Mason

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/01/HHS-Report-1-295-571-Obamacare-Enrollees-May-or-May-Not-Be-Legal-Citizens

HHS Report: 1,295,571 Obamacare Enrollees May or May Not Be Legal Citizens

A devastating new Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General report released on Tuesday reveals that the Obama administration has yet to determine whether 1,295,571 of the over 8 million Obamacare enrollees are U.S. citizens lawfully in the country.

The finding, located on page 11 of the report, states that 44% of the remaining 2,611,780 application "inconsistencies" are related to verifying "Citizenship/national status/lawful presence." Another 960,492 application inconsistencies were related to verifying whether subsidy applicants provided accurate income information.

Moreover, the Inspector General report only covered the federal Obamacare exchanges to determine how the Obama administration resolved verification problems through December 2013. As for the 15 state-run Obamacare exchanges, the report says four--Oregon, Nevada, Vermont, and Massachusetts--are simply "unable to resolve inconsistencies."

As the Washington Post reported in May, as many as one million Obamacare enrollees may be receiving incorrect taxpayer-funded subsidies due to Obamacare's continued technical failures and inability to properly verify income and citizenship eligibility.

One year ago, conservatives warned that the Obama administration's decision to use the so-called "honor system" for income eligibility was merely a backdoor way to get as many individuals on the public dole as possible.

The Office of Inspector General determined that "the federal marketplace was generally incapable of resolving most inconsistencies."

Obamacare will cost U.S. taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the next ten years.

Baldo

Jul 2 2014, 11:24 AM

...Digging out from under the data problem is one of the top challenges facing newly installed HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell

Quote:

 

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/07/02/berkeley-plans-to-provide-free-weed-for-low-income-patients-marijuana-pot-collectives-dispensaries/

Berkeley Requires Marijuana Dispensaries To Provide Free Weed For Low-Income Patients

The city of Berkeley will require medical marijuana dispensaries to give away two percent of the amount of cannabis they sell each year free to low-income patients.

The City Council voted unanimously at Tuesday’s meeting to amend the city’s medical pot rules, which would also allow for a fourth dispensary in Berkeley

“Basically, the city council wants to make sure that low-income, homeless, indigent folks have access to their medical marijuana, their medicine,” said Berkeley City Councilmember Darryl Moore.

Under the proposal, at least two percent of all medical weed dispensed at a club would have to be provided at no cost to very low-income members — and it must be the same quality that’s dispensed to regular paying customers.

“We think this is the responsible thing to do for those less fortunate in our community,” said Moore.

The measure also revisits definitions for cannabis collectives and dispensaries, patients and caregivers, on top of setting new rules for hours of operation and the methods for testing cannabis and edibles.

One Berkeley marijuana dispensary, the Berkeley Patients Group, already gives out free cannabis to the poor, and has for 15 years.

“We’ve found out over the years that one of the cruel realities is that when you do get sick and you have a serious illness is that it’s often hard to keep a job, can be hard to keep your income up, so those people really need the help the most,” said Sean Luse of Berkeley Patients Group.

The measure is set for final approval next week

Quote:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/02/More-Legal-Challenges-Coming-Against-Obamacare

More Legal Challenges Coming Against Obamacare

With the Obama administration’s defeat in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, all eyes now turn to further Obamacare challenges. Chief Justice John Roberts shockingly greenlit Obamacare itself by converting it into a tax from a stated penalty, but he has also shown a partial willingness to chip away at the law.

There are two more upcoming cases on Obamacare worth watching. We can only hope that such lawsuits are just the beginning when it comes to the implementation of a law with regulations stacking up to eight feet tall.

Halbig v. Burwell: This case seemingly turns on a technicality, but it could completely sink the workability of Obamacare itself. The law allows for federal subsidies for those who buy their care through state exchanges; if subsidies are unavailable, those people can claim exemption from Obamacare penalties for hardship reasons.

There is one major problem for the Obama administration: 34 states refused to start state healthcare exchanges, and the law makes no provision for subsidies for those who buy their coverage through the federal exchange. That means that millions of people who applied for coverage through the federal exchange could be left without subsidies, freeing them of Obamacare penalties and destroying the base upon which Obamacare is based.

As Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University writes:

• 
  
• The administration's loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support — and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.

There are two other cases pending on the same topic.

Sissell v. Health and Human Services: The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to decide on this case, which questions how Obamacare could be Constitutional given the Supreme Court’s bizarre reclassification of Obamacare as a tax rather than a penalty.

All revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives, but Obamacare originated in the Senate. Pacific Legal Foundation is behind the case, and its principal attorney explains, “When lawmakers passed the ACA, with all of its taxes, did they follow the Constitution’s procedures for revenue increases? The Supreme Court wasn’t asked and didn’t address this question… The question of whether the Constitution was obeyed needs to be litigated, and PLF is determined to see this important issue all the way through the courts.”

Obamacare is a legal thicket that will only continue to rack up injuries – and accompanying lawsuits – as time passes. If the Roberts Court is more receptive to clipping away at Obamacare than it was to dismantling it, conservatives may yet have some legal hope.