| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,556 Views) | |
| Baldo | Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM Post #1 |
|
Time for a new thread as the old one is getting too long |
 |
 
|
| Baldo | Mar 3 2014, 02:28 PM Post #2 |
|
Obamacare: ‘Obviously Inadmissible’ In its landmark ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court got one issue right, muffed the other. March 3, 2014 Of all the problems with the Affordable Care Act, two fundamental flaws in President Obama’s self-described “legacy” are that the legislation unconstitutionally originated in the Senate, and that it violates the Tenth Amendment — the final provision of the Bill of Rights. Hereafter, the “Affordable Care Act” will be called “Obamacare,” not for derogatory reasons but because the official name of the bill misrepresents what it is. Lawsuits challenging Obamacare on both issues are currently pending. Sissel v. HHS and Hotze v. Sebelius challenge the law under the Origination Clause, and are likely on their way to the Supreme Court, with stops currently at the D.C. Circuit and the Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals respectively. In Sissel v. HHS, 44 members of Congress signed an amici curiae brief in support of the plaintiff-appellant’s position. Another lawsuit in Wisconsin, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. IRS, presents a Tenth Amendment frontal assault on what remains of the ACA after the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. In that case, the Court ruled 7 to 2 that the “Medicaid expansion” portion of Obamacare “violates the Constitution [i.e., the Tenth Amendment] by threatening existing Medicaid funding.” In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts explained that “Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions.” This ruling, often overlooked by the media,was in the same case in which the Court, narrowly and conditionally, upheld the individual mandate under “Congress’s power to tax.” The Tenth Amendment foundation upon which the Supreme Court struck down one portion of Obamacare rests upon an earlier ruling that the federal government cannot “compel” a state, as an independent sovereign in our country’s federal system, to regulate. In that 1992 ruling, New York v. United States, the Court determined that “the Constitution simply does not give Congress the authority to require the States to regulate.” As Justice Roberts noted — quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) — in the majority opinion in the 2012 landmark case, “when ‘pressure turns into compulsion,’ the legislation runs contrary to our system of federalism.” While the states’-rights challenge to the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare in 2012 was based upon, and repeatedly cited, the 1992 precedent, the Supreme Court did not consider that same Tenth Amendment challenge to the individual mandate. The 1992 opinion relied heavily upon a 1936 decision, United States v. Butler, for its explanation that “the Tenth Amendment confirms that the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve power to the States. . . . ‘The question is not what power the Federal Government ought to have but what powers in fact have been given by the people.’” Butler examined the constitutionality of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, a bill that enacted processing taxes on agricultural commodities. In striking down the law, the Court explained: “The act invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement are but parts of the plan. They are but means to an unconstitutional end.” The Court further held in Butler that “The power of taxation, which is expressly granted, may, of course, be adopted as a means to carry into operation another power also expressly granted. But resort to the taxing power to effectuate an end which is not legitimate, not within the scope of the Constitution, is obviously inadmissible.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, Congress cannot use its taxing power to allow it to control something it has no constitutional power to control. Wittingly or not, the Chief Justice’s 2012 conditional conclusion that the individual mandate “is within Congress’s power to tax” was diametrically opposed to the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Butler. Then again, our current Supreme Court was standing more for a Constitution that was living, breathing, moving, and serpentining. If one were simply to substitute Obamacare for the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, and “health care” for “agricultural production,” the Court’s 1936 constitutional analysis should still hold: “[Obamacare] invades the reserved rights of the states. It is a statutory plan to regulate and control [health care], a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. The tax, the appropriation of the funds raised, and the direction for their disbursement, are but parts of the plan.” How could something “obviously inadmissible” under the Tenth Amendment 78 years ago be conditionally approved by the Supreme Court in 2012, even as the Court was reaffirming the federalism principles underlying the Tenth Amendment in the same case? Sooner or later the U.S. Supreme Court should deal with the elephant it has brought into the room by ignoring clear Tenth Amendment precedent. Authors Representative Louie Gohmert is vice chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Before being elected to Congress, he served as chief justice of Texas’s Twelfth Court of Appeals. He is a co-signer of the amici curiae brief in Sissel v. HHS. . . . Joseph E. Schmitz is a former inspector general of the Department of Defense (2002–05), pro-bono counsel to the signers of the amici curiae brief in Sissel v. HHS, and the author of both The Inspector General Handbook: Fraud, Waste, Abuse, and Other Constitutional Enemies, “Foreign and Domestic” (Center for Security Policy, 2013) and “The Forgotten Preamble: Introduction to the Bill of Rights Gives More Meaning to the Tenth Amendment,” FYI (American Legislative Exchange Council, April 24, 1996). http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372349/obamacare-obviously-inadmissible-louie-gohmert-joseph-e-schmitz Edited by Baldo, Mar 3 2014, 02:30 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Mar 3 2014, 04:39 PM Post #3 |
|
