BIG STORY: Lawsuit Could Potentially Undo ObamaCare!

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

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

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

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

This is WONDERFUL NEWS!

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

Lawsuit Over Health Care Tax Could Kill ‘ObamaCare’

By Valerie Richardson | Sunday, March 31, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could This Lawsuit Really Kill ‘ObamaCare’?

Apr. 1, 2013 6:34pm Becket Adams

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

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

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

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

The Times explains the details:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to read the full report.

Related:

Fun with ObamaCare

A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare

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

A Healthier Alternative to ObamaCare

The Foundation

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

Editorial Exegesis

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

Upright

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

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

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

Insight

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

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

Demo-gogues

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

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

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

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

Dezinformatsia

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

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

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

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

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

Newspulper Headlines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Village Idiots

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essential Liberty

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

Short Cuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tiny Baby

This amazing photo, taken by Michael Clancy and originally published in The Tennessean and USA Today on September 7, 1999, is real and authentic. It "went viral" via forwarded email within weeks of its first appearance in newspapers.

It should have been 'The Picture of the Year,' or perhaps, 'Picture of the Decade.' It wasn’t and unless you obtained a copy of The Tennessean and USA Today  which published it or were on someone’s email list that forwarded it, you probably would never have seen it.

The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner.

The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta . She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr.Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed Hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr.Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

There are actually 3 versions or interpretations of this poignant moment caught on film:

• Viral text: "During the surgery on little Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed, hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger."
• Photographer Michael Clancy: "Samuel came out from under anesthesia too soon and thrust his clenched fist out of the surgical opening to his mother's womb. In my opinion, Samuel was in pain. Dr. Joseph Bruner reached over and gently lifted Samuel's hand, and Samuel reacted by squeezing the doctor's finger."
• Surgeon Joseph Bruner:"Depending on your political point of view, this is either Samuel Armas reaching out of the uterus and touching the finger of a fellow human, or it's me pulling his hand out of the uterus ... which is what I did." (Quoted in The Tennessean, Jan. 9, 2000)

Perhaps it all boils down to semantics. Dr. Bruner has stated elsewhere that Samuel's hand "appeared" in the uterine opening before he reached out and lifted it, lending credence to photographer Clancy's version of events. In any case, although it appears the email does exaggerate when it says the fetus "reached ... through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger," something akin to that really did happen.

Such quibbles don't lessen the impact of the photograph itself, which Dr. Bruner has described as "powerful" and Michael Clancy calls "miraculous." It should come as no surprise that both the image and Samuel Armas' success story have figured prominently in the abortion debate ever since.

The photograph captured this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, 'Hand of Hope.' The text explaining the picture begins, 'The tiny hand of 21-week- old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life.'

Little Samuel's mother said they 'wept for days' when they saw the picture. She said, 'The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person.' Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. 

Here is the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible....and worth sharing. The world really needs to see this one!

Don't tell me our God isn't an awesome God!!!!!

Related:

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

Video: Obama Supports Born Alive Abortion

Planned Parenthood’s Roots

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

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

Abortion Not About Women’s Rights: Men Often “Make” the Decision

Technorati Tags: Hand of Hope,Life,pro-life,choices,love,God,babies are a gift,life is a Gift,babies,we are all God's children,personhood,spina bifida,abortion,rethinking abortion

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

Low-Carb Diet May Slow Alzheimer’s Disease

Story at-a-glance

• A deficiency of healthy fats, combined with too many carbs may be at the heart of the Alzheimer’s epidemic
• A growing body of research suggests there may be a powerful connection between the foods you eat and your risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, via similar pathways that cause type 2 diabetes. In one recent animal study, researchers were able to induce dementia by disrupting the proper signaling of insulin in the brain
• Previous animal research has shown that calorie restriction protects against aging, oxidative stress and neurodegenerative pathologies, and that reduced levels of IGF-1 mediate some of these protective effects.
• Recent research has also shown that intermittent fasting triggers a variety of health-promoting hormonal and metabolic changes similar to those of constant calorie restriction—including reduced age-related brain shrinkage

By Dr. Mercola

Alzheimer’s disease is the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S. This fatal and progressive condition destroys brain cells, resulting in memory loss and severe thinking and behavioral problems (aggression, delusions, and hallucinations) that interfere with daily life and activities.

