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!

A Stunning New Court Defeat for ObamaCare

CFIF.org: Things just went from awful to worse this week for ObamaCare, and the Obama Administration more generally. 

Nearly a month into its disastrous debut, it’s clear that the ObamaCare website isn’t just “glitching,” it’s completely melting down.  This is quickly becoming a watershed moment, a failure so obvious and deep that it could permanently stain Obama’s presidential legacy among historians long after he’s gone.  Among the familiar litany of failures throughout his tenure, healthcare legislation was the one signature legislative act to which he could point. 

And now it is disintegrating before his very eyes. 

In Florida alone, some 300,000 Florida Blue health insurance customers just received notice that their policies will be canceled due to ObamaCare because their coverage isn’t considered a “qualified health plan” under the new regulations.  Although the Obama Administration continues to refuse to disclose how many people have actually enrolled in ObamaCare since October 1, whatever that number is appears to come far short of the Florida Blue cancelation alone. 

And on that note, so much for the solemn pre-ObamaCare assurance that, “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.  No one will take it away, no matter what.” 

Now, a new federal court ruling may legally doom ObamaCare before it ultimately collapses under its own unsustainable weight. 

This week, a federal judge gave the green light for a lawsuit challenging ObamaCare’s structure of subsidies to proceed.  Judge Paul Friedman also ruled that the case can proceed on an expedited basis, meaning that a final determination could occur before the March 2014 individual purchase mandate arrives. 

The new lawsuit centers on a provision in the text of ObamaCare that allows subsidies to states participating in the program.  By its terms, the subsidies do not cover those participating in the federal government’s program, but now that 34 states have refused to participate in ObamaCare, the Obama Administration is attempting to ignore the law and offer subsidies regardless of the law. 

When ObamaCare was passed, Congress and the Obama Administration deliberately chose to empower individual states to carry out the law by creating health insurance exchanges, marketplaces in which those states’ citizens could buy insurance from authorized insurers.  But because the Constitution doesn’t allow the federal government to force individual states to carry out its edicts, the law had to come up with another way to induce states to agree to participate.  Consequently, the law offered individuals who chose to purchase insurance from state-run exchanges significant federal subsidies to persuade them to enroll. 

There was one significant problem with that scheme:  In states that chose to avoid participating in the looming catastrophe that is ObamaCare, residents would by law not be eligible for the subsidies offered to participating states. 

As it turned out, some 34 states refused the Obama Administration’s offer.  Consequently, the federal government is now on the hook for establishing exchanges for residents of non-participating states.  But under the explicit provisions of ObamaCare itself, such individuals are not eligible for premium assistance subsidies. 

So what did the Obama Administration decide to do? 

Per habit, it sought to just ignore its own law via IRS fiat, as summarized by plaintiffs: 

“Refusing to accept those consequences, the IRS promulgated the regulations at issue here, which base eligibility for premium assistance subsidies not on enrollment in coverage “through an Exchange established by the State,” as the statute requires, but rather on enrollment in coverage through any exchange, including the federally-established one.  Of course, the federal government is not a “State,” as the ACA in fact expressly reiterates.  Those regulations thus allow for the distribution of billions of dollars of federal funds that Congress never authorized.  The IRS rule contradicts the plain text of the ACA, exceeds the agency’s authority, and is contrary to law.” 

All of this presents a rich irony. 

Throughout the government shutdown over ObamaCare earlier this month, the law’s supporters cried, “It’s the law!”  Of course, the employer mandate was also “the law,” but the Obama Administration had no problem postponing it for a year.  Similarly, the text of the law also mandated that members of Congress and their staffers were subject to its requirements.  Yet the Obama Administration also had no problem granting an extralegal waiver, allowing subsidies that no other employees suddenly subject to ObamaCare’s provisions should receive. 

The Obama Administration showed no greater deference for “the law” when it unilaterally announced that it would refuse to enforce settled immigration laws last year.  Moreover, the very nature of a democratic republic is that settled laws can be revisited and often overturned, including by this administration.  Think the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) signed by Bill Clinton, as just one example. 

The court, however, wasn’t sufficiently impressed by the Obama Administration’s rationalization.  Which raises the question of what will bring this unworkable law to an end first – it’s economic and logistical unsustainability, or judicial order.  The latter would spare millions of Americans a great deal of unnecessary pain. 

Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare designed to vastly expand single payer Medicaid by eviscerating Medicare

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare Rollout,ObamaCare Glitches,ObamaCare Rulings,DOMA,ACA,Individual Mandate,ObamaCare Mandates

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax & Obamacare in Disarray

CBO raises estimate of those hit by Obama health care tax

"Congress‘ official scorekeeper said Wednesday that 30 million people will be uninsured when President Obama’s health care law goes fully into effect, including six million Americans who are expected to pay a tax penalty — about two million more than originally forecast when the law was passed in 2010..."  Read More Here

The Emerging Obamacare Truth Is Disarray

"The temporary "high risk" pools that Obamacare created, to provide a way for those with pre-existing health conditions to get insurance immediately, are undersubscribed yet way over budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the $5 billion allocated to these pools could enroll 200,000 consumers. They envisioned enrollment growing to more than 400,000. But only 77,877 have signed up as of July, yet the program is way over its budget. More than a quarter of these state-based risk pools are short on cash.

