insurers figured they would cover more sick patients this year and priced plans accordingly. Early pharmacy data at Independence Blue Cross, Lobley said, are “on par for what we expected.”

Even if carriers signed more chronically ill customers this year than planned, the health law includes “reinsurance” and other safety valves designed to keep high-cost members from pushing up rates.

A sign-up surge at the end of March is another reason not to rely on early claims information.

Just as the first enrollees were more likely to need immediate care, insurers think people who pushed the deadline may be healthier and younger. If so, they would balance the risk and help cover the cost of the early birds.

“It’s clear that sick people were signing up” for January coverage, said David Axene, a fellow of the Society of Actuaries working with insurers to set 2015 rates. “The question now is, were the later people healthier?”

Nobody knows. While March enrollees seem to have been younger on balance, their health status remains largely a mystery.

Blue Shield of California signed more than 50,000 people during the last two weeks of March.

“It’s still too early to draw conclusions,” said Amy Yao, Blue Shield’s chief actuary. “I have the best actuarial team in the whole country. Even with that, it’s less than 50 percent confidence” that they’ll hit the rate-setting sweet spot for 2015, she said.

It’s unclear how many of the 8 million who enrolled through the exchanges were previously uninsured. Many who did have coverage switched carriers this year, meaning their new insurers couldn’t see their health histories.

At CoOportunity Health, a start-up created with funding from the health law, every one of the 74,000 customers is new.

“It is an actuarial nightmare to try to guess what you’re going to get,” Gold said.

It’s not just member health that insurers have to think about. President Obama allowed many people to keep old plans that aren’t compliant with ACA rules. Carriers must calculate how that exception (people covered under old plans are thought to be healthier on average) affects average costs in their new policies.

Backup resources for plans with disproportionate shares of sick and expensive members will become a little weaker next year. Insurers have to factor that into their rates.

And they need to look at the big picture.

What economists call the cost trend — how high prices rise per procedure and how many procedures Americans get this year — may be the biggest variable in setting prices for 2015, experts said.

And the trend seems to be up. After several years of relatively tame increases that many tie to a sluggish economy, medical spending accelerated late last year.

Even so, the forces affecting 2015 premiums may not drive up ACA prices as much as some are forecasting. Finding that insurers have gotten discounts from select hospitals and doctors, the Congressional Budget Office recently lowered its estimate for the cost of premiums and taxpayer subsidies under the health law.

“I’m not expecting double digits like some people have predicted” for 2015 rate increases, Axene said. “I’m expecting mid-to-high single digits” — from 6 to 8.5 percent.

That would still be far higher than growth in the economy or family incomes.

Given the uncertainties that come with a major new social law, officials at Independence Blue Cross don’t think the picture will become clear until much later.

“We always viewed this as a three-year plan,” Lobley said. “We always thought there would be a lot of volatility in years one and two. We really thought 2016 would [bring] market stability in the individual market.”

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Related: 

2.7 Million ObamaCare Enrollees Still Unaccounted For

Aid organizations across the country were jammed with people racing to get insurance under the Affordable Care Act..

Feds prepare to take over Oregon’s health exchange

21 ACA deadline extensions, in one chart

Technorati Tags: ACA,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare,ObamaCare Costs,Wake-Up,ObamaCare Surprises,PPACA,Insurance Exchanges,Health Insurance Providers,Kaiser

2.7 Million ObamaCare Enrollees Still Unaccounted For

President Obama speaks about the status of the Affordable Care Act in the press briefing room of the White House on April 17, 2014. -- AP View Enlarged Image

IBD - Investor's Business Daily: Affordable Care Act: President Obama has for a while been bragging that 8 million people have signed up for ObamaCare. But the administration still hasn't released the state-by-state numbers to back up that number.

You'd think that with such good news, the administration would want to put out as many details as possible, as soon as possible. But judging by previous months, the latest Health and Human Services enrollment report is now nearly two weeks behind schedule.

As a result, we still don't know where 2.7 million ObamaCare enrollees came from.

Here's what we do know:

The exchanges run by 15 states and Washington, D.C., have reported final enrollment numbers at least through March, and most have numbers through April 15. The combined total for these exchanges is 2.6 million.

For the remaining 36 states, all we have are the numbers HHS released through February. At that point, these states accounted for 2.7 million sign-ups.

Add the two together, and you get 5.3 million. That means roughly 2.7 million must have signed up in just these 36 states after March 1 to reach the 8 million mark. And that means enrollment in these states must have doubled in just the last six weeks of a 28-week open enrollment period.

To call this an incredible achievement is putting it mildly, particularly since the state-run exchanges saw enrollment climb only 62% in those final six weeks.

So where did these 2.7 million come from? We won't know until the HHS report comes out, which presumably could be any day now.

But even if Obama can account for these fantastic gains, there are still several questions that need answering.

First, of course, is: How many have paid?

Georgia says that only 48% of the 221,604 who enrolled through March 31 have paid their premiums. In South Carolina, only 59% of the 114,789 who enrolled through April 15 had done so.