The cause is conventionally believed to be a mystery. While we know that certain diseases, like type 2 diabetes, are definitively connected to the foods you eat, Alzheimer's is generally thought to strike without warning or reason.

That is, until recently.

A growing body of research suggests there may be a powerful connection between the foods you eat and your risk of Alzheimer's disease and dementia, via similar pathways that cause type 2 diabetes. Some have even re-named Alzheimer's as "type 3 diabetes."

Top Dietary Factor Now Implicated in Skyrocketing Dementia Rates

Faulty insulin (and leptin), signaling caused by a high non-fiber carb diet is an underlying cause of insulin resistance, which, of course, typically leads to type 2 diabetes. However, while insulin is usually associated with its role in keeping your blood sugar levels in a healthy range, it also plays a role in brain signaling.

In a 2012 animal study,¹ researchers were able to induce dementia by disrupting the proper signaling of insulin in the brain.

All in all, it seems clear that your diet plays a tremendous part in Alzheimer’s, and the low-fat craze may have wrought more havoc than anyone could ever have imagined. It was the absolute worst recommendation possible, limiting the nutrient you, and your brain, need the most in your diet.

The disease is currently at epidemic proportions, with 5.4 million Americans — including one in eight people aged 65 and over — living with Alzheimer's disease. By 2050, this is expected to jump to 16 million, and in the next 20 years it is projected that Alzheimer's will affect one in four Americans. If that comes to pass, it would then be more prevalent than obesity and diabetes is today!

How Carbohydrates Can Activate Disease Processes

Dr. Ron Rosedale, a prominent expert in the low-carb, high-quality fat approach to improving your health, was possibly the first person to advocate both a low-carb and moderate protein (and therefore high fat) diet. Most low-carb advocates were very accepting of, if not promoting, high protein, and protein was, and still is, often recommended as a replacement for the carbs.

However, a high-fat, low-carb diet is very different than a high-protein, low-carb diet and this is a major source of confusion by both the public and researchers when doing studies and publishing conclusions as if all low-carb diets are the same.

You cannot live without protein, as it’s a main component of your body, including muscles, bones, and many hormones. We also know that protein was instrumental in advancing our intelligence. However, most people today are indulging in hormone laced, antiobiotic loaded meats conveniently available at fast food restaurants and processed meats in grocery stores.

How Much Protein is 'Enough?'

Dr. Rosedale believes the average amount of protein recommended for most adults is about one gram of protein per kilogram of LEAN body mass, or one-half gram of protein per pound of lean body weight. (As an example, if your body fat mass is 20 percent, your lean mass is 80 percent of your total body weight.
If your total weight is 200 pounds, you would divide 160 by 2.2 to convert pounds to kilograms and come up with 72.7 grams of protein. If you are doing vigorous exercises or are pregnant you can add up to another 25 percent or another 18 grams in this illustration to increase your total to 90 grams per day.)

This is something that makes sense to me and something I seek to apply personally, but this is partly because I foolishly had my amalgam fillings removed 20 years ago by a non-biologically trained dentist that caused serious kidney damage, so I can’t tolerate high levels of protein anyway. However, it seems obvious to me that most people consume too much low-quality protein and carbohydrates, and not enough healthy fat.

So it would make sense that the majority of your diet should be comprised of good fats, followed by good proteins like whey protein concentrate from grass-fed cows, and organic grass-fed beef, pastured organic eggs and chicken, and fish like wild caught salmon.
Your healthiest option is to ensure your carbs come primarily from fresh, organic vegetables, high-quality protein, and eat primary a high fat diet. Depending on the type of carbs (high fiber or not), most people need anywhere between 50-75 percent fat in their diet and sometimes even higher for optimal health.

