The next wave of Obamacare horror stories won't be about cancellations

C. Steven Tucker:  The last quarter of 2013 was filled with horror stories of millions of Americans – many of them Cancer patients – losing their health insurance because of the PPACA “Obamacare”. Even though Barack Obama promised “if you like your plan you can keep your plan and no one will take it away from you, period.” At the very least, many of the 6.3 million policy holders who had their coverage canceled were able to obtain a QHP – ‘qualified health plan’ – on a guaranteed issue basis (no preexisting conditions) as a replacement shortly thereafter. Albeit those plans are often times more expensive and expose those consumers to higher premiums and out of pocket risk exposure, most especially if they do not qualify for taxpayer funded ‘advance premium tax credits’-  to artificially lower premiums and ‘cost sharing’ subsidies to lower deductibles.

That was then, this is now.

The new wave of Obamacare horror stories will begin being told all across America now that we are outside of the first national ‘open enrollment’ period which ended on 3/31/2014. Only this time it won’t be about Americans losing their health insurance. It will instead be about the vast majority of Americans being unable to purchase individual, renewable health insurance from any carrier no matter how sick they are until January 1, 2015. That’s right, unlike before Obamacare when you could blame those “evil health insurance companies” for “denying you your right to health care.” Now, the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of the greatest health insurance salesman in world history, Barack Obama.

Millions of Americans are about to be denied their ‘right‘ to health care.

It is Barack Obama’s health care law that will be directly responsible for denying millions of sick Americans their ‘right‘ to health insurance from now until January 1, 2015. From now until then Americans who wish to purchase their own individual, renewable health insurance are barred by federal law from doing so. In fact, the only way to do so now is you have a ‘qualifying life event’ and as such qualify for a ‘special enrollment’ period. Understand that the ‘qualifying life events’ listed below apply only to those who qualify for subsidies and as such can plead their case to the decision makers at Healthcare.gov. The truth is under Obamacare your ‘right’ to health care refers to beseeching yet another group of nameless, faceless government bureaucrats who may or may not let you purchase health insurance that will cover your preexisting conditions. Yeah, this is going to be great! Forward!

The rest of us in the individual market will be barred by federal law from obtaining our own health insurance that covers preexisting conditions until January 1st, 2015. It is from this pool of millions that the new horror stories will come from. Imagine you are a low information voter who doesn’t vote at the ballot box but votes for American Idol candidates every year.  Then, imagine you develop cancer or another life threatening illness in May and find out that you can’t get health insurance coverage that covers your preexisting condition for another 7 months. Yeah, 2014 is going to be a great year politically for Republicans. Not even they can screw this gift up.

       Examples of qualifying life events are:

• You move to a new area that offers you different plans, or isn’t covered by your HMO network.
• You get married.
• You have or adopt a child.
• You lose other health coverage due to job loss, a decrease in work hours, end of COBRA coverage or other reasons.
• You become a U.S. citizen.
• Your income changes, or some other event changes your income or household status.
• You can prove that your health insurance company violated its contract with you.
• You are no longer covered on a family member’s policy because you turned 26, you have legally separated from or divorced your spouse, or the policy holder has passed away.
• You become a member of an Indian tribe. Other complicated cases that may qualify for a special enrollment period
• You faced a serious medical condition or natural disaster that kept you from enrolling. For example:
  • An unexpected hospitalization or temporary cognitive disability
  • A natural disaster, such as an earthquake, massive flooding, or hurricane
  • A planned Marketplace system outage, such as Social Security Administration system outage

  Misinformation or misrepresentation Misconduct by a non-Marketplace enrollment assister (like an insurance company, navigator, certified application counselor, or agent or broker) resulted in you:

  • Not getting enrolled in a plan
  • Being enrolled in the wrong plan
  • Not getting the premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction you were eligible for

  Enrollment error Your application may have been rejected by the insurance company’s system because of errors in reading the data, or some of the data was missing or inaccurate. System errors related to immigration status An error in the processing of applications or system caused you to get an incorrect immigration eligibility result when you tried to apply for coverage. Display errors on HealthCare.gov Incorrect plan data was displayed at the time that you selected your health plan, such as benefit or cost-sharing information. This includes issues where some consumers were allowed to enroll in plans offered in a different area, or enroll in plans that don’t allow certain categories of family relationships to enroll together. Medicaid/Marketplace transfers

  • If you applied for Medicaid through your state, or were sent to Medicaid from the Marketplace, but you weren’t eligible for Medicaid.
  • Your state transferred your information to the Marketplace but you didn’t get an answer about your eligibility and/or didn’t get enrolled before March 31.