Another question: Do the numbers account for people who dropped coverage earlier? We know at least some have been kicked off for nonpayment, and others canceled their plans for one reason or another. Is HHS netting out these losses, or is it simply adding new enrollment numbers on top of the old ones?

And, did the agency screen out duplicate enrollments? One broker told us that in the last month his company was encouraged to simply start a new application if something went wrong during the process, so as to speed things up. He figures 30% of the ObamaCare applications his firm handled in the home stretch were duplicates. Did these get counted in the final tally?

The mainstream media, unfortunately, have shown zero interest in trying to make sense of these numbers, much less independently verify them. Instead, they obeyed Obama's command to "move on."

But until we get more data, and get answers to these questions, we're reluctant to accept any ObamaCare numbers put out by this administration.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Enrollment,ObamaCare Lies,ObamaCare Surprises,Manipulation,Obamaland,Spin,Accounting,Accountability

Obama Gives April Fools ObamaCare Speech

Obama's April 1st Rose Garden speech stating that 7.1 MILLION have signed up for, the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare… is the biggest April Fools joke of all!

According to a hush-hush study by the Rand Corporation… only 850,000 ‘previously uninsured’ have paid a dime

Barack Obama spoke about Affordable Care Act enrollment totals at the White House but took no questions, as Vice President Joe Biden stood by wordlessly and applauded.  The friendly staged audience applauded as well, but not as energetically as one might expect. And, The president took no questions from reporters.

By Marion Algier – AskMarion

An exuberant President Barack Obama declared on Tuesday, April 1st that his signature medical insurance overhaul is a success, saying it has made America's health care system 'a lot better' in a Rose Garden press conference.  He even called it ObamaCare, officially taking ownership of that handle as well as of the bill.  It will be his legacy, good or bad! 

However buried in the supposed 7.1 million enrollments that he announced in a heavily staged appearance is an even more unsettling reality.

The numbers from a RAND Corporation study that has been kept under wraps suggests that barely 858,000 ‘previously uninsured’ Americans, in whose name all this was done, have paid for their new policies and nowhere to join the ranks of the insured by Monday night.  In fact, the CBO reports that in the end after millions lose their healthcare, will be paying more and our system eventually goes to a single-payer socialized medicine system, that will include death panels and a shortage of doctors, there will still be 31 million uninsured.

In fact, many of the others who are included in the 7.1 million, include millions who lost coverage when their existing policies were suddenly cancelled because they didn't meet Obamacare's strict minimum requirements.  But the president still claimed that 'millions of people who have health insurance would not have it' without his insurance law.'

'The goal we’ve set for ourselves – that no American should go without the health care they need ... is achievable,' Obama declared.

The president celebrated the end of a rocky six-month open-enrollment period by taking pot shots at Republicans who have opposed the law from the beginning as a government-run seizure of one-seventh of the U.S. economy.  Curiously he never mentioned HHS Director Sibelius who was sitting in the front row.

Rose Garden Stage no-show: Kathleen Sebelius appeared on an Oklahoma TV station on Monday to buck up Obamacare's flagging numbers in the Sooner State, and had only a blank-stare response to the law's unpopularity -- she was nowhere to be seen as Obama took his victory lap

Video: Sebelius Has No Comment After Hearing Oklahoma’s Oppostion to ObamaCare…

'The debate over repealing this law is over,' he insisted. 'The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.'

The president also chided conservatives 'who have based their entire political agenda on repealing it,' and praised congressional Democrats for their partisan passage of the law without a single GOP vote.

'In the end,' Obama warned the GOP, 'history is not kind to those who would deny Americans their basic economic security. ... That's what the Affordable Care Act represents.'

'“The bottom line is this,' said the president: 'The share of Americans with insurance is up, and the growth in the cost of insurance is down. There’s no good reason to go back.'

'We could not have done it without them, and they should be proud of what they've done,' Obama boasted, in a clear nod to November's contentious elections in which Republicans are expected to make large gains on an anti-Obamacare platform because of the law's general lack of popularity. 

We shall see who has the last the laugh when the actual facts and numbers surface.

Republican Senator Barrasso appeared on Fox saying administration has 'cooked the books' on Obama Care numbers!!!!!

Barrasso said on Sunday that the lack of details about Obama Care enrollment numbers suggests the Obama administration has “cooked the books.”;

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, made his comments just hours before the Monday deadline to enroll in the Affordable Care Act and was skeptical of the administration’s most recent enrollment figure of more than 6 million Americans.

“I don't think it means anything,” he told “Fox News Sunday.” “They are cooking the books on this.”;

Though the enrollment number now appears just a million shy of the administration’s goal of 7 million by the March 31 deadline, Barrasso said Americans who have switched to Obama Care from insurance deemed sub-standard under the Affordable Care Act still don’t know whether they can keep their same doctors. And they don’t know whether their premiums will indeed be more affordable.

Among the other questions are whether enough younger people have enrolled in Obama Care to cover the health care costs of older Americans in the program and how many of those enrolled previously were uninsured.