Another Brain-Boosting Alternative: Intermittent Fasting

Recent research has also shown that intermittent fasting triggers a variety of health-promoting hormonal and metabolic changes similar to those of constant calorie restriction — including reduced age-related brain shrinkage. According to Professor Mark Mattson,² head of neuroscience at the U.S. National Institute on Ageing:

“Suddenly dropping your food intake dramatically — cutting it by at least half for a day or so — triggers protective processes in the brain.”

He likens the effects to those from exercise, stating intermittent fasting could help protect your brain against degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Constant calorie restriction typically includes restriction of protein, and as discussed above, some of the beneficial effects of calorie restriction may actually be due to the reduction in protein. Likewise, intermittent fasting, where meals are either restricted to a small window of time each day, or calories are restricted on specific days of the week, will also typically lead to a reduction in the amount of protein you consume.

Again, going back to the featured study, the animals were only given a protein-restricted diet every other week for four months — essentially, they were on an intermittent fasting-type diet. So we’re not promoting going vegan here. Just cutting your protein back to what your body really needs, and no more. The science on this is relatively new and there are many different protocols but I personally have evolved to the point where I do it on most days. I will make exceptions a few times a month.

Alzheimer's Might be 'Brain Diabetes'

No discussion of brain health can be complete without emphasizing the need to dramatically cut down on the sugars in your diet. It's becoming increasingly clear that the same pathological process that leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes may also hold true for your brain. As you over-indulge on sugar and grains, your brain becomes overwhelmed by the consistently high levels of sugar and insulin and eventually shuts down its insulin signaling, leading to impairments in your thinking and memory abilities, and eventually causing permanent brain damage.

You may already know I have become passionate about warning of the dangers of fructose. There is NO question in my mind that consuming more than 25 grams of fructose regularly will dramatically increase your risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Consistently consuming too much fructose will inevitably wreak havoc on your body's ability to regulate proper insulin levels.

Additionally, fructose has other modes of neurotoxicity, including causing damage to the circulatory system upon which the health of your nervous system depends, as well as profoundly changing your brain's craving mechanism, often resulting in excessive hunger and subsequent consumption of additional empty carbohydrate-based calories. In one study³ from UCLA, researchers found that rats fed a fructose-rich and omega-3 fat deficient diet (similar to what is consumed by many Americans) developed both insulin resistance and impaired brain function in just six weeks.

More Tips for Avoiding Alzheimer's Disease

The beauty of following my newly revised Nutrition Plan is that it helps treat and prevent all chronic degenerative diseases, from the common ones like heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity and Alzheimer's to the ones you have never heard of or can't even pronounce. It is divided into three helpful sections, Beginner, Intermediate and Advanced to help you start at the right level.

The plan is the first step in addressing Alzheimer's disease. In spite of how common memory loss is among Westerners, it is NOT a "normal" part of aging. While even mild "senior moments" may be caused by the same brain lesions associated with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia, these cognitive changes are by no means inevitable! People who experience very little decline in their cognitive function up until their deaths have been found (post-mortem) to be free of brain lesions, showing that it's entirely possible to prevent the damage from occurring in the first place… and one of the best ways to do this is by leading a healthy lifestyle.

• Limit fructose. Most people will benefit from keeping their total fructose consumed below 25 grams per day.
• Only use moderate amounts of protein. The featured studies provide compelling evidence that in most cases you will want to limit your protein to the levels discussed in the article. Most people consume 200-300 percent more protein than their body can use and the altered metabolism and metabolic breakdown products can be pernicious to human health.
• Improve your magnesium levels. There is some exciting preliminary research strongly suggesting a decrease in Alzheimer symptoms with increased levels of magnesium in the brain. Unfortunately most magnesium supplements do not pass the blood brain barrier, but a new one, magnesium threonate, appears to and holds some promise for the future for treating this condition.
• Optimize your vitamin D levels with safe sun exposure. Strong links between low levels of vitamin D in Alzheimer's patients and poor outcomes on cognitive tests have been revealed.⁴ Researchers believe that optimal vitamin D levels may enhance the amount of important chemicals in your brain and protect brain cells by increasing the effectiveness of the glial cells in nursing damaged neurons back to health.