  Error messages Your application was stopped due to specific error messages. For example, you received a “data sources down” error message or another error message that didn’t allow you to enroll. Unresolved casework You’re working with a caseworker on an enrollment issue that didn’t get resolved before March 31. Victims of domestic abuse You’re a victim of domestic abuse and weren’t previously allowed to enroll and receive advance payments of the premium tax credit separately from your spouse. You’ll be able to do so now. Other system errors Other system errors that kept you from enrolling, as determined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

You can still buy health insurance in the individual market but it won’t cover your preexisting conditions

Nonrenewable ‘short term’ or ‘temporary’ individual health insurance policies are still available for sale but they will not cover your preexisting conditions. And, only a few health insurers are still offering them.  Some of the biggest players in the market such as Aetna and Humana are not offering temporary plans. Of the few carriers who still are, I recommend Assurant Health for unlike other carriers Assurant Health covers outpatient prescription drugs the same as any other illness. Other carriers do not. To get quotes for temporary health insurance coverage from Assurant Health click their banner below:

You will owe a non compliance ‘fine’ (TAX) to the IRS for taking the short term route

You must also understand that you will be subject to a 1% of your MAGI ‘fine’ (TAX) for purchasing temporary health insurance since these plans do not include the “essential health benefits” under Obamacare such as Maternity for 62 year old women and single men, drug rehab coverage for those who do not own a crack pipe and pediatric dental for those without children. As such temporary policies are not considered ‘qualified health plans’. Rest assured though, if you are self employed and do not over pay your taxes you will never pay that ‘fine’ (TAX) for the only recourse the IRS has to collect that fine is to hold your tax refund. All criminal penalties for non compliance were removed from the health care law prior to passage.

The other kind of health insurance that will cover preexisting conditions outside of open enrollment

The other option if you need coverage for preexisting conditions outside of open ‘enrollment’ is to purchase small group health insurance which is available to groups of two or more people.  However, you must be incorporated and take a Schedule K as an owner of the company. Also, if you are already sick the policy will be max rated and with most carriers if you are going to add employees they must be W2 employees not 1099 contractors.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,death panels,IRS,Taxes,PPACA Medicare,ACA

What If Buying Coffee Was Like Buying ObamaCare ????

Video: What If Buying Coffee Was Like Buying ObamaCare ????

Cross-Posted at the NoisyRoom  and AskMarion  -  h/t: Tom Elia – The New Editor 

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Constitution,Financial,Politics,Survival,Taxation,Buying Coffee

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

Eight Ways to Opt Out of ObamaCare -> Ron Paul Says It Will Totally Self-Destruct

With the deadline to sign up for Obamacare having come and gone, many Americans have decided to “opt out” of President Obama’s signature health care reform law, choosing instead to pay the $95 penalty for sidestepping the individual mandate.

“For many Americans opting out of Obamacare is the best decision they can make, but it's important that they do it the right way—just refusing to buy health insurance and not having another way to pay for catastrophic medical expenses is a mistake,” Sean Parnell, author of the newly-released The Self-Pay Patient, told Breitbart News. “People who want to opt out should be looking at alternatives to conventional health insurance, such as joining a health care sharing ministry or purchasing a fixed benefits policy."

Parnell also strongly advises Americans against opting out and simply paying the “list” price for medical visits and prescription drugs without shopping around, or by relying solely on the local hospital emergency room for routine medical care.