Maine Sen. Angus King, Independent, said on the show that the enrollment number is now at 6.5 million and that “signups are getting younger every day.”;

However, he acknowledged the administration needs to be more forthcoming about the numbers, as Americans rely on third-party analysis to get much of their information.

“I do think there’s a transparency problem,” said King, adding he would be willing to work on legislation to fix such problems.

Said Barrasso: “I’ve looked at this 10 different ways. This health care law is unfixable.”

And if everything is so grand and on the up and up, Why would Obama be ensuring high prices for Insurance Companies?  RUSH says ObamaCare Is a ‘Direct Wealth Transfer’… 

Related:

Russia Takes Back Alaska... 

Ted Cruz Shows Off Winston Churchill Tattoo While Touting Obamacare Alternative

Technorati Tags: Barrasso,ObamaCare,Lies,Smoke and Mirrors,Healthcare,Wake-Up,Obamaland,PPACA,ACA,Speeches,Rand Corporation,Insurance,Exchanges,Single-Payer

Obamacare’s Tough Day in Court

Divided Supreme Court Hears Hobby Lobby’s Challenge to the Contraceptive Mandate

By: Roger Aronoff  -  Accuracy in Media  -  Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom

Since its passage, a number of lawsuits have attempted to undermine Obamacare as a law, with varying degrees of success. The individual mandate challenge failed before the Supreme Court in 2012, despite what seemed like positive reception to the challenge during oral argument. Hobby Lobby went before the Supreme Court on March 25 to challenge the religious liberty implications of the contraception mandate portion of the law.

While the media have largely focused on the Hobby Lobby challenge, a few blocks away, the D.C. Court of Appeals was hearing another argument about Obamacare—one that, if passed, could well have the effect of ending this law as we know it. And it has liberals running scared.

In the piece “Forget Hobby Lobby. The Bigger Legal Threat to Obamacare Still Has Life,” Alec Macgillis writes for the New Republic, “If the contraception challenge succeeds, it just means that that one sliver of Obamacare is struck down. If this other challenge succeeds, both sides agree that it would blow up the entire law.”

The argument for the plaintiffs is as follows: In order to provide the 60th vote, which was necessary to get the bill through the Senate, Ben Nelson, the then-Democratic senator from Nebraska, insisted on a clause that said that federal subsidies could only go to people who signed up on exchanges set up by the states. The purpose was to incentivize states to actually set up exchanges.

Then, the plaintiffs argue, the IRS wrote a rule in 2012 which reinterpreted the law to say that federal exchanges could give out subsidies as well. “The alternative policy under the IRS’ rewriting of the rule creates a bizarre circumstance where it’s almost impossible to fulfill the Act’s purpose of having state-run exchanges, because it eliminates any tangible incentive for these people to go ahead and adopt the exchanges,” argued Michael A. Carvin, the plaintiffs’ attorney, before the Court of Appeals on March 25. “So they’ve created a situation which has predictably resulted in only 14 states doing what Congress clearly wanted 50 states to do, which is to set up their exchanges.”

Arguably, however, the mostly Republican governors who have refused to set up exchanges also did so for political reasons.

Carter-appointed Judge Harry Edwards had a Hillary Clinton moment during the oral arguments. He demanded that Carvin “forget the subsidies” argument and explain why it was important whether the federal government or states control the exchanges. He demanded loudly, twice, “What difference does it make who does it? Forget the subsidy.”

But we can’t forget the subsidies. They are at the heart of the law, and its practice. The Washington Post has reported that “About 85 percent of those signing up for insurance in federal-run exchanges have qualified for financial assistance to purchase coverage.” In other words, this amounts to a massive federal redistribution of wealth for millions—85% of enrollees. (Let’s ignore for a moment that we have no idea how many enrollees actually purchase their insurance after “selecting” it. If they know, the federal government isn’t telling us.) “Without those subsidies, the insurance would be less affordable, leaving those with the greatest health needs with more motivation to purchase coverage,” writes the Post. “That makes for a worse risk mix, driving up the cost of insurance to cover the sicker pool of people, creating what’s known as an insurance ‘death spiral.’” The federal exchange is already at risk of a death spiral if it cannot entice enough of the young and healthy to sign up.

The case could also undo the individual mandate. “Were the case to succeed, it would mean that dozens of state governments opposed to Obamacare could significantly narrow its scope by refusing [to] set up exchanges, thus preventing residents from claiming subsidies,” explains the Washington Examiner. “In those states, employers wouldn’t be penalized for failing to offer qualifying insurance (which is triggered by workers seeking federal subsidies), meaning that anti-Obamacare states could become more attractive to businesses trying to get around the employer mandate.”

“It would also increase pressure on Congress to undo the individual mandate.”