  Vitamin D may also exert some of its beneficial effects on Alzheimer's through its anti-inflammatory and immune-boosting properties. Sufficient vitamin D is imperative for proper functioning of your immune system to combat inflammation that is also associated with Alzheimer's.

• Keep your fasting insulin levels below 3. This is indirectly related to fructose, as it will clearly lead to insulin resistance. However other sugars (sucrose is 50 percent fructose by weight), grains and lack of exercise are also important factors.
• Vitamin B12. According to a small Finnish study recently published in the journal Neurology,⁵ people who consume foods rich in B12 may reduce their risk of Alzheimer's in their later years. For each unit increase in the marker of vitamin B12 (holotranscobalamin) the risk of developing Alzheimer's was reduced by 2 percent. Very high doses of B vitamins have also been found to treat Alzheimer's disease and reduce memory loss.
• Eat a nutritious diet, rich in folate, such as the one described in my nutrition plan. Vegetables, without question, are your best form of folate, and we should all eat plenty of fresh raw veggies every day.
• High-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. (I recommend avoiding regular consumption of most fish because, although fish is naturally high in omega-3, most fish are now severely contaminated with mercury.) High intake of the omega-3 fats EPA and DHA help by preventing cell damage caused by Alzheimer's disease, thereby slowing down its progression, and lowering your risk of developing the disorder.
• Coconut Oil may offer profound benefits in the fight against Alzheimer's disease. One of the primary fuels your brain uses is glucose, which is converted into energy. When your brain becomes insulin resistant, atrophy due to starvation can occur. However, ketone bodies, or ketoacids can also feed your brain, perhaps better, and prevent brain atrophy. It may even restore and renew neuron and nerve function in your brain after damage has set in. In fact, ketones appear to be the preferred source of brain food in patients affected by diabetes or Alzheimer's.

  Ketones are what your body produces when it converts fat (as opposed to glucose) into energy, and a primary source of ketone bodies are the medium chain triglycerides (MCT) found in coconut oil.

• Astaxanthin is a natural pigment with unique properties and many clinical benefits, including some of the most potent antioxidant activity currently known. As a fat-soluble nutrient, astaxanthin readily crosses your blood-brain barrier. One study⁶ found it may help prevent neurodegeneration associated with oxidative stress, as well as make a potent natural "brain food."
• Eat plenty of blueberries. Wild blueberries, which have high anthocyanidin and antioxidant content, are known to guard against Alzheimer's and other neurological diseases.
• Gingko biloba: Many scientific studies have found that Ginkgo biloba has positive effects for dementia. Gingko, which is derived from a tree native to Asia, has long been used medicinally in China and other countries. Sixteen years ago, in one of the first issues of my newsletter, I posted the results of a 1997 study from JAMA that showed clear evidence that Ginkgo improves cognitive performance and social functioning for those suffering from dementia. Research since then has been equally promising. One study in 2006 found Gingko as effective as the dementia drug Aricept (donepezil) for treating mild to moderate Alzheimer's type dementia. A 2010 meta-analysis found Gingko biloba to be effective for a variety of types of dementia.
• Alpha lipoic acid (ALA) can help stabilize cognitive functions among Alzheimer's patients and may slow the progression of the disease.
• Avoid and remove mercury from your body. Dental amalgam fillings, which are 50 percent mercury by weight, are one of the major sources of heavy metal toxicity, however you should be healthy prior to having them removed. Once you have adjusted to following the diet described in my optimized nutrition plan, you can follow the mercury detox protocol and then find a biological dentist to have your amalgams removed.
• Avoid aluminum, such as antiperspirants, non-stick cookware, vaccine adjuvants, etc.
• Exercise regularly. It's been suggested that exercise can trigger a change in the way the amyloid precursor protein is metabolized,⁷ thus, slowing down the onset and progression of Alzheimer's. Exercise also increases levels of the protein PGC-1alpha. Research has also shown that people with Alzheimer's have less PGC-1alpha in their brains⁸ and cells that contain more of the protein produce less of the toxic amyloid protein associated with Alzheimer's. I would strongly recommend reviewing the Peak Fitness Technique for my specific recommendations.
• Avoid flu vaccinations as most contain both mercury and aluminum, well-known neurotoxic and immunotoxic agents.
• Challenge your mind daily. Mental stimulation, especially learning something new, such as learning to play an instrument or a new language, is associated with a decreased risk of Alzheimer's. Researchers suspect that mental challenge helps to build up your brain, making it less susceptible to the lesions associated with Alzheimer's disease.
• Avoid anticholinergic and statin drugs. Drugs that block acetylcholine, a nervous system neurotransmitter, have been shown to increase your risk of dementia. These drugs include certain nighttime pain relievers, antihistamines, sleep aids, certain antidepressants, medications to control incontinence, and certain narcotic pain relievers.