“This approach leaves people who opt out vulnerable to sky-high medical expenses at inflated ‘list’ or ‘chargemaster’ rates, and can result in an inability to obtain needed care because of cost,” Parnell writes on his blog, selfpaypatient.com.

Instead, Parnell recommends the following eight options for those who have opted out of ObamaCare:

1. Join a health care sharing ministry, which are voluntary, charitable membership organizations that share medical expenses among the membership.

Parnell states that Samaritan Ministries, Christian Healthcare Ministries, and Christian Care Ministry are open to practicing Christians, while Liberty HealthShare is open to those who are committed to religious liberty.

Healthcare sharing ministries “operate entirely outside of ObamaCare’s regulations, and typically offer benefits for about half the cost of similar health insurance,” says Parnell. “Members are also exempt from having to pay the tax for being uninsured.”

2. Purchase a short-term health insurance policy.

“These policies usually last between one and 11 months and are not regulated under ObamaCare, and, therefore, don’t offer the same high level of benefits that can drive up costs,” writes Parnell.

3. Buy alternative insurance plans such as fixed-benefit, critical illness, or accident insurance.

“These policies pay cash in the event you are diagnosed with cancer, spend a night in the hospital, or need some other medical treatment,” Parnell says. “They cost a fraction of what health insurance costs under ObamaCare, and by giving you cash directly you aren’t locked in to any particular provider network.”

Parnell also recommends maxing out medical and uninsured/underinsured driver coverage amounts under an auto insurance policy, which can help pay for medical bills in the event of injury in an auto accident.

Once major medical insurance is arranged, Parnell suggests shopping around for health care providers and services.

4. Visit cash-only doctors and retail health clinics for primary care. If you usually visit a doctor more than a couple times per year, consider joining a direct primary care practice which will give you access to nearly unlimited primary care for a modest monthly fee.

5. Sign up for a telemedicine service—lower-cost options in which doctors treat relatively simple medical issues via phone calls, email, or a video connection. Telemedicine especially works well, Parnell says, for common injuries, conditions, and illnesses.

6. Use generic prescription drugs whenever possible, and compare prices between pharmacies. Less expensive options are sometimes available at large chain pharmacies such as Walmart and CVS, and online sites such as GoodRx.com and WeRx.org allow patients to view the best deals on medications.

7. For surgery, Parnell recommends going to a facility that offers up-front “package” prices for self-pay patients, such as the Surgery Center of Oklahoma and Regency Healthcare, where prices are typically much less than what is charged at most hospitals. In addition, sites such as MediBid, where doctors bid on providing your surgery or treatment, will often yield substantially less expensive costs coupled with high quality medical care. Yet another option is to become a medical tourist.

8. When a hospital visit becomes necessary, Parnell suggests working with a medical bill negotiation service to get the best price available rather than accept the wildly inflated “chargemaster” prices, usually three to five times more than what insurers pay for the same service or treatment. Patients who wish to negotiate on their own will likely need to put in a significant amount of time and effort, but can use the Healthcare Blue Book or Pricing Healthcare as a starting point to help them find out what insurers are paying for medical services.

“Many Americans say they would prefer free market healthcare, and they don't have to wait for Congress to repeal, replace, or reform Obamacare to have that,” Parnell told Breitbart News.

“Simply by opting out and doing things like visiting cash-only doctors, becoming a medical tourist, shopping around for the best prices on prescription drugs, and obtaining an alternative type of coverage they can enjoy all the benefits of free market healthcare today including access to affordable, quality care and getting government and insurance company bureaucrats out of the doctor-patient relationship.”

 

Ron Paul: 'Conceivable' In Next Years ObamaCare Will 'Totally Self-Destruct'

Daily Caller:

Former Republican lawmaker and presidential candidate Ron Paul said it’s “conceivable” Obamacare will “totally self-destruct,” declaring it will “eventually end because it’s such a disaster.”

The libertarian icon spoke with Fox News’ Stuart Varney Thursday about whether the net loss of nearly 4 million private health plans under Obamacare “spells the end of activist government.”