Judge Edwards said that this was a transparent attempt by Carvin and his plaintiffs to “gut” the law. Indeed, those opposed to the lawsuit seem more concerned with saving the law than looking at the Act’s original language. MacGillis cites Clinton-appointed Judge Paul Friedman in his earlier ruling that “Plaintiffs’ proposed construction in this case—that tax credits are available only for those purchasing insurance from state-run Exchanges—runs counter to this central purpose of the ACA: to provide affordable health care to virtually all Americans…Such an interpretation would violate the basic rule of statutory construction that a court must interpret a statute in light of its history and purpose.” “Under the challengers’ logic, Judge Friedman added, the exchanges administered by the federal government ‘would have no customers, and no purpose,’” writes Macgillis. Is it really the Courts’ purview to decide whether a government program should survive, as opposed to whether the law is being executed constitutionally and legally?

Indeed, according to The Wire, without federal subsidies, “Many of those people would fall in to the hardship gap and not have to buy insurance or pay the individual mandate.” There are two other cases besides this one “challenging the authority of the IRS to rewrite the statute and allow subsidies to flow through the federal exchanges,” according to Forbes.

Never afraid of punditry, MSNBC abandoned all pretense of journalism and called this discussion of the Senate’s original intent a “drafting error.” Adam Serwer writes that “The Affordable Care Act managed to have two bad days in court on the same day,” adding that the argument means that “Congress was handing Republicans an Obamacare self-destruct button.”

But, he offers hope to his liberal readers: “If the government loses before the panel, it can ask for the D.C. Circuit to hear the case ‘en banc,’ before the judges on the D.C. Circuit.” Then it could go to the Supreme Court.

Why is the ‘en banc’ ability important? Because President Obama has stacked the court, of course. “After the Democrats nuked the filibuster, Obama was able to make four appointments to the court,” writes Serwer. “Though judges’ opinions don’t always track with those of the party that appointed them, thanks to the changes to the filibuster, more Democratic appointees than Republican appointees would rule on the matter.” In other words, partisan politics would play out if the entire bench were to hear the case.

A decision is supposed to come in late June, and looks like it will be in favor of the plaintiffs. But, the Washington Examiner warns, oral arguments can be misleading. “As always, it’s hard to predict judicial outcomes based on oral arguments, a lesson that was made abundantly clear when many observers predicted that the Supreme Court would strike down the individual mandate only to see it upheld,” Philip Klein writes.

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

Hobby Lobby vs Sebelius Goes Before the Supreme Court

INFOGRAPHIC: What Exactly This Hobby Lobby Case Is About

If the contraception mandate passes, it will ruin a core U.S. ideology

 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Affordable Care Act,Contraception,SCOTUS,Supreme Court,ACA,PPACA Medicare,Mandates,Religion,Christianity,Sebelius,Ideology,Americana,Rick Warren,Thoughts,Constitution,Founding-Ideals,Freedom,Hobby Lobby

Bart Stupak’s Pig In a Poke

Fool or Liar… You Decide!

Nice Deb: I’ve held off on commenting on Bart Stupak because everything that needed to be said about him was said four years ago, and really, who wants to revisit that unpleasant, painful memory? I really don’t. It’s Lent, and I should be in a forgiving, charitable mood.

But then I remember how he was our only hope of defeating the ObamaCare monstrosity as he held out for statutory prohibitions on abortion funding. And he settled instead for a transparently fake fig-leaf of an executive order that was unconstitutional and obviously fraudulent.

As a result his  political career came crashing to an end and now he’s telling us  he’s unhappy and feeling “double-crossed.” Was there ever a more aptly named congressman?

Today, as a private citizen, I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act. …

[W]e received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored. With our negotiations completed and our legislative intent established by the colloquy, we agreed to an executive order directing federal agencies to respect America’s longstanding prohibitions on government funding of abortion and most relevant here, to respect longstanding protections for individuals and organizations conscientiously opposed to participating in or facilitating abortions.

I was deeply concerned and objected to the HHS mandate that required all health plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including four drugs and devices that could terminate human life at its earliest stages by preventing an embryo’s implantation in the womb. The FDA’s own labeling statements, as well as other studies, indicate that drugs such as the 5-day-after pill (Ella), as well as intrauterine devices (IUDs), may operate this way. The Greens and the Hahns cannot, in good conscience, risk subsidizing actions that may take human life.

He was also promised that no federal funding would go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans, yet that of course is happening. All of this was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Here’s what I said on March 21, 2010 – the Day Stup caved.

I can tell you right now; this won’t be worth the piece of paper it’s printed on. There is no one in politics today who is more viciously pro-abortion than Barack Obama, and every statement he makes comes with an expiration date.  If Obama was willing to lie to the Pope to his face about abortion, he certainly has no compunction about lying to Bart Stupak and his pro life stalwarts.

Tom Price called it “a pig in a poke” because he naively thought you couldn’t override legislation with an executive order. Way back in 2010 – that was considered beyond the pale.

A clearly disgusted Doug Ross, cut loose:

This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way. Health care will, there is no doubt, be wielded as a political weapon to reward and punish.

Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin. Way to stay true to your beliefs.

You aren’t pro-life, you’re low-lives.

Andrew McCarthy addressed the constitutionality  of the EO deal:

The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particular EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impoundfunds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

Charles Krauthammer called the EO “worthless” and called Stupak’s cave “disappointing”…He said, “this is nationalizing health care. As of tonight, health insurance companies become agents of the government. Obama will be remembered as the father of nationalized health care.”