  Statin drugs are particularly problematic because they suppress the synthesis of cholesterol, deplete your brain of coenzyme Q10 and neurotransmitter precursors, and prevent adequate delivery of essential fatty acids and fat-soluble antioxidants to your brain by inhibiting the production of the indispensable carrier biomolecule known as low-density lipoprotein.

Related:

Buttered Popcorn Flavoring Linked to Alzheimer’s

Diagnosis & Treatment of Mild to Moderate Alzheimer's Disease

Activities for Alzheimer’s Patients

Alzheimer’s Disease - Caregiver Tips

Final Stages of Alzheimer’s

UCLA on Alzheimer's Disease - young or old should read

Advances for Alzheimer's, Outside the Lab

Warning Signs: A New Test to Predict Alzheimer's

Super Spice Secrets: Can This Miracle Spice Stop Cancer, Alzheimer's and Arthritis?

Drinking Coffee Slashes Risk of Alzheimer’s

Stop Using 'Natural' Deodorants Until You Read This

Alzheimer’s Disease and Inappropriate Sexual Behavior

Pet Therapy

Animals Helping the Ailing, the Elderly, and the Young

Pets are way better than Therapy!

Activities for Alzheimer’s Patients

The Secret; Care Givers are the ‘Silent’ Boss

The Hoax at the Bottom of Autism and Alzheimer’s

Remember 'The Girls' - Views by Ann Hood

 

Technorati Tags: Alzheimer's,dementia,low-carb diet,Dr. Mercola,type 3 diabetes,healthy choices,caretakers

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

Video: Planned Parenthood endorses post-birth abortion

When I first saw the headline on this story I assumed that this was one of those secret videos where the ghouls don’t know they’re being recorded. But this woman, Lisa Laport Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, was arguing for post-birth abortion at a hearing before Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion. The legislature there is considering a bill that would require doctors to provide care to infants born after a botched abortion. This woman testified that it should be left up to the woman and her doctor. She didn’t come right out and say it, but she argued to allow women and doctors to murder infants…. or just leave them to suffer. One legislator who questioned her stated he was in “disbelief,” but unfortunately, this really is how the radicals on the left think. What’s really unbelievable is that our tax dollars fund this horrific organization and that our society has fallen to the point that we would even have to have a hearing of this sort. But if you listen below, our President agrees with her and Planned Parenthood.  God help us!!

Video: Obama Supports Born Alive Abortion

Illinois state Senator Obama in 2004 Defending Born Alive Abortion.

Comment: Barry Fail

America I weep for you! We were once a land of morals and heroes who gave of themselves for other(s) out of love, pure heartfelt charity and the laws of God! We've gone from the era of the Brady Bunch family values to Mylie Cyrus self destruction, corruption and selfish desires of what can I get for nothing! As we continue to "progress" away from the values that made us great our leaders continue to push for more progression towards our destruction! Oh how the great shall fall!

Related:

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

Technorati Tags: abortion,abortion survivors,late term abortions,inhumane,Planned Parenthood,torture,Life. pro-live,pro-choice,choices,babies are a gift

Planned Parenthood’s Roots

Video:  Planned Parenthood's Roots

Planned Parenthood's history goes back to the eugenic ideals of its founder, Margaret Sanger.