“I wish,” Paul quipped. “No, there’s a lot of diehards out there. There’ll be excuses made and politicians will spend it a certain way. But it’ll eventually end because it’s such a disaster. This a sign that the delivery of healthcare will even be worse than signing up for the healthcare.”

Paul predicted that the total cost of medical care in the U.S. under Obamacare “is going to be huge. It’s going to be a tax, and the quality of care and what people are going to get — everybody’s tells me, ‘They’re canceling me, they’re charging me more, I’m getting less,’ and they’re furious. It’s going to be the biggest political issue in this year’s campaign.”

Despite the problems, Paul noted that a political solution is nearly impossible. “You’re not gonna get rid of it, you’re right about that,” he told Varney. “They’re gonna limp along. If Republicans win in the fall, they may tamper it a bit and tinker with it and change it.”

But that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re stuck with Obamacare forever. “The only way it’s going to disappear quickly is if it totally self-destructs, which is conceivable,” he claimed. “Everybody just quits because they’re getting nowhere with it… One day it’s going to be so bad, people are just going to opt out on their own.”

“All we need to do is have the right to opt out and have a little bit of competition,” Paul concluded.

(Obamacare debuts with more canceled plans than enrollments)

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

*If you can wait and avoid signing up for ObamaCare it is certainly something to consider.  The fewer people that sign-up, especially the fewer healthy and young people who will not use the system but will help pay for it, the better chance there is that the entire system implodes or that the we can repeal and replace it… that is if we elect the right people in 2014 and 2016.  Vote out anyone up for re-election in either of those two elections that voted for ObamaCare at any point in the process.  Also… No Hillary Clinton and no Chris Christie. Nobody that mentions the word Progressive or follows that ideology!  Time to elect people who care about the common man… the common average American.  We are all ‘TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY’ and nobody can afford ObamaCare… MORE EXPENSIVE FOR MOST… FOR LESS SERVICES, LESS FREEDOM, and MORE BIG BROTHER!

Are Young Americans Signing Up For Obamacare?

Video: Are Young Americans Signing Up For Obamacare?

Scottie Nell Hughes (News Director of Tea Party News Network) joins FBN's Charles Payne and Josh Nass (Voices of Conservative Youth Chairman) to discuss the reasons behind lack of enthusiasm by young Americans to sign up for Obamacare.

Stephen Moore: Hidden Obamacare Tax Will Cost Consumers Another $100-$500 a Year

Video: Stephen Moore: Hidden Obamacare Tax Will Cost Consumers Another $100-$500 a Year

Get ready for another hidden Obamacare tax...

Stephen Moore, economist and Wall Street Journal contributor, discussed the hidden Obamacare tax that will take effect in two weeks.

The hidden Obamacare tax will cost consumers $100-$500 a year and will take effect on January 1, 2014

Perspective: New Law - "The Affordable Boat Act" 2014

The Hull Truth –  Stolen from another website - Cross Posted at AskMarion:

The U.S. government has just passed a new law called: "The affordable boat act" declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new boat, by April 2014. These "affordable" boats will cost an average of $54,000-$155,000 each. This does not include taxes, trailers, towing fees, licensing and registration fees, fuel, docking and storage fees, maintenance or repair costs.

This law has been passed, because until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase boats. This new law ensures that every American can now have a "affordable" boat of their own, because everyone is "entitled" to a new boat. If you purchase your boat before the end of the year, you will receive 4 "free" life jackets; not including monthly usage fees.

In order to make sure everyone purchases an affordable boat, the costs of owning a boat will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don't want or can't afford to maintain. But to be fair, people who cant afford to maintain their boat will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents boats to party on until they turn 27; then must purchase their own boat.
If you already have a boat, you can keep yours (just kidding; no you can't). If you don't want or don't need a boat, you are required to buy one anyhow. If you refuse to buy one or cant afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one or face imprisonment.

Failure to use the boat will also result in fines. People living in the desert; ghettos; inner cities or areas with no access to lakes are not exempt. Age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge nor lack of desire are acceptable excuses for not using your boat.