Michelle Malkin introduced us to next Congressman in Michigan’s 1st congressional district.

Meet Dan Benishek, Stupak’s GOP challenger in Michigan’s 1st congressional district. His campaign slogan: “You deserve better.”

The Daily Caller: Obama’s executive order that satisfied Stupak does absolutely nothing.

Of course, we were just a bunch of conservative crybabies bawling about being outmaneuvered by the clever and crafty ObaMessiah. After all ObamaCare was going to cover 30 million more people for less money and everybody would be able to keep their plans and keep their doctors and pay an average of $2,500 per family less a year in premiums.

The always behind the curve Bart Stupak continues to believe “the Affordable Care Act is critical to reforming our health care markets and providing a critical safety net for millions…”

Whatever, dude.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Liars,Fools,EO's,Fraud,ACA,AFfordable Care Act,Stupak,Hobby Lobby,Manipulation,Healthcare,Stupidity,PPACA,Lies,Choices,Unconstitutional,Bart Stupak,Conestoga Wood

Obama Spends $17M Per Month Of Our Money Advertising ObamaCare

Joshua Pundit: According to Pravda-On-The Hudson, the Obama Administration is spending $17M per monthof your tax dollars advertising for ObamaCare:

From January until the end of March, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

, which runs the HealthCare.gov site and administers the Affordable Care Act, will have spent $52 million on paid media, officials said. Conservative opponents of the law have concentrated their spending on ads focusing on Democratic candidates and sowing doubts about the viability of the law.

The idea is to get young, uninsured Americans to sign up for President Obama's signature program - high, unaffordable pricing, minimal coverage, high deductibles,numerous glitches and abominable security for personal data. Not surprisingly, they're avoiding it like the plague.

The president's new tactic reveals exactly how stupid he thinks we all are:

Russian troops were rolling through Crimea when Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff and a foreign policy expert, was deployed on a mission to do media outreach. But the focus of Mr. McDonough’s calls to local talk radio stations was not geopolitical tensions in Eastern Europe, it was health care.

Mr. McDonough chatted with Andy Baskin and Jeff Phelps, hosts of a popular sports talk radio program on WKRK-FM (92.3) in Cleveland, about the coming N.F.L. draft, basketball at the White House and his days playing college football in Minnesota. Mr. McDonough then pitched a new website featuring games, videos and superstar athletes explaining the benefits of health insurance: a sports-themed portal to HealthCare.gov.

“We’ve all seen it happen,” said Mr. McDonough, promoting the portal, GamePlan4Me, to the hosts of “Baskin & Phelps” and their mostly young, mostly male audience. “Somebody’s playing hoops, and they blow out a knee or something. And then all of a sudden, if you don’t have health care, you’re going to bankrupt yourself.”

Actually, with the standard deductible for Bronze coverage being between a hefty $5,000 to to $6,350 for a single adult, the average person is going to go bankrupt with that kind of injury whether he or she buys ObamaCare or not. As a matter of fact, given the stiff premiums, you might go bankrupt even if you avoid a major injury.

But again, this president thinks everyone's stupid but him and that you'll be distracted by games and celebrity endorsements.

The only people whom win in this con game are people who qualify for MedicAid, AKA free stuff. Which of course, was always what this was about - government control and a huge transfer of wealth from the Middle class  to the entitlement class.

The fact that the president, congress and the rest of the Ruling Class are trying to force you to buy into this cynical fraud when they  aren't willing to take advantage of this 'wonderful program' themselves ought to clue you in to how horrible it really is.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Ads,Obamaland,Taxpayers,Wake-Up,ACA,PPACA Medicare,Medicaid,Exemptions,ObamaCare Exemptions,Ruling Class

My Wife's Last Days -- And the Coming ObamaCare Death Panel

By Stuart Schwartz – American Thinker: We have been so absorbed by the cavalcade of government incompetence and individual hurt produced by the rollout of ObamaCare that it is easy to forget the tragedy-in-waiting should this federal healthcare takeover stay in place: the death panel, also known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This is the group of political appointees designed to allow the federal government to use a combination of medical and social criteria to determine the healthcare an individual receives.

Or, to put it as bluntly as Sarah Palin did, to determine who lives and who dies. Why am I thinking about that now? Because my wife and soul-mate of 33 years, Sharon Harrah Schwartz, died at the age of 62 in January. Her passing put an end to a slow-motion death from Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, ALS, popularly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. She would have occupied the bottom portion of an IPAB treatment list.

Her suffering and passing was and remains wrenching for her family and friends. It was especially difficult over the last year as her illness accelerated, destroying her muscles and, consequently, her ability to speak, to eat, and ultimately to breathe. A variety of drugs and equipment kept her reasonably comfortable, while medical technology helped clear the fluids collecting in her lungs. She enjoyed, as much as possible, the last months with her family. An advanced directive, worked out in concert with ALS healthcare professionals, proscribed the treatment limits. For almost two years, her healthcare relied on a myriad of individual decisions based on relationships with both the ones she loved and with healthcare providers. The most significant one: she and I -- lovers and best friends for more than three decades -- had decided together that, barring a miracle and/or last-minute medical research breakthrough, we would allow the disease to take its course, keep her as comfortable as possible, and let God do the rest.