· The CLASS Act, which was supposed to provide consumers government-financed long-term care insurance has been abandoned, blowing an $86 billion dollar hole in Obamacare's cost estimates. The CLASS Act was never financially viable. Its costs would have outstripped revenue as soon as it was in full operation. But since it took in money five years before it started to pay out benefits, budget gimmickry let Mr. Obama capture that revenue and use it to finance Obamacare. In abandoning the measure, the President's own health secretary called the scheme "unsustainable."

· The crown jewel of Obamacare's effort to contain healthcare costs, the creation of Accountable Care Organizations, is so unwieldy that major provider groups have said they won't participate. The idea is to consolidate doctors, turning them into employees of large systems, and then pay these systems lump sums of money to take care of groups of patients. A letter from 10 major medical groups that previously ran similar programs said, "it would be difficult, if not impossible" to accept the financial design created by Obamacare. In another rebuke, an umbrella group representing premier medical organizations said 90 percent of its members wouldn't partake.

· New regulations Obamacare puts on insurers have been so unworkable that the Obama team has had to dole out 1,231 waivers. These exemptions are granted when the Obamacare rules are projected to raise healthcare premiums more than 10 percent, or create a "significant decrease in access to healthcare benefits." These waivers haven't been doled out consistently. Entities winning the preferences are over-represented by plans offered by unionized businesses and other administration allies.

· Obamacare can't even settle on an affordable definition to the term "affordable" -- creating the prospect that millions of middle class families will get priced out of coverage. According to a recent editorial in the New York Times, "the people left in the lurch would be those who had lower incomes but were not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid." Because of the way Obamacare defines what's "affordable" to these families, many working-class people would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law..."  Read More Here

Six million will pay health law penalty: study

"The CBO on Wednesday said the penalty of $695 or 2.5% of household income under the law formally known as the Affordable Care Act increases the number of those facing the penalty than originally was projected in April 2010, shortly after the law’s passage. The law contains an individual mandate requiring all Americans to have insurance or pay a penalty.

Now, 2 million more people will be penalized and pay an additional $3 billion in fines than originally projected, according to the report, conducted by the CBO along with the Joint Committee on Taxation." Read More Here

h/t to MJ

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,Obamaland,ObamaCare costs,Individual mandate,CBO,repeal and replace ObamaCare,wake-up America,uninsured,economy

Suit: Roberts' ruling a poison pill for Obamacare

Calling mandate, penalties a 'tax' creates huge constitutional problem

WND:

The penalties Americans will be required to pay under Obamacare for going without health insurance were declared constitutional in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that hinged on Chief Justice John Roberts’ assertion that the assessments are taxes.

But a legal challenge to the federal government takeover of health-care decision-making says that’s a problem, because Harry Reid created the Obamacare legislation, with all of its new “taxes,” in the U.S. Senate.

The Constitution

any tax bills to begin in the House.

The demand for an explanation is being raised in an amended complaint filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a man who believes the new bureaucracy isn’t legal.

“If the charge for not buying insurance is seen as a federal tax, then a new question must be asked,” said Paul J. Beard II, the principal attorney for the organization.

When lawmakers passed the Affordable Care Act, with all of its taxes, “Did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases?” Beard asked.

The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question, he noted.

“The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts,” he said.

PLF explained that under the Supreme Court’s decision in June, the Affordable Care Act now charges a “tax” on Americans who fail to buy health insurance.

But Reid introduced the tax plan in the Senate, not the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires for new revenue-raising bills, in Article I, Section 7, the legal team argued.

The plaintiff in the case is Iowa small business owner Matt Sissel, who chooses to pay for medical expenses on his own. He objects “on financial, philosophical, and constitutional grounds to be ordered by the federal government to purchase a health care plan he does not need or want, on pain of financial penalty.”

“I’m in this case to defend freedom and the Constitution,” said Sissel. “I strongly believe that I should be free – and all Americans should be free – to decide how to provide for our medical needs, and not be forced to purchase a federally dictated health care plan. I’m very concerned about Congress ignoring the constitutional roadmap for enacting taxes, because those procedures are there for a purpose – to protect our freedom.”

He served in the Army National Guard until 2008 and spent two years in Iraq as a combat medic. He received the Bronze Star and now owns an art business in Iowa City.

“It’s dispiriting to see our lawmakers treat the rules set out in the Constitution with disrespect, as if they’re just suggestions, or as if members of Congress are too important to follow them,” he said.

His lawsuit was filed before the Supreme Court opinion was released by Roberts, but it was on hold while that case from the National Federation of Independent Business and 26 states was pending.

The plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case alleged that a mandate to buy insurance was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court agreed. But Roberts’ opinion simply changed the “penalty” as it was enacted by Congress to a “tax” and deemed it constitutional for that reason.

Reid took a House-passed bill that helps veterans buy homes, eviscerated it and inserted the Obamacare language.

“When we focus on the Origination Clause, we’re not talking about dry formalities and this isn’t an academic issue,” said Beard. “The Founders understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy, as Chief Justice John Marshall put it. Therefore, they viewed the Origination Clause as a vital safeguard for liberty. They insisted that the power to initiate new taxes should be left with the lawmakers who are most directly accountable to voters – members of the House, who are elected every two years by local districts.”