Video: Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's Racist Founder

Related:

Abortion, Margaret Sanger and Eugenics

The Fluke Thickens… Are Sanger and Fluke Related and Was Rush Right Afterall?

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

Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves – Video

Technorati Tags: Planned Parenthood,racism,eugenics,Margaret Sanger

Don't Leave ObamaCare Alone - Republicans Need to Get Back to Repealing ObamaCare

U.S. News - By Peter Roff - March 27, 2013

Even after three years, the nation remains divided on Obamacare. The people who already had health insurance—as well as those who have lost their insurance since Obamacare became law—still seem to hate it. The people who didn't have insurance before, and don't yet have insurance now, seem to love it because they think it means free health care. Obviously they have never heard the old saw about the free lunch.

Health care and health insurance are two distinctly different things. Having health insurance helps insulate a family against the costs of a catastrophic illness, for example, but really does nothing to guarantee any kind of quality care. All the insurance in the world will be of no use to the person who has a fatal illness science has not yet figured out how to cure.

Too much of the discussion about health care is really about the cost of health care and not enough is about quality. Some of the big thinkers out there, like former Bush White House senior aide Jim Pinkerton, have been sounding the call for even more spending on health care and on research. He makes the very salient argument that the economic costs of not doing so could be crippling 50 or even 25 years out as the nation grapples with the declining health of an aging population that is, overall, living longer—which is exactly why Obamacare is the wrong prescription for moving forward.

As many health care experts have explained, the route that the president's signature legislative achievement puts the country on is one that makes stops at places like rationing, denial of care, quality of life determination boards and other backwaters where, it will become clear uncomfortably soon, people go to die. To put it simply, America needs to spend more money on health care, not less, an idea that really is at the heart of most of the conservative proposals to transform the nation's health care industry.

Nevertheless it is the GOP that gets the rap for being parsimonious and uncaring. It's the GOP that gets ads run against it showing prominent elected officials pushing grandma out of her wheelchair and over a cliff. It's the GOP that needs to get to work talking up real reforms that will replace the sham that is Obamacare; reforms that will improve the quality of the health care available and, over time, make more health care available to more people.

The first step down this long road is for the GOP-controlled House of Representatives to once again take up the mantle of "repeal and replace" and take Obamacare apart brick by brick, beginning with the individual purchasing mandate.

Whether it's a tax, like Chief Justice John Roberts says it is, or a penalty for not buying insurance, like the Obama Administration said when trying to get its bill through Congress, the individual purchasing mandate is the singularly most unpopular part of Obamacare. Previous efforts to repeal just that section were set aside while the constitutional challenge made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that no one wanted to change the law before the court had a chance to rule.

Well, the court ruled and, contrary to what just about everyone expected, the law stands. So Congress is free to attack the mandate, head on. The House should vote on repeal of the mandate just as soon as it can. It will pass. And it should vote on it again in the fall, when key parts of Obamacare are supposed to be coming on line.

In fact, House Speaker John Boehner should make it a monthly event, forcing a wedge between the supporters of Obama and his health care plan, who like the mandate, and the folks back home, who hate it. Make congressional Democrats go on record again and again until Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is willing to let the issue come up for a vote on the other side of the Capitol. Get everyone one record as to just where they stand on the issue of the individual mandate. Then check and recheck to see if anyone has changed their position. The political media may laugh, may think it's all just political theater, but it will underscore to voters the essential point that one party really does want to repeal Obamacare, just like they do, and the other doesn't.

There may be some on the other side of the issue who would welcome this, thinking it would make the GOP look ridiculous. And they would be wrong. Right now, with the Obamacare bureaucracy still in its infancy, no one has really had to deal with how dysfunctional it will be. Over time, as the health care exchanges fail to come on line, as the system malfunctions, as it proves to be worse than anyone but its most severe critics believed it could be, public attitudes in favor of repeal will grow stronger. And when that happens it will be, for most politicians, good to have been on record as a "long time critic" of Obamacare rather than a "Johnny-come-lately" advocate for reform.

The voters may not have long memories, but the people who run the public interest groups and super PACs do. And they're still willing to spend millions on ads and grassroots development to get rid of this awful, awful law—before we all really do have to send grandma out on the ice floe and toast her memory.