A government review board (that doesn't know the difference between the port, starboard or stern of a boat) will decide everything, including; when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your boat along with how many people can ride your boat and determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their boat. They will also decide if your boat has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories,(like a $500 compass) or a newer and more expensive boat.

Those that can afford yachts will be required to do so...its only fair. The government will also decide the name for each boat. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.

Government officials are exempt from this new law. If they want a boat, they and their families can obtain boats free, at the expense of tax payers. Unions, bankers and mega companies with large political affiliations ($$$) are also exempt.

If the government can force you to buy health care, they can force you to buy a boat....or ANYTHING else..

So Yah...it's that stupid...  and that frightening!!

Mark Levin: ObamaCare Is A Purely Political Law And A Power Grab

An ObamaCare Update from a Comrade

Video: An ObamaCare Update from a Comrade

SD tea party ad likens ‘Obamacare’ to communism 

Bill O’Reilly on Socialism and a Shocking New Book

Technorati Tags: Constitution,Financial,History,Politics,Survival,Taxation,ObamaCare,Communism,Socialized Medicine,Marxists,Progressivism

The IRS, Obamacare and Abuse of Political Power: An Issue

Liberty’s Spirit - Cross posted at Raising Asperger’s Kids:

There are new controversies surrounding Obamacare now that the IRS is mired in a political scandal. These emerging issues surround federal government control of medical/healthcare rights/information and the abuse of political power. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting insight into the problem (unfortunately the WSJ article has been pulled since this was written):

Even as the politicized tax enforcement scandal expands, the Internal Revenue Service continues to expand its political powers thanks to the Affordable Care Act. A larger government always creates more openings for abuse, as Americans will learn when the IRS starts auditing their health care in addition to their 1040 next year.

Over the last decade or so the tax agency has stretched its portfolio and become an enforcer and decision-maker for government benefits and programs. Three years ago, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates within the IRS, presciently noted that ObamaCare is “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.

This March the IRS Inspector General reiterated that ObamaCare’s 47 major changes to the revenue code “represent the largest set of tax law changes the IRS has had to implement in more than 20 years.” Thus the IRS is playing Thelma to the Health and Human Service Department’s Louise. The tax agency has requested funding for 1,954 full-time equivalent employees for its Affordable Care Act office in 2014.

These are issues that need to be vigorously debated. If a Presidential Administration can use the power of the IRS to harass and malign its political opponents, then what does the IRS and HHS having life and death rights over these same political opponents mean?

What if you object to the government’s handling of a controversy and the first issue asked is not “how is your health” but “do you belong to the right political party?” This is how life was in the Soviet Union and still is  in totalitarian/oligarchical  nations.  Think this is a hysterical approach? Ask the people harassed by the IRS because they belong to conservative political groups or to pro-Israel groups that didn’t follow in-lock-step with the President’s view of the Middle East, or taught about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (it seems under these criteria my entire family is up the creek without a paddle) and then tell me it can’t happen here.

Furthermore, an additional aspect of the controversy appeared yesterday. Apparently the IRS gave private tax information of conservatives to politically left-leaning groups during the Presidential campaign. The powers that be continually tell us that under Obamacare our health documents would be sacrosanct. After the recent revelations about IRS conduct, it is apparent that the inherent potential for abuse dangerously exists.

Read the rest HERE.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,defund ObamaCare,wake-up America,stand-up America,IRS,WSJ,1984,Big Brother,read the bills,Affordable Care Act,taxes,Obamaland

Sebelius Spends Your Taxes On Community Organizations

Betsy McCaughey – Author of Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Investors.com Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius was criticized last week for soliciting private contributions to Enroll America, a non-governmental organization run by former Obama campaign operatives.

The real monkey business is what the secretary is doing with taxpayers' money — pouring it into community organizations.

The pretext is that community organizations will do a better job than government employees in enrolling the uninsured in ObamaCare. But the likelihood is that these community organizations will steer the uninsured into the Democratic Party.

And beware. The Senate immigration bill tries to repeat this unsavory use of community organizations. It pays community organizations to educate immigrants about American civics and the path to citizenship.