The Sissel complaint is being amended to challenge the entire law on that basis.

The amended complaint explains that Roberts specifically approved the “shared responsibility payment,” which the Obama administration said was not a tax, as “a tax.”

“The chief justice explained the apparent inconsistency in concluding that the ‘shared responsibility payment’ is a tax for constitutional purposes, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.”

His logic was that while Congress did not have the power to require citizens to buy insurance, it could require them to pay a tax.

But Roberts’ holding that the payments are taxes “raises new questions about the tax’s conformity with other constitutional provisions,” which the court left unresolved, the legal filing said.

“Despite the fact the act raises considerable revenues, it originated in the Senate, not the House,” the brief argues. “The Affordable Care Act was not the result of a lawful amendment of H.R. 3590, because the subject matter of the one had nothing whatsoever to do with the other.”

The Obamacare law already was under attack in the courts for its “mandate” that employers pay for abortifacients for employees. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Christian organizations that say the mandate violates freedom of religion.

In a Michigan pending case, the government insisted it has the authority to “substantially burden the exercise of religion” on two conditions.

If it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Technorati Tags: abortifacients,ObamaCare,ObamaTax,repeal and replace ObamaCare,taxes,Chief Justice John Roberts,religious freedom,Supreme Court,U.S. Constitution,Constitution,Affordable Care Act taxes,Origination Clause,tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives,H.R. 3590,this version of the ObamaCare bill origiinated in the Senate

Hmm: 83% Of Doctors Have Considered Quitting Thanks To Obama care

The obvious solution is to mandate that doctors keep working under Comrade Obama

(The Daily Caller) Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

Even if doctors do not quit their jobs over the ruling, America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020. The new health care law increases demand for physicians by expanding insurance coverage. This change will exacerbate the current shortage as more Americans live past 65.

Well, O-care will simply deem that people are doctors. If we just gave more money to Obama donors those medical jobs would magically appear. Obviously, though, these darned doctors who get themselves in enormous debt to earn their licenses are big meanies who are refusing to do their part for The State.

The DPMA found that many doctors do not believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will lead to better access to medical care for the majority of Americans, co-founder of the DPMA Kathryn Series told The DC.

“Doctors clearly understand what Washington does not — that a piece of paper that says you are ‘covered’ by insurance or ‘enrolled’ in Medicare or Medicaid does not translate to actual medical care when doctors can’t afford to see patients at the lowball payments, and patients have to jump through government and insurance company bureaucratic hoops,” she said.

Doctors are already refusing to take more Medicare and Medicaid patients. Even before O-care this was happening, thanks to the red tape, idiotic paperwork, low reimbursement costs and slow reimbursement times. It isn’t going to get better, especially when the “death panels”, i.e., the Independent Payment Advisory Board, starts telling doctors how to treat their patients.

No one should be shocked that doctors weren’t consulted as to the effects of O-care.

Thanks Obama care: 83% of Doctors Surveyed Say They May Quit

Kate Hicks – Town Hall.com – Cross Posted at THITW and at Ask Marion

The Doctor Patient Medical Association has released a new survey of about 700 doctors, and the results are bleak. Scary bleak. Among other dismal figures, Doctors' Attitudes on the Future of Medicine: What’s Wrong, Who’s to Blame, and What Will Fix It found that 83% of respondents are contemplating leaving the industry if Obama care is fully implemented, owing to its disastrous projected consequences. Indeed, they openly blame the healthcare law for their industry's woes:

KEY FINDINGS

• 90% say the medical system is on the WRONG TRACK
• 83% say they are thinking about QUITTING
• 61% say the system challenges their ETHICS
• 85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a TAILSPIN
• 65% say GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT is most to blame for current problems
• 72% say individual insurance mandate will NOT result in improved access care
• 49% say they will STOP accepting Medicaid patients
• 74% say they will STOP ACCEPTING Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely
• 52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for FREE
• 57% give the AMA a FAILING GRADE representing them
• 1 out of 3 doctors is HESITANT to voice their opinion
• 2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially
• 95% say private practice is losing out to CORPORATE MEDICINE
• 80% say DOCTORS/MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS are most likely to help solve things
• 70% say REDUCING GOVERNMENT would be single best fix.

If this isn't an airtight argument for the repeal of Obama care, nothing is. When the people providing the actual healthcare are thinking of getting out of the game, the system is clearly broken. Those that understand what is coming were hoping the Supreme Court would have struck down Obama care completely or at least the individual mandate. Instead Judge Roberts made it political and kicked the can down the road.

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,ObamaCare mandates,individual mandate,doctor shortages,doctors against ObamaCare,individual freedoms,ObamaCare lies

Tax cut ahead if high court voids health care law

Tax cut ahead if high court voids health care law

By Tom Curry, msnbc.com National Affairs Writer

Expectations in Washington have reached feverish heights as supporters and foes of the Affordable Care Act fret about a Supreme Court ruling in the next few weeks that will decide its fate – and potentially set off a cascade of policy reverberations.

If the justices strike down the law in its entirety, for example, they would do away with $1.4 trillion in planned spending over the next ten years. Since there would be no expansion of Medicaid eligibility and no creation of insurance subsidies for middle-class people, the money for those benefits wouldn’t be spent.