Related:

Read the U.S. News Debate: Is Medicaid Expansion Good for the States?

Read the U.S. News Debate: Should Congress Repeal the Affordable Care Act?

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,defund ObamaCare

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

Even the AP Thinks This Finding Will Result in a ‘Big Headache for the Obama Administration’

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – MARCH 15: U.S. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) delivers remarks next to a tall stack of Obamacare regulations during the second day of the 40th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) March 15, 2013 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American conservative Union held its annual conference in the suburb of Washington, DC, to rally conservatives and generate ideas. Credit: Getty Images

The following story is from the Associated Press, cross-posted at The Blaze:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Insurance companies will have to pay out an average of 32 percent more for medical claims on individual health policies under President Barack Obama’s overhaul, the nation’s leading group of financial risk analysts has estimated.

That’s likely to increase premiums for at least some Americans buying individual plans.

The report by the Society of Actuaries could turn into a big headache for the Obama administration at a time when many parts of the country remain skeptical about the Affordable Care Act.

While some states will see medical claims costs per person decline, the report concluded the overwhelming majority will see double-digit increases in their individual health insurance markets, where people purchase coverage directly from insurers.

The disparities are striking. By 2017, the estimated increase would be 62 percent for California, about 80 percent for Ohio, more than 20 percent for Florida and 67 percent for Maryland. Much of the reason for the higher claims costs is that sicker people are expected to join the pool, the report said.

The report did not make similar estimates for employer plans, the mainstay for workers and their families. That’s because the primary impact of Obama’s law is on people who don’t have coverage through their jobs.

The administration questions the design of the study, saying it focused only on one piece of the puzzle and ignored cost relief strategies in the law such as tax credits to help people afford premiums and special payments to insurers who attract an outsize share of the sick. The study also doesn’t take into account the potential price-cutting effect of competition in new state insurance markets that will go live on Oct. 1, administration officials said.

At a White House briefing on Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said some of what passes for health insurance today is so skimpy it can’t be compared to the comprehensive coverage available under the law. “Some of these folks have very high catastrophic plans that don’t pay for anything unless you get hit by a bus,” she said. “They’re really mortgage protection, not health insurance.”

A prominent national expert, recently retired Medicare chief actuary Rick Foster, said the report does “a credible job” of estimating potential enrollment and costs under the law, “without trying to tilt the answers in any particular direction.”

“Having said that,” Foster added, “actuaries tend to be financially conservative, so the various assumptions might be more inclined to consider what might go wrong than to anticipate that everything will work beautifully.” Actuaries use statistics and economic theory to make long-range cost projections for insurance and pension programs sponsored by businesses and government. The society is headquartered near Chicago.

Kristi Bohn, an actuary who worked on the study, acknowledged it did not attempt to estimate the effect of subsidies, insurer competition and other factors that could mitigate cost increases. She said the goal was to look at the underlying cost of medical care.

“Claims cost is the most important driver of health care premiums,” she said.

“We don’t see ourselves as a political organization,” Bohn added. “We are trying to figure out what the situation at hand is.”

On the plus side, the report found the law will cover more than 32 million currently uninsured Americans when fully phased in. And some states – including New York and Massachusetts – will see double-digit declines in costs for claims in the individual market.

Uncertainty over costs has been a major issue since the law passed three years ago, and remains so just months before a big push to cover the uninsured gets rolling Oct. 1. Middle-class households will be able to purchase subsidized private insurance in new marketplaces, while low-income people will be steered to Medicaid and other safety net programs. States are free to accept or reject a Medicaid expansion also offered under the law.

Obama has promised that the new law will bring costs down. That seems a stretch now. While the nation has been enjoying a lull in health care inflation the past few years, even some former administration advisers say a new round of cost-curbing legislation will be needed.

Bohn said the study overall presents a mixed picture.

Millions of now-uninsured people will be covered as the market for directly purchased insurance more than doubles with the help of government subsidies. The study found that market will grow to more than 25 million people. But costs will rise because spending on sicker people and other high-cost groups will overwhelm an influx of younger, healthier people into the program.