Last week's brouhaha came about because Sebelius raised money for Enroll America after House Republicans refused to approve more funding for ObamaCare enrollment efforts.

So what is Enroll America? Its board of directors is made up of insurers and hospital organizations that will benefit from enrolling millions of people in ObamaCare. But its management is 100% political.

Its president is Anne Filipic, formerly deputy director of the Office of Public Engagement in the White House, where she networked with community organizers. Before that, she had a top job at the Democratic National Committee, and before that she managed Obama's victorious 2008 Iowa Caucus bid.

To design a media campaign, Enroll America hired Lake Research, which also manages messaging for Acorn, MoveOn.org, LaRaza and 39 members of Congress, all Democrats.

Sebelius' fundraising for Enroll America was inappropriate, but it's minor compared with delivering taxpayer dollars to community groups.

Yet Sebelius isn't breaking the law. Amazingly, the Obama health law requires that community organizations be hired as "navigators" to enroll the uninsured.

So far Sebelius has announced $45 million in navigator grants. Who qualifies? You don't have to know math or insurance, but rules announced April 5 specify you have to match the race, ethnicity and language preferences of the neighborhood that will be targeted.

The odious presumption is that only Asians can assist Asians, only blacks can enroll blacks, only Harlem residents can help Harlem residents.

In addition to navigator grants, last week, HHS announced $150 million for community health centers to "hire and train staff to conduct community outreach efforts." Behind those weasel words is the truth that many community health centers engage in political activism.

The National Association of Community Health Centers states that part of its mission is registering people to vote and collecting patients' signatures on desired legislation. Employees hired by the community health centers can say and do things government employees can't. That's the problem.

Technorati Tags: Betsy McCaughey,taxes,taxpayer money,mis-use of taxpayer funds,Kathleen Sebelius,HHS,wathch the other hand,Obamaland,Sibelius,ObamaCare,smoke and mirrors,Sebelius-gate,Enroll America,scandals,The National Association of Community Health Centers,Lake Research,Acorn,MoveOn.org,LaRaza,and Democrat Congressmen,connect the dots

Obama’s 5 Most Controversial Statements About Abortion and ‘Women’s Rights’ During His Planned Parenthood Speech

Rush: The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion Factory

“This makes me ill, by the way. That a president of the United States shows up at an abortion factory, essentially, and praises their work. You know what else he said? He said the opponents of abortion want to return to the 1950s.”  …Rush Limbaugh

Obama’s 5 Most Controversial Statements About Abortion and ‘Women’s Rights’ During His Planned Parenthood Speech

TheBlaze:

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel on April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama defended the organization and told delegates that he would block efforts to cut off funding. Credit: Getty Images

On Friday, President Barack Obama became the the first sitting president to address the Planned Parenthood National Conference. It was a controversial decision, especially considering the ongoing Dr. Kermit Gosnell murder trial and the elevated discussion currently unfolding surrounding late-term abortion. But rather than avoiding abortion, he tackled it head-on, defending a woman’s “right to choose.” Additionally, he heralded Planned Parenthood as an organization that has served Americans in their greatest times of need.

Considering all that, TheBlaze has highlighted five of the speech’s key moments that we deemed the most interesting, controversial and noteworthy.

Without further ado.

Praised Planned Parenthood’s Family Planning Role

Before explicitly addressing the abortion issue, Obama seemingly hinted at it earlier in the speech. While recapping the services that Planned Parenthood offers, he mentioned family planning:

“Somewhere there’s a woman who just received a new lease on life because of a screening that you provided that helped catch her cancer in time. Somewhere there’s a woman who’s breathing easier today because of the support and counseling she got at her local Planned Parenthood health clinic. Somewhere there’s a young woman starting a career who, because of you, is able to decide for herself when she wants to start a family.“

Decried Critics Who Turn the Group Into a “Punching Bag”

Obama also took a firm stance against cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood, decrying politicians who have called for such measures. Similarly, he accused conservative opponents of advocating policies from the 1950s — a familiar claim uttered during his 2012 campaign (i.e. the so-called “War on Women”):

“So when politicians try to turned Planned Parenthood into a punching bag, they’re not just talking about you; they’re talking about the millions of women who you serve. And when they talk about cutting off your funding, let’s be clear: They’re talking about telling many of those women, you’re on your own. They’re talking about shutting those women out at a time when they may need it most — shutting off communities that need more health care options for women, not less.