A ruling which invalidated the law would also cancel more than $400 billion in tax increases between now and 2021 that Congress designed to help pay for the expansion of insurance coverage.

The last time the Supreme Court struck down budget legislation was in 1998 when it ruled the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional. Before that, one has to go back to the 1930s and the high court’s clash with President Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress to find the justices striking down a major revenue measure.

If the justices do hold that the ACA is unconstitutional, the tax revenue that would be cancelled is significant, but more important from health care policy makers’ point of view is the type of taxes that would killed.

As Congress was writing the law in 2009 and 2010, a recurring theme among health care reformers such as MIT economist Jonathan Gruber and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin was that any overhaul should reduce the tax code’s subsidization of unnecessary health care. Gruber and other reformers wanted to begin to limit the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance.

The law that President Obama signed on March 23, 2010 moved in that direction. It relied heavily on taxing benefits that go mostly to well-off people to help raise the money to insure the uninsured.

By 2019, once all the tax provisions take effect, more than two-thirds of the new tax revenues to pay for the Affordable Care Act will come from just two taxes: the increased Medicare tax on upper-income people and the tax on so-called “Cadillac” employer-provided insurance plans.

The Medicare tax increase is set to take effect on Jan. 1 of next year, while the tax on Cadillac health plans is not slated to begin until 2018.

The Medicare tax increases the tax rate on wages to 2.35 percent on earnings over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly. It also creates a new 3.8 percent tax on investment income for those same taxpayers. The thresholds are not indexed to inflation so in time they would begin to affect more and more middle-income people.

The 40 percent tax on Cadillac plans will apply to coverage that costs more than $10,200 for individuals and more than $27,500 for family coverage. After 2020, the tax thresholds would be indexed to the inflation rate – but since health insurance costs have risen faster than the overall inflation rate, over time the tax would likely begin to bite a greater and greater percentage of those with insurance.

The tax on Cadillac plans drew adamant opposition from labor unions and from some Democratic members of Congress, who despite their final votes for the ACA, might be happy to see the tax on Cadillac plans eliminated.

As Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D- Mich., said at a meeting of the Senate Finance Committee when it was writing the bill, the criticism of Cadillac plans “really doesn't hold true for many, many working Americans, who over the years have given up salary increases to get their increased (health insurance) benefits….and they are now because of cost increases, the same cost increases we are trying to address overall and reform, they are seeing their co-pays and deductibles go up.”

She said, “I don't want to see them in addition to that have to add an additional tax” while “they are trying to figure out how to keep their health insurance.”

But Gruber said both in his testimony to the Senate Finance Committee in 2009 and in his book published last year, “Health Care Reform: What It is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works,” that taxing high-cost plans was needed to contain costs.

“Folks are encouraged to use extra care by their overly generous, tax-subsidized insurance,” Gruber said.  The tax on Cadillac plans, he said, is “not really a new tax on insurance. It’s an attempt to offset the existing unfair and inefficient tax break we now provide.” By taxing Cadillac plans, “We stop subsidizing employers from buying overly generous insurance that induces wasteful medical spending.”

Although House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney support a tax overhaul that would combine lower tax rates with fewer tax preferences, they haven’t specified whether the current tax-free status of employer-provided insurance is one tax preference they’d seek to limit or eliminate.

Romney does say in his economic blueprint that “The approach taken by the Bowles-Simpson Commission is a good starting point for the discussion.”

The Bowles-Simpson commission’s report suggested that one option for reducing deficits and creating a simpler tax system would be to phase out the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance. And Congress took a step in that direction by passing the Affordable Care Act, but in the wake of a Supreme Court decision, it may need to begin with a clean sheet of paper and redesign both tax policy and health care policy.

Gruber said Monday he thinks that Congress would not likely take on the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance outside the context of the ACA.

On policy grounds he said, limiting the tax break for insurance “makes a huge amount of sense when folks can access well-functioning non-employer markets, as they will be able to under ACA.  If they can't, there are risks in employers scaling back coverage, as might happen under a Cadillac tax.”

He added, “This is a policy that health policy experts have been fighting for over decades, and we were only able to get it in the context of the larger ACA. I highly doubt it could survive as a stand-alone.”

If Not…   Yes, the IRS Can Use Liens and Incarceration to Enforce ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Washington Post:

A recent article [“Could the health-care law work without the individual mandate?”, Mar. 28, A8] claims the IRS “will be barred from using … collection tools such as placing liens or threatening incarceration” to enforce compliance with the requirement that Americans obtain health insurance. Not so.

Suppose the IRS assesses me a $1,000 penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. It is true that the law prohibits the IRS from using liens or incarceration to collect that $1,000. But, money being fungible, the IRS may simply deem my first $1,000 of income-tax withholding to be payment of that penalty. As a result, I would owe an additional $1,000 in income tax at the end of the year, and the IRS could come after me with every tool at its disposal, including liens and incarceration.

Repeat after Me: There Is No Health Reform but ObamaCare

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of Politico:

An item in Politico’s health care newsletter Pulse [“Today: Christie Vetoes Exchange Or Else,” May 10] told readers that, because I oppose ObamaCare, I am a “health reform foe.”

Is that what Politico gleans from my conversations with its reporters about the need for health care reform, and how I would go about it? From the hundreds of articles and opeds and speeches and blog posts in which I detail my preferred reforms? And from the book I coauthored about how to reform health care? Is it Politico’s editorial policy that one cannot support health reform without supporting ObamaCare?