Some of the higher-cost cases will come from existing state high-risk insurance pools. Those people will now be able to get coverage in the individual insurance market, since insurance companies will no longer be able to turn them down. Other people will end up buying their own plans because their employers cancel coverage. While some of these individuals might save money for themselves, they will end up raising costs for others.

Part the reason for the wide disparities in the study is that states have different populations and insurance rules. In the relatively small number of states where insurers were already restricted from charging higher rates to older, sicker people, the cost impact is less.

“States are starting from different starting points, and they are all getting closer to one another,” said Bohn.

The study also did not model the likely patchwork results from some states accepting the law’s Medicaid expansion while others reject it. It presented estimates for two hypothetical scenarios in which all states either accept or reject the expansion.

Larry Levitt, an insurance expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, reviewed the report and said the actuaries need to answer more questions.

“I’d generally characterize it as providing useful background information, but I don’t think it’s complete enough to be treated as a projection,” Levitt said. The conclusion that employers with sicker workers would drop coverage is “speculative,” he said.

Another caveat: The Society of Actuaries contracted Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, to do the number-crunching that drives the report. United also owns the nation’s largest health insurance company. Bohn said the study reflects the professional conclusions of the society, not Optum or its parent company.

Featured image via AFP/Getty. Carousel photo by Olivier Douliery/ABACAUSA.com

Related:

The ObamaCare Document Stack Photo: Obamacare’s Regulations in One Giant Stack - 20,000 Pages Already

Congressional Report: Obamacare Leads to Skyrocketing Premiums, 200 Percent Possible

Paul Ryan Reveals His Plan to Balance the Budget in 10 Years Includes Repealing Obamacare

ObamaCare Survival Guide

Beating Obamacare: Your Handbook for the New Healthcare Law

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,healthcare premiums,Affordable Care Act,ObamaCare costs,Mitch McConnell,Optum

Obamavote: Healthcare application registers voters, too

Washington Examiner: The 61-page online Obamacare draft application for health care includes asking if the applicant wants to register to vote, raising the specter that pro-Obama groups being tapped to help Americans sign up for the program will also steer them to register with the Democratic Party.

On page 59, after numerous questions about the applicant's identity and qualification for Obamacare, comes the question: "Would you like to register to vote?" The placement of the question could lead some to believe they have to register to vote to get health care.

In the introduction of the document, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services declare: "This document-the 'questionnaire'-represents each possible item that may need to be asked for successful eligibility determinations."

In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Monday, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., chair of the House Ways and Means Oversight subcommittee, said HHS is overstepping its bounds by a mile.

"The draft documents wander into areas outside the department's purview and links applications for health insurance subsidies to voter registration," he wrote in the letter provided to Secrets. "The position of the question could lead some to think voter registration is somehow tied to subsidy eligibility," he added.

Boustany, a Louisiana Republican, said the application raises two alarming issues: What does HHS plan to do with all the information it collects on each applicant and will pro-Obama groups like AARP and Families USA that might be tapped as "navigators" to sign people up to Obamacare, steer them to register as Democrats. Others have indicated that groups like Planned Parenthood and ACORN could also act as a navigator.

In his letter, Boustany demands from HHS guidance for the navigator program, especially whether they will be encouraged to ask applicants about their voting status. He set an April 8 deadline for HHS' response.

He added that the Affordable Care Act does not let HHS probe into an applicant's choice to vote. What's more, he said the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that federal agencies seek only information needed to do their job.

"While the health care law requires that government agencies collect vast information about Americans' personal lives, it does not give your department an interest in whether individual Americans choose to vote," wrote Boustany.

Obamacare Draft Application

Letter: http://www.scribd.com/doc/132265184/Obamacare-Draft-Application

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,repeal and replace ObamaCare,manipulation of the public,defund ObamaCare,voter registration,over-stepping bounds,unconstitutional,stand-up America,low-informed voters,Obamavote,registering voters through ObamaCare,Obamalnd,watch the other hand,voter manipulation