One in Three Say They’ve Been Personally Hurt by Obamacare One-third of Americans say the Affordable Care Act has had a negative impact on them personally, while 14 percent say the law has helped them, according to a new Rasmussen Survey. The poll finds that public dissatisfaction with Obamcare remains nearly as high as it was during the height of the website’s problems last year. Rasmussen finds that more people say they have a “very unfavorable” opinion of the law than have a favorable opinion of it at 41 and 40 percent, respectively. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they view the law unfavorably, just shy of a high of 58 percent in November of last year. Of the 40 percent who have a favorable opinion, only 16 percent view the law ”very favorably.” The one-third of Americans who say they have been hurt by the law is a slight increase from the 29 percent who said the same in January, while those saying they had been helped by the law dropped 2 percent over the same period. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372412/one-three-say-theyve-been-personally-hurt-obamacare-andrew-johnson |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 3 2014, 04:43 PM Post #4 |
|
Add link to last thread in first post here http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/5270845/1/ |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 3 2014, 05:23 PM Post #5 |
|
Because the other two in three are blind... Even going with a liberal dream-come-true, not more than 2% of the population will benefit more than it costs them in taxes. Don't forget the private policies all come with a tax for the Obamacare bailout. |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Mar 4 2014, 09:52 AM Post #6 |
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems
I don't think this will work. It will piss off those who did get dumped, and it will piss off the insurance companies and employers who have already canceled these plans, or already gone a long way towards canceling the plans. They won't want to reverse course now. They will have already done a lot of work and spent a lot of money changing things around. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Mar 4 2014, 10:01 AM Post #7 |
|
Cover Oregon health insurance exchange fiasco spawns problems for low-income Oregonians' health plan Nearly 4,000 applicants for a state program that provides undocumented immigrants with pregnancy services were instead enrolled in full Oregon Health Plan coverage, contrary to federal law, thanks to problems with the Cover Oregon health insurance exchange. State officials say they discovered the problem several weeks ago and are correcting it. The pregnancy program goof, however, is just one of many little-known problems that Oregon Health Plan members, providers, care groups and state officials have wrestled with as Oregon’s system for enrolling people undergoes chaotic change....snipped ...“It never works perfectly the first time out,” said Kathleen Paul, an Oregon Health Authority manager who has worked on the Cover Oregon information-technology project....snipped http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index.ssf/2014/03/cover_oregon_health_insurance_1.html |
|
|
|
| LTC8K6 | Mar 4 2014, 10:08 AM Post #8 |
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
|
Oregon’s Obamacare Exchange To Pay Main Tech Contractor Another $44M Despite Website Still Not Working http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/oregons-obamacare-exchange-to-pay-main-tech-contractor-another-44m-despite-website-still-not-working/ |
|
|
|
| Joan Foster | Mar 4 2014, 10:42 AM Post #9 |
|
I don't think it will work either. Why delay it if it is going to be so painless and a boon to so many? The only reason for delay is that it hurts Dems....and it only hurts Dems if it is going to REALLY hurt the voters. People will understand that the pain is still coming if they vote for these Dems. |
|
|
| Kerri P. | Mar 4 2014, 12:26 PM Post #10 |
|
I think this is why they're delaying it yet again. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-getting-destroyed-key-senate-142414525.html Democrats Are Getting Destroyed In Key Senate States Edited by Kerri P., Mar 4 2014, 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 4 2014, 01:18 PM Post #11 |
|
The types of policies allowed is a regulations thingy, so that they can do. Whether or not it is done properly is another matter that few care about nowadays. It actually slows the growth of the plans sold thru the exchange, which doesn't seem to matter much as slow as it's going. This Obamacare mess was designed to hide costs well, starting with taxes a couple years before the spending really started and picking our pockets a little here and there, so it's not so obvious ...slow death. I suspect it's a bigger failure than the Dem's anticipated, so they're trying to string it along with the hopes they can fix it later when fewer disagree with or grow accustomed to it... similar to a few other entitlements we have. The two methods to end it I see will be economic collapse and/or the courts, as politicians won't repeal it. The bailout by taxpayers is delayed if Obamacare grows slower. Though the insurance companies lose more money the 3 R's must cover, Obamacare pays out less in Medicaid and Exchange subsidies, so the collapse is slow to come. The courts look more promising to me. Anyway, the most we'll see come of more changes is the public judgment that Barry has a loser on his hands. |
|
|
|
| Kerri P. | Mar 4 2014, 01:36 PM Post #12 |
|
http://theweek.com/article/index/257336/speedreads-obama-delays-the-parts-of-obamacare-you-wont-like-until-after-election Obama delays the parts of ObamaCare you won't like until after election |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 5 2014, 01:27 PM Post #13 |
|
On cable news... The Obama budget included Obamacare cost increases of $60 billion more for tax subsidies and $5.5 billion more for the Rosk Corridor bailout. Knowing his budget never had a chance to pass and that Obamacare is the problem Dem's face in the coming election(s), why in the world would he do that? That seems plain stupid to me. |
|
|
|
| wingedwheel | Mar 5 2014, 01:32 PM Post #14 |
Not Pictured Above
|
When the MSM gives you a pass on everything you can do what you like. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Mar 5 2014, 02:35 PM Post #15 |
|
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/03/obamacare-architect-be-prepared-to-kiss-your-insurance-company-good-bye-forever Obamacare Architect: ‘Be Prepared to Kiss Your Insurance Company Good-Bye Forever’ |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13