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

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

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

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

State-based exchanges and federally facilitated exchanges

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

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

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

The illegal action taken by the IRS

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

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

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

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

Greta with Texas Attorney General Abbot:

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

Published on Jan 2, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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