This illustrates something that President Obama and his party, in its zeal to use healthcare as a driving force in transforming American society, accrue power, and expand centralized government, have ignored: that the foundation of what has become the uniquely American and consequently world-class healthcare system is individual decision-making and values, resting upon a multitude of relationships that work best when left to those with a stake in it -- healthcare professionals, patients and their families. The government has a role, yes; but its role should be limited, allowing the marketplace of providers and patients to work.

At its most basic level, healthcare is individual and personal, depending upon relationships and particular values. Our faith, our love for each other and belief in the sacred responsibility of marriage underlaysleepless nights, caring for her when she could no longer care for herself, servicing the machines that alleviated some of the symptoms, the decisions that allowed just a few more months to live and love with her family and friends.

Her… our struggles with this terminal disease -- she referred to it as the “beast” in her body -- illustrate the government-sponsored agony awaiting so many families just over the horizon. Love informed our decisions in consultation with those providing treatment. I valued her life as sacred and God-given, acknowledging the debt I owed to someone who had joyfully served as wife, mother, and friend.

But looming on the horizon is a whole other set of criteria. ObamaCare has established an agenda-driven political board that will shift the loci of healthcare decisions from individual and relationship to the application of social justice concepts. Even a cursory reading (something that few, if any, of the Democrats foisting this law upon us took the time to do) of the pages and footnotes of this intrusion and the writings of its designers -- many so-called medical policy experts from academia -- makes it clear that progressive social engineering by government-appointed experts will largely determine medical treatment.

Peruse the publications and reports of the thinking of the architects of ObamaCare. Their various scoring systems, their social priorities would have put my wife at the bottom of the list for treatment. Obamacare architects perceive healthcare, as they do income, as a zero-sum game -- every dollar spent on her treatment is a dollar taken away from someone else. Never mind that this notion, like so much of ObamaCare, is a deliberate lie with no foundation in fact; healthcare, like wealth, in the United States has expanded  as new medical technologies, techniques and research have brought ever more accessible and better care.

But centralized control needs to declare medical resources finite, which in turn demands rationing, and rationing needs, of course, a government board to decide who gets treatment and when, who gets to live… and die. My wife, under a fully implemented ObamaCare, would have been among the last in line for treatment. She was a retiree (too old!) with a terminal disease (too expensive with a limited future!), a woman who had chosen to spend most of her adult life raising children (that’s not really societally valued employment, the architects might sniff) and who lived simply and lovingly, taking pride in her family and her role as a homemaker (what --no greater ambitions?)

Sharon was loved by her family, her friends and, above all, by God. We devoted a considerable portion of our energy and resources to making sure she felt loved during her last year. We could do no less, as love is a basic tenet of our faith, a Christianity that says her worth depends solely on her standing as a creation of God -- not a federal bureaucracy.  Such was the sanctity of Sharon’s life, a human life. That is the opposite of Obamacare which, if fully implemented, would likely have robbed us of much of her past year. To a centralized and progressive federal bureaucracy, Sharon’s worth was the totality of the probabilities of her contribution to the good of a theoretical community, as defined by Washington politicians and technocrats.

But for us, it was much simpler: She was God’s gift, to whom we owed our love and resources and energy until she passed from life in this world.

It is time to repeal Obamacare.

Dr. Stuart Schwartz is on the faculty of Liberty University and has been a frequent contributor to American Thinker. His wife, Sharon, passed away on January 7 at their residence in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Technorati Tags: IPAB,ObmamaCare,Death Panels,Sarah Palin,Palin Was Right,Repeal and Replace ObamaCare,Wake-Up,ACA,Fundamental Transformation,the Plan,Socialized Medicine,Obamaland,God,ALS,Rationing Panel,Big Brother,Christianity,PPACA,Healthcare

Republicans to Officially Present Alternative to Obamacare

Changing Winds?

By Katie Pavlich – TownHall:  Republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal or alter Obamacare as the popularity of the legislation continues to be nearly non-existent. In the process, Republicans have been criticized for failing to present an alternative piece of legislation to replace Obamacare. More than a dozen alternative plans have been crafted on the Hill, but Republicans haven't been able to rally around a single plan. Now, that's changing as Republican prepare to present Americans with an official alternative to the Affordable Care Act:

The plan includes an expansion of high-risk insurance pools, promotion of health savings accounts and inducements for small businesses to purchase coverage together. The tenets of the plan — which could expand to include the ability to buy insurance across state lines, guaranteed renewability of policies and changes to medical-malpractice regulations — are ideas that various conservatives have for a long time backed as part of broader bills.