So the fact is, after decades of progress, there’s still those who want to turn back the clock to policies more suited to the 1950s than the 21st century. And they’ve been involved in an orchestrated and historic effort to roll back basic rights when it comes to women’s health.”

Photo Credit: Politico

Tackles Pro-Life Abortion Policies Head-On

Rather than dancing around the abortion discussion, Obama decided to dive right in, taking particular aim at pro-life legislative attempts in states across the nation:

“Forty-two states have introduced laws that would ban or severely limit access to a woman’s right to choose — laws that would make it harder for women to get the contraceptive care that they need; laws that would cut off access to cancer screenings and end educational programs that help prevent teen pregnancy.

In North Dakota, they just passed a law that outlaws your right to choose, starting as early as six weeks, even if a woman is raped. A woman may not even know that she’s pregnant at six weeks. In Mississippi, a ballot initiative was put forward that could not only have outlawed your right to choose, but could have had all sorts of other far-reaching consequences like cutting off fertility treatments, making certain forms of contraception a crime.

That’s absurd. It’s wrong. It’s an assault on women’s rights. And that’s why when the people of Mississippi were given a chance to vote on that initiative, they turned it down. Mississippi is a conservative state, but they wanted to make clear there’s nothing conservative about the government injecting itself into decisions best made between a woman and her doctor. And folks are trying to do this all across the country.”

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel on April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama defended the organization and told delegates that he would block efforts to cut off funding. Credit: Getty Images

Driving the Policy Point Home

To be sure the audience understood his point, Obama, again, decried pro-life legislative policies with a pointed quip:

“When you read about some of these laws, you want to check the calendar; you want to make sure you’re still living in 2013.”

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks at the Planned Parenthood Gala at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel on April 26, 2013 in Washington, DC. Obama defended the organization and told delegates that he would block efforts to cut off funding. Credit: Getty Images

“Planned Parenthood Is Not Going Anywhere”

In a message likely intended for both supporters and detractors, alike, Obama made it clear that Planned Parenthood isn’t going to disappear anytime soon — at least not on his watch. The president pledged to fight alongside the organization:

“So every day, in every state, in ever center that Planned Parenthood operates, there are stories like those — lives you’ve saved, women you’ve empowered, families that you’ve strengthened. That’s why, no matter how great the challenge, no matter how fierce the opposition, if there’s one thing the past few years have shown, it’s that Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.”

According to the transcript, Obama concluded his speech by thanking the organization and by invoking God: “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you. God bless America. Thank you.”

Watch the entire speech, below:

A portion of the above text comes from the White House’s official transcript of the speech. This story has been updated.

Related:

The President of the United States Asks God to Bless an Abortion Factory

Sarah Palin: It’s ‘not surprising’ that Obama is at Planned Parenthood today

Charles Krauthammer Says Media Avoiding Abortion Doctor Murder Trial because of what it Reveals about Abortion in America

Networks Give Rutgers Scandal 41 Minutes, Gosnell Abortion Horrors ‘0’

Horror: Abortion Worker Admits To Cutting the Spines Of At Least 10 Babies, Accuses Coworkers Of the Same

Official: Inconvenient For Babies To Be Kept Alive After Botched Abortion

Who Would Fail to Help a Baby Fighting to Survive?

Planned Parenthood’s Roots

Abortion Survivor Blasts Obama

Who Would Fail to Help a Baby Fighting to Survive?

Fallen… House Rejects Sex-Selection Abortion Ban – White House Agrees and Media is Silent

Protecting Babies Who Survive Abortions

What do Beethoven, Justin Bieber and Tim Tebow Have in Common?