Suppose the IRS assesses me a $1,000 penalty for failing to obtain health insurance. It is true that the law prohibits the IRS from using liens or incarceration to collect that $1,000. But, money being fungible, the IRS may simply deem my first $1,000 of income-tax withholding to be payment of that penalty. As a result, I would owe an additional $1,000 in income tax at the end of the year, and the IRS could come after me with every tool at its disposal, including liens and incarceration

Other news organizations, moreover, avoid describing ObamaCare as “reform,” a term that connotes improvement. Is it Politico’s editorial policy to convey to readers that ObamaCare is an improvement?

How to Recognize a Government Contractor, or a Federal Takeover

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Washington Post:

“GOP stalls on insurance marketplaces” [May 12] reports that “the conservative firm Leavitt Partners…is working with a number of states on their plans” to create the government bureaucracies that the new health care law calls insurance “exchanges.”

The article should have informed readers that this “conservative firm” (whatever that means) is a for-profit government contractor that makes money by helping states create those exchanges, and is acting against the advice of the nation’s leading conservative think tank. The Heritage Foundation counsels states not to create exchanges, and to send all related funds back to Washington.

Finally, the article claims states can avoid a “federal takeover” by creating an exchange. On the contrary, the law requires state-run exchanges to obey all federal edicts, just as a federal exchange would. The federal takeover has already happened. States that create their own exchanges merely pay for the privilege of losing their sovereignty.

Michael F. Cannon – Townhall Columnist

Technorati Tags: taxes,ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,watch the other hand,individual mandate,IRS

Why the Supreme Court Will Strike Down All of Obamacare

By Peter Ferrara  -  Forbes

Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).

President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.

The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.

And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:

“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”

As a former constitutional law professor and President of the Harvard Law Review, Obama no doubt knows all about Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. But he figures he can safely assume a majority of you know nothing about it, and his party controlled media will not tell you anything concerning it at this inopportune moment. Hence, another classic example of what I have called Calculated Deception.

President Obama further assailed any Supreme Court decision ruling his Obamacare health care takeover unconstitutional as “judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Alexander Hamilton disagreed over 200 years ago in Federalist 78, writing, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. . . .”

Or, as the Wall Street Journal explained on Monday:

“Judicial activism is not something that happens every time the Supreme Court overturns a statute. The Justices owe deference to Congress and the executive, but only to the extent that the political branches stay within the boundaries of the Constitution. Improper activism is when the Court itself strays beyond the founding document to find new rights or enhance its own authority without proper constitutional grounding.”

The Journal added, “Far from seeking an activist ruling, the Obamacare plaintiffs aren’t asking the Court to overturn even a single commerce clause precedent.”

In my role as General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, I filed 3 amicus curiae briefs with the Supreme Court in the Obamacare litigation. I also filed amicus briefs in the lower federal courts in the cases in Virginia and Florida.

The reason that at least 5 Justices are going to find the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional is that it is contrary to the fundamental federalism architecture of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. All other powers of government are reserved for the states, including the broad authority labeled the “police power.” That is the power to compel individuals to take specific actions for the public good, such as actions for the public health like vaccinations or quarantines, or obtaining car insurance, or attending school. Notice that all such laws are adopted at the state or local level. (Any federal laws compelling action are based on specific delegated powers other than the Commerce Clause, like those providing for national defense, or taxation).

The power to compel the purchase of health insurance for the public good, as in Obamacare’s individual mandate, is a function of the police power reserved to the states, and denied to the federal government by the Constitution and Supreme Court precedents. If the federal government is now to hold a national police power, then the constitutional framework of federalism, with limited, enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and the remaining powers of government retained by the states, would be obliterated.

That is why the Supreme Court held in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), “We always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power.” The Court added, “the principle that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, while reserving a generalized police power to the States, is deeply ingrained in our constitutional history.” The Court explained in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) that Congress may not exercise its enumerated powers in a way that “infring[es] upon th[at] core of state sovereignty.” The Court in Morrison rejected the argument that women who are sexually assaulted would need medical care provides a sufficient interstate commerce connection under the Commerce Clause.

As Justice Kennedy explained in United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010), “the precepts of federalism embodied in the Constitution inform which powers are properly exercised by the National Government in the first place.” The Court added in Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991), “[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers [and] withhold[s] from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation.”

The Obama Administration tried to shoe horn the individual mandate into the federal enumerated power of the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Their argument boiled down to the claim that millions of people choosing to not buy health insurance substantially affects interstate commerce. But every economic decision, when aggregated across the whole market, substantially affects interstate commerce in this way, including decisions not to do something. So that would leave the Commerce Clause eating up the whole Constitution and its most fundamental doctrine that the federal government is an authority of limited, enumerated, delegated powers. Federal power would then be without limit, contrary to the whole concept of the federal government in the Constitution.

That is why the Court kept asking the government for a principle that would limit its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and its failure to come up with one is fatal to the government’s case. All prior cases under the Commerce Clause were based on the principle that some action had been taken that the federal government could then regulate as interstate commerce. To hold that inaction could be regulated as well as itself substantially affecting interstate commerce would break through any limitation on the power, and so was not what was intended. That would also again tear down the Constitution’s fundamental federalism architecture and any distinction between limited federal and plenary state power.