But this is the first time this year that House leaders will put their full force behind a single set of principles from those bills and present it as their vision. This month, House leaders will begin to share a memo with lawmakers outlining the plan, called “A Stronger Health Care System: The GOP Plan for Freedom, Flexibility, & Peace of Mind,” with suggestions on how Republicans should talk about it to their constituents.

The timing for this legislation is great for Republicans who just came off of a special election win in Florida where Democrat Alex Sink lost by running on a fix, don't repeal platform. Not only can Republicans running for election in the fall run against Obamacare, a law that will only continue to make the lives of Americans worse and more expensive, they can run on a new alternative.

Technorati Tags: GOP,ObamaCare,Change,Hope,Healthcare,Republicans Unite,ACA,Affordable Care Act,PPACA,Alternatives,ObamaCare Alternatives,Election 2014,2014 Elections

A Dose of Reality… As Harry Reid Calls Terminally Ill Americans Liars - Updated

The only major news outlet that covered Harry Reid calling Americans who have lost their health insurance liars was Fox News… so many Americans haven’t heard anything about this.

NewsBusters: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insulted victims of ObamaCare on Wednesday – and the three major networks didn’t seem to care. [Video below. MP3 audio here.]

Then today in another blatant political move, the administration has moved the date for the effectiveness of most of those losses or any further loses until after the 2014 Election in the hope that the low-informed won’t catch on… Please spread the word.

 

Video: A Dose of Reality 

By Marion Algier  -  Cross-Posted at AskMarion

Harry Reid Calls Terminally Ill Americans “Liars”

“The trust of the innocent is the liar’s most useful tool.” – Stephen King

Video: Reid Calls All Americans Saying That They Have Been Hurt By ObamaCare "Liars"

Last Resistance:

--#-- 

Are there a disproportionate number of liars in politics than anywhere else? Possible, but I’d wager that liars abound everywhere, regardless of occupation.

The frightening thing about liars in positions of power, rather than just liars in general, is that those in power can use their lies to persuade large groups of people. Those for whom lying is a gift can use politics as a means of mass destruction. One of the most gifted liars in politics is Senator Harry Reid. Harry Reid can always be counted on to spin a tale whenever Obama needs him to. Most recently, Reid has tried to discredit all of the Obamacare horror stories we’ve been hearing. But rather than make implications, or claim that the stories are embellished, Reid is simply calling them lies.

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America…The leukemia patient whose insurance policy was canceled [and] could die without her medication, Mr. President, that’s an ad being paid for by two billionaire brothers. It’s absolutely false. Or the woman whose insurance policy went up $700 a month–ads paid for around America by the multibillionaire Koch brothers, and the ad is false….We heard about the evils of Obamacare, about the lives it’s ruining in Republicans’ stump speeches and in ads paid for by oil magnates, the Koch brothers.”

Wait a minute. Let’s think about this for a second. Harry Reid’s accusations are logically flawed. Out of hand, he discounts stories simply because they’ve been made into attack ads. He claims that because of the involvement of money from the evil Koch brothers, the stories of those negatively impacted by Obamacare are lies. He is arguing that correlation proves causation, which is a well known fallacy.

Harry Reid is not only being ridiculous, and an idiot, he is being extremely cruel. Can you imagine being called a liar in front of millions of people simply because you shared your story? These people, some of whom are terminally ill, decided to speak up, and they are now being shamed by the Senator from Nevada.

The worst part of this story is that Harry Reid’s acolytes will help spread his lies. Harry Reid’s outright lies will be repeated by liberal pundits everywhere, and there will be many Americans who fall for it, because they are uninformed, and completely uninterested in doing their own research.

Harry Reid just lied to all of us. He used fallacious arguments to persuade Americans that Obamacare is just so darn great, and that we should all ignore those cancer-stricken jerks who are slandering our wondrous president. In one paragraph, Harry Reid insulted numerous terminally ill Americans, and defended a healthcare system that was conceived as a means to accrue power, rather than help anybody.

Harry Reid doesn’t deserve to serve the American people. #FireHarry 

Video: Senator Reid On Obamacare Horror Stories . All Of Them Are Untrue All Liars The Kelly File – Unfortunately the Obama Gremlins have once again scrubbed the Internet of this video and other related videos…

Emilie’s Story: ObamaCare is hurting people like me

GOP Senators’ Obamacare Replacement Beneficial to Young People says Senator Colborn as He Loses His Own Cancer Doctor in the Midst of His Cancer Fight

Cancelled – Stories Behind HC Policy Cancellations Because of ObamaCare 

Cancer and Obamacare Survivor, plus His Hero Audited – Interview 

Pray For Jim Hoft Over At Gateway Pundit

Related: 

Obamacare: The Final Nail In The Coffin For The Middle Class

Attention Main Stream Media. Regarding Obamacare… I Told You So!