As We Face 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Justin Bieber’s Mom Hopes to ‘Encourage Young Women All Over the World’ Wi New Anti-Abortion Film

New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud

'Pro-Choice' Americans At Record Low, Poll Finds

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

Studies Confirm Women Face Depression After Abortion, Other Problems

Court orders Planned Parenthood to start telling the truth

Dr. Gosar Condemns Abortion Genocide: Disgusted at Congress’ Failure to Protect the Unborn and Ban Pain Capable Abortions

China: Angry Protests Follow Brutal Seven-Month Forced Abortion

Tiny Baby

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

Catholic Groups File Against Obama Contraception Mandate

Krauthammer: I Think the President Invoking Massacre of Children in Context of Fiscal Talks “Is a Sacrilege”

New Live Action video shows Planned Parenthood encouraging gender-selective abortion, Medicaid fraud

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

Interesting: Right to Life President: Komen Tied to Abortion Industry

Fourth-Grader’s Reported Pro-Gay Marriage Essay: ‘If It Creeps You Out Just Get Over It’

Technorati Tags: Dr. Kermit Gosnell,abortion,Planned Parenthood,speeches,watch the other hand,Obamaland,Progressivsim,liberalism,Pro-Choice,Pro-Life,Life,murder

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

Is This Lawsuit an ‘ObamaCare’ Killer?

The Blaze: 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. – Photo by Getty Images

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,Affordable Care Act taxes,Pacific Legal Foundation,taxes

Darrell Issa: Obama can't break his own health care law

The Examiner: Three years after its passage, the unpopularity of the president's health law is complicating his administration's attempt to implement it. In the absence of support once predicted by the law's supporters, a majority of state governments are declining to establish their own health insurance exchanges, the primary vehicle through which many of the law's subsidies and taxes will affect the American people.

To combat the sticker shock of Obamacare's numerous requirements on health insurance premiums, the law creates expensive subsidies, which take the form of tax credits, for individuals who purchase a government-approved insurance plan. In order to avoid the appearance of a federal takeover of health care, the law ties the availability of these premium tax credits to an "Exchange established by the State." Importantly, the way the law was written, if tax credits are not available within a state, then the expensive employer mandate tax does not apply to companies within that state.

With so many states refusing to play the role the law's drafters envisioned, the Obama administration has embarked on a legally dubious effort to bypass the plain language of the law. Obama's IRS has issued a rule that delivers the expensive subsidies through federally run exchanges as well. If it stands, this extralegal rule will undermine the decision-making role offered to states by Obamacare, and cause hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes and spending not authorized by the president's health care law.

Although Obamacare requires the federal government to establish an exchange in states that decline to do so, a legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found, "[t]he plain language of [the law] suggests that premium tax credits are available only where a taxpayer is enrolled in an 'Exchange established by the State.' A strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS's authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange."

Simply put, Obamacare does not authorize tax credits unless states set up their own health insurance exchanges.

The IRS rule would, without legal justification, compel businesses in states without state-based exchanges to comply with the employer mandate or else face stiff tax penalties. This has prompted the state of Oklahoma to sue the federal government. The Sooner State's attorney general argues that the rule retroactively eliminates a policy option explicitly given to the state under the law, and denies the state the benefit of its decision not to establish an exchange.

Treasury officials have defended their extralegal rule by saying it was consistent with assumptions made by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. However, Treasury officials have not pointed to a single piece of legislative history that supports their interpretation of the law, other than the assumptions made by the CBO and the JCT. And both of those organizations have made clear that they did not conduct a legal analysis or form a legal opinion on this issue. Their analysis was focused exclusively on the law's economic impact.

The language that limits tax credits to state-established exchanges should not now shock Obamacare's supporters. Early in 2009, legal scholar Timothy Jost, one of Obamacare's leading proponents, explicitly suggested linking the tax credits to state-established exchanges as a way to encourage states to set up the exchanges.

The Obama administration may be surprised and disappointed that many states have not found the refundable tax credit to be a sufficient incentive to set up their own exchanges, exposing their citizens to the other taxes and penalties associated with the law. But this does not justify the administration's effort to ignore the plain language of the law that Obama championed and signed.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaTax,taxes