That is why the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) rejected the notion of unlimited Commerce Clause power, holding that it will strike down regulation under the Commerce Clause which leaves no principled limit to federal power under the Clause. The Court said, “the Constitution’s enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated and that there will never be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local.” Justice Kennedy added, “[T]he federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or another level of Government has tipped the scales too far.”

Once the Court finds the individual mandate unconstitutional on these grounds, as it will, the question becomes whether the whole Obamacare Act must be struck down as unconstitutional as a result. The law does not include a traditional severability clause providing that if one of provision of the Act is found unconstitutional, the rest of the law should stand.

Consequently, the question becomes whether the remaining parts of the Obamacare law can still remain fully operative and function as Congress intended, and whether Congress would have passed the Act without the individual mandate. The answer in both cases is indisputably no.

Obama’s lawyers themselves have repeatedly argued in courts all over the country that the Obamacare law cannot function without the individual mandate. That is because of the Act’s regulatory requirements for guaranteed issue and community rating. The Act requires all insurers to cover all pre-existing conditions and issue health insurance to everyone that applies, no matter how sick they are when they first apply or how costly they may be to cover. Moreover, the insurers can only charge them the same, standard, market rates as everyone else.

Under these regulatory requirements, younger and healthier people delay buying insurance, knowing they are guaranteed coverage at standard rates after they become sick. Sick people show up applying for an insurer’s health coverage for the first time with very costly illnesses such as cancer and heart disease, which the insurer must then cover and pay for, out of the same standard premiums as everyone else pays. This means the insurer’s covered risk pool includes more costly sick people and fewer less costly healthy people, so the costs per person covered soar. The insurer then has to raise rates sharply for everyone just to be sure to have enough money to pay all of the policy’s benefits.

Those higher rates encourage even more healthy people to drop their insurance, leaving the remaining pool even sicker and more costly on average, which requires even higher premiums, resulting in a financial death spiral for the insurers and the insurance market.

If regulation required fire insurers to issue policies to people whose houses were already on fire at standard rates, the fire insurance pool would include only all burned down houses, which would obviously be dysfunctional.

The Obamacare law tries to counter this problem by adopting the individual and employer mandates, seeking to require everyone to be covered and contributing to the pool at all times. Without these mandates, the government itself has repeatedly argued, those who would remain uninsured would substantially affect the interstate market for health insurance, by allowing the remaining regulatory requirements to cause soaring health insurance premiums through the above process and ultimately a financial death spiral.

That financial death spiral would cause the costs of other provisions of Obamacare to soar, such as the subsidies for purchase of health insurance on the Exchanges, which would be even more costly than expected, and the costs for the Medicaid expansion, where more people would qualify given the decline of private insurance.

Indeed, Obamacare itself in its very statutory language recognized the essential role of the individual mandate in the statute’s overall framework, saying in Section 1501(a)(2)(I):

“[I]f there were no [individual mandate], many individuals would wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care….The [individual mandate] is essential to creating effective health insurance markets in which improved health insurance products that are guaranteed issue and do not exclude coverage of pre-existing conditions can be sold.”

As the court said in Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (1987), “Congress could not have intended a constitutionally flawed provision to be severed from the remainder of the statute if the balance of the legislation is incapable of functioning independently….” Moreover, the Court also recognized that in the absence of a statutory severance clause the entire statute must be struck down if Congress would not have enacted the statute without the unconstitutional provision.

Consequently, the loss of the individual mandate so centrally affects the entire structure of the Act that without it the entire structure must fall. Trying to determine what could be salvaged would embroil the Court in rewriting the statutory policy and framework to govern one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy, which is obviously not a judicial function.

The only other foreseeable outcome is for the liberals on the Court to agree to go along with a ruling declaring the mandate unconstitutional if the Court will just decide to hold back on deciding severability to give Congress the chance to figure out how it wants to fix it. But Congress could just pass a whole new law in any event if the Court just strikes down the whole thing, which based on its precedents is exactly what it should do.

But liberals should not despair. There is broad bipartisan agreement on alternative means of covering the uninsured with a health care safety net, which would not be expensive if done right, and addressing health costs through market competition and incentives, which altogether could well actually reduce federal spending sharply. The end result would be a much better bill that satisfies all desirable social goals. But that would still require a different President, because Obama’s anti-market, left wing, ideology would not allow him to accept that desirable result.

Watcher’s Council Nominations… Individual Mandate Edition

JoshuaPundit on Mar 28 2012  -  AskMarion:  Although there is more here than just ObamaCare info it seemed appropriate to post here.