The TRUTH about Preexisting Conditions

Wake-Up… ObamaCare Eliminates Your Plan by Design

The Dirty Secret Behind ObamaCare No One’s Talking About 

Report: Cancer patient critical of Obamacare targeted by IRS for audit

Megyn Kelly - Did Obama win election by lying about Keeping your Healthcare; Still Lying 2 Cover up

Dr. Ben Carson, family and friends target of IRS harassment for criticizing Obama

In the Meantime Read: Beating Obamacare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ACA,Reid,Constitution,Financial,Politics,Survival,Taxation,Harry Reid,Progressivism,Liar,Megyn Kelly,ObamaCare Casualties,Watch the Other Hand,Mitch McConnell,#FireHarry,Cancellations,Stand-Up America

Obamacare Architect Retires

Weekly Standard: Representative Henry Waxman is retiring.  Waxman has been in Congress a long time. He got there in the aftermath of Watergate, back when disco was still cool, and he hung around, building seniority and an attachment to certain causes. Among them, health care and the environment.

Since he was one of the architects of the Affordable Care Act, he considered it his duty to stick around and:

… make sure the landmark health reform law is implemented in the best possible way because the decisions over the coming years will impact millions of American families. 

The supreme environmental issue is, of course, global warming and Waxman was saying, just a month or so back, that he intended to remain in Congress in order to devote himself to this cause, declaring with fetching modesty that:

I am leading a coalition in the House of Representatives that is focused on reducing the risk posed by climate change.  I’ve been deeply involved in this issue for many years and recognize it won’t be resolved by 2014.  But given the devastating consequences climate change has for our country and our planet, I intend to continue this fight.

Now, he has changed his mind.  One would not be going too far out on a limb in speculating that he has decided that the Democrats most likely will not regain control of the House in 2014 leaving him as merely a (very) long-serving member in the minority.  No committee chairmanship.  

Leaving the planet to look after itself.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Architect,ObamaCare Cramdown,Henry Waxman,Retiring,Congress,Affordable Care Act,ACA,PPACA,Progressives

Are You a Potential Plaintiff in an Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit? Please Respond by January 31, 2014

Nationwide Alert

By: C. Steven Tucker
Gulag Bound – Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom and AskMarion

TheTruthAboutPreexistingConditions.com

The Illinois Policy Institute has teamed up with the Liberty Justice Center to seek plaintiffs for a lawsuit against the PPACA – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. “Obamacare”. It will take every legal and legislative avenue at their disposal to stop Obamacare. Your information will be totally confidential, and there is no cost involved.

They’re looking for people to join a lawsuit that will challenge an IRS rule that extends Obamacare health insurance subsidies and the Obamacare “employer mandate” to states like Illinois where they shouldn’t apply because the state government hasn’t established its own insurance exchange.

As a result of this unlawful IRS rule, many people who would otherwise be exempt from the Obamacare individual mandate will be forced to buy insurance they don’t want. You may be eligible to participate in their lawsuit if you:

• Are a resident of Illinois or any of the following states: AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, or WY;
• Are ineligible for Medicaid;
• Have not been offered Obamacare-compliant health benefits from an employer;
• Are a nonsmoker;
• Have a household income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level in 2014 ($11,490 to $45,960 for a single person — see this chart for other household sizes); and
• Do not want to buy insurance for 2015 or, if you are 30 or over, either do not want to buy insurance or plan to purchase a catastrophic plan for 2015.

If you meet these criteria and are interested in helping us take our case to court — at no cost to you — please call Jacob Huebert at 312.263.7668, extension 219 or email him at jhuebert@libertyjusticecenter.org.

Fill out this short survey to get started. Please respond no later than Friday, January 31, 2014

————-

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.

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 an unconstitutional and as such illegal rewriting of the statute. By issuing tax credits where Congress did not authorize them, this rule also triggers APTC’s “subsidies” and imposes excise taxes on employers with 50 or more full-time employees in all 50 states with either a state-based, state-federal partnership or federally facilitated exchange. Since the IRS is not a Legislative branch, this action was an illegal action not authorized by Congress and it must not stand.

Worse yet President Obama is following that new proposed rule that was written by the IRS as if it was codified law. This illegal action and President Obama’s support of it has prompted Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt to amend his lawsuit to include a section that sues the IRS for illegally writing new law and granting itself power that it was not granted in the PPACA as originally written. Read more about Mr. Pruitt’s lawsuit here. Mr. Pruitt sat down with Fox News’ Sean Hannity to discuss the progress of his pending case against the IRS on December 6, 2013. Watch the interview below:

Video: OK Attorney General Scott Pruitt on Fox News "Hannity"

As of May 28, 2013 here’s where the numbers stand:

• Committed to a state-based exchange: 17 states and Washington, D.C. (described in section 1311)
• Planning for a partnership exchange: 7 states (described in section 1321)
• No to state-based exchange. Defaulting to Federal Exchange: 27 states (described in section 1321)

I recently commented about this illegal action taken by the IRS for Champion News talk radio on Chicago’s AM560TheAnswer radio:

 

Video: The IRS and Obamacare - 3

Technorati Tags: Alerts,Constitution,Financial,Politics,Survival,Taxation,ObamaCare,IRS,ACA,APTC,Taxes,Tax-Credits,Lawsuit,PPACA,Exchanges,Hannity,Pre-Existing Conditions,Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act