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Watcher’s Council News:

This week, Ask Marion , The Grouch, Modern Sojourners and Liberty’s Spirit took advantage of my generous offer of linkage and earned honorable mention status.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

• The Colossus of Rhodey – As the Trayvon Martin case proceeds …
• The Noisy Room – Leveraging Racism for Chaos – Gateway to Communism
• The Political Commentator – While all politicians suck this unscientific study shows that on a percentage basis Republicans suck less!
• VA Right! - Democrats on ObamaCare “I meant to do that!”
• Joshuapundit -The Supreme Court Begins Hearing Arguments On ObamaCare
• Rhymes With Right – Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Barack Obama, And Me
• The Independent Sentinel – Interview With A Tea Party Leader About A RINO’S Views on NPV
• The Mellow Jihadi – Wasting Nassau, Cedar, and Water Streets
• Simply Jews – From purveyors of hate to Mohamed Merah
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Madame Sec
• Bookworm Room – “Alien Encounters” — The subtle propaganda of a pseudo-documentary
• The Right Planet – Race Pimps
• The Razor – Crown Romney and Be Done With It
• Gay Patriot – In the current crisis, Santorum would be a lousy nominee
• The Glittering Eye -Not To Use But To Sell

Honorable Mentions

• The Grouch – Critical Medicines in Short Supply
• Modern Sojourners – Raising Girls
• Ask Marion – March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?   -  Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth
• Liberty’s Spirit – Peter Beinart’s Offense Against Liberalism

Non-Council Submissions

• The New Statesman – The G-d Wars submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Sultan Knish –It Doesn’t Matter If You’re Black or White submitted by The Noisy Room
• Mychal Massie -Sharpton and Obama Prostituting Martin Shooting submitted by The Political Commentator
• The Mental Recession – Why is the U.S. Charging Robert Bales With the Murder of an Unborn Child, But Didn’t Charge Nidal Hasan? submitted by VA Right!
• Ralph Peters – Soldiers Murder Afghans, Generals Murder Soldiers submitted by Joshuapundit
• Doug Ross @ Journal – Top 15 Signs at the #RallyForReligiousFreedom You’ll Never See in Legacy Media submitted by Rhymes with Right
• Townhall – Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare submitted by The The Independent Sentinel
• Heels And Handguns – One Bad Apple: George Zimmerman submitted by The Mellow Jihadi
• Nick Cohen – Playing Politics With Murder submitted by Simply Jews
• TPM Barnett’s Globlogization – In Tough Times, America’s ‘Dirty Harry’ Streak Re-Emerges submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• White House Dossier- Michelle Hosts ‘Biggest Loser’ Workout in the East Room submitted by Bookworm Room
• Breitbart.com – The Crane Chronicles, Part I: How and Why Ed Crane Pushed the Koch Brothers Conspiracy Theory submitted by The Right Planet
• Via Meadia –Top Saudi Cleric Issues Fatwa: Destroy Churches submitted by The Razor
• Right Turn -Imagine Obama with no electoral restraints submitted by Gay Patriot
• Lyle Denniston./SCOTUSBlog – Argument preview: Health care, Part I — The power to decide? submitted by The Glittering Eye
• The Weekly Standard Blog – Is the IRS Grinding an Axe for Teachers’ Unions? submitted by The Watcher
• Frida Ghittis – Europe’s Blind Spot On Anti-Semitism submitted by The Watcher

Enjoy! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

Day Two of Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearing: ObamaCare Could Be on Life Support

People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Yesterday

Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."

The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating.

Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.

According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."

"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin just said on CNN.

Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.

"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."

In the aftermath of today's arguments, Toobin and many other legal reporters agree that the Obamacare decision will come down to a fight between the nine Supreme Court justices.

According to reports from the courtroom, the four liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law. But it is still unclear if the Obama administration's legal team will be able to get a fifth vote.

The WSJ reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote in the case, reportedly pushed Verrilli hard on his defense of the individual mandate, telling him that the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" to show where the Constitution gives Congress the power to force people to buy healthcare.

Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS blog sums up the end of the arguments:

Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.

Listen below to Solicitor General Verrilli nervously starting his opening argument on individual mandate (around 25 sec mark):  HERE

Video:  "This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!" Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court

Revealed: Inside Obama’s Individual Mandate Memo and Why He Changed His Mind

Day One of the Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearings

The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter. Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight, even though Justice Kagan breaks federal law in order to force ObamaCare on the American people. Ron Paul Suspects Supreme Court Will Rule “Monstrosity” Obamacare Constitutional and Charles Krauthammer said on the first day of hearings that the Supreme Court does not like to overturn or cause the overturning of large pieces of legislation. However, even some of the liberal Supreme Court Judges Appear Skeptical On Obama’s Defense Of ObamaCare We shall see. And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.

On a side note, we should also remember that during the 2008 campaign, Obama vehemently opposed Hillary Clinton's reform plan because of its inclusion of mandate. Four years later, his administration is in court defending the precise policy he opposed. This was not a minor or superficial distinction between Obama and his former Democratic rival; it was one of the brightest lines Obama drew to separate the two campaigns' (relatively similar) approaches to government expansionism. As this Buzzfeed video demonstrates, this was a point candidate.

Video: Obama Argues Against Obamacare

--> Listen to Audio of Supreme Court over Obamacare  <--

Video: Obama Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

Photo:  The Foundry Blog

Friday March 23rd, 2012 is 2nd-year anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, into law,  Monday March 26th is the day the states take their case against the ObamaCare individual mandate (as well as the full law itself) to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  It could end up being the day that saved America, or the day the Supreme Court helped America sink further into debt and further down the road toward Socialism.

If SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, ObamaCare will implode and die, giving America another chance at both surviving and re-addressing healthcare and Medicare.  If SCOTUS does not strike down the mandate, we will get a second chance to overturn the bill that will be the final nail in the coffin of American freedom in November 2012.  After that the only thing that will save us from ourselves is a total financial collapse.

Government-controlled/run healthcare is the jewel socialism and the most Progressive president and congress America has ever had crammed this bill down the throats of the American people without most of them ever realizing what happened. They even managed to force both the House and Senate to vote on this program, several times each, without reading the bills. Think about it.

There was a small group of people, the Tea Party and other patriots, who were engaged and did read those bills (at least one version), reviewed and  shared their findings, spoke out and traveled to Washington D.C. to stand up. I was one of those people… but nobody in Washington and not enough people in America listened.

Nancy Pelosi said, We have to pass the bill (without reading it… because there was not time) to find out what was in it?”.   They did… and now we, the American people, are beginning to find out what is in it… in dribs and drabs… one bad provision at a time. ObamaCare is fraught with broken promises and misrepresentations:  Obamacare’s Top 5 Broken Promises 

Well, we now have a group of doctors who have come together to get out the truth, the whole truth on how Obamacare will impact the health and welfare of your loved ones at: www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org.  It is information absolutely vital for every American, especially if the SCOTUS does not over the full law or at least the individual mandate.

Remember the Democrat ad showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff?

Well here is the response to that ad by www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org based on the information of what really is in ObamaCare, now coming out. Please watch:

Video: The Whole Truth

It helps make the point by point case against ObamaCare.

My question is why nobody in Washington has read the full ObamaCare Bill in the meantime after it was passed and then spoken out… yelling from the rooftops?  Why?

Recently several important provisions have come to light.  Below are back-up articles and information for those who did not read the bill or at least the reviews of those who did:

Abortion, Birth Control an Woman’s Health:

Rep. Chris Smith on Obama Violating Own Executive Order, Funding Abortion

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

The Obamacare Second Anniversary: No Gift for Women

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life – Proof Lies In A Killer Theory

Costs and Funding of ObamaCare:

Democratic Leaders Run From Budget Deadline As Health Law Threatens Nation’s Finances

Oops ObamaCare’s Cost Has Doubled

ObamaCare 2nd Birthday, No Surprise: Still Not Lowering Costs

Insurance and Doctors:

Side Effects: Doctors Fear Obamacare

Obamacare Knows Best?

Power Grab:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Religious Liberty:

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Religious Liberty: Obamacare's First Casualty

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

Seniors and Rationing:

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors

IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare  - Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB  (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)

Was told by a friend whose husband who works for one of our major hospitals here that the HR department posts upcoming news on a weekly basis on their bulletin boards throughout the hospital.

Late last week a posting went up stating: PER THE US FED GOVT, AS OF APRIL 24, 2013 THERE WILL BE NO CHEMO/RADIATION/MEDICATIONS/FOR ALL PERSONS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AT AGE 76. SURGICAL PROCEDURES WILL BE DONE ONLY IF THE SURGEONS CAN GET IT ALL. 

Taxes and ObamaCare Tentacles on house sales:

Thinking About Selling Your House After 2012?

Four Small Business Hikes in ObamaCare

Foundry:  The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of      

Alyene Senger  -  March 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm  (218)  - posted on the Foundry

Photo: The Foundry Blog

Obamacare includes such a variety and volume of negative policies that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here is a list of 10 terrible provisions that every American should be aware of:

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

1. It adds a new tax to investment income. The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.
2. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.
3. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.
4. It penalizes marriage. Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.
5. It violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.
6. It puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board of 15 unelected officials, will have the power to cut Medicare spending without congressional approval. These unaccountable government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.
7. It puts a premium tax on health insurers. Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014. On average, the tax is expected to increase premiums by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and between 2.8 percent and 3.7 percent by 2023. Combined with the other provisions in Obamacare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost of premiums.
8. It creates a new unsustainable entitlement program. On top of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obamacare created a new long-term care entitlement called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable, and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”
9. It puts over half of all Americans on a government program. Because of Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health coverage, more than half of all Americans will be dependent on a government health care program (Medicare, Medicaid, or the government exchanges) by the end of this decade.

Again, we only have a few chances of getting rid of ObamaCare, 4 if you consider a total financial collapse:

1. Having the Supreme Court overturn it after the court hearing on March 23rd.
2. Rep. Paul Ryan has just released the GOP’s new budget proposal that includes the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, however, short of a miracle, that budget will pass in the House but will never even be put up for a vote in the Senate.
3. Voting in anyone (anyone but Obama… ABO) in November and then having them overturn and repeal as much of the entire bill as possible, on day one of their presidency, and start over, which all the GOP candidates have vowed to do.
4. Experiencing a total financial collapse of the United States after which there will be no money for any programs, especially ObamaCare.

If none of the first three above is done, the government will gain control of an additional 6 to 10% of the U.S. economy through ObamaCare and the tentacles will go so deep and wide that it can never be unwound after 4-more years of Obama and his radical team. Government controlled healthcare is always the crown jewel and center of socialism, especially with what is written into the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.  And if you realize what is in this bill and what has been done, it is also obvious that Nancy Pelosi,  Harry Reid and President must be ousted or shamed into quitting!!

Realizing how unpopular ObamaCare is the President and the White House have been very quiet about the 2-year anniversary, but Nancy Pelosi held a celebration in Washington on Thursday.

The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter.  Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight.  We shall see.  And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.