We recently reported that Obamacare Co-Ops have been dropping like dead, rotting flies.
Now, in the wake of the continued failures of program implementation, a new challenge has been filed with the Supreme Court:
Foes of President Obama’s health care law are taking another crack at upending the legislation, filing a new challenge with the Supreme Court after a separate long-shot case was rejected earlier this year.
The petition filed Monday by the Pacific Legal Foundation, like the prior challenge, focuses on an obscure aspect of the law. The case contends ObamaCare violates the provision of the Constitution that requires tax-raising bills to originate in the House of Representatives.
Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer Timothy Sandefur, alleging the law is “unconstitutional in so many ways,” said justices will face one challenge to the law after another until it is significantly changed or repealed.
The new appeal, filed on behalf of small-business owner Matt Sissel, stems from the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which requires that the House be the first to pass a bill “for raising revenue.”
This lawsuit is particularly timely, as new analysis shows that billions in Obamacare funds have gone missing:
The federal government awarded over $5 billion to help states set up ObamaCare exchanges, with the vast majority – $4.6 billion – going to 16 states and Washington, D.C.
But, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, much of that money has not been accounted for – and yet not returned, either.
…The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) required the establishment of health insurance exchanges – known as marketplaces – to help small employers and consumers compare and purchase insurance plans. States opted to either develop their own state-based exchanges or hand authority to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). And between 2010 and 2014, CMS awarded federal grants mostly to states setting up their own marketplaces, to help them get started.
About $4.6 billion was given to these 17 recipients, including California, New York, Washington state and Kentucky.
But the GAO report found that so far, just $1.4 billion of that has been spent on IT projects, and a total of $3 billion has been “spent or drawn down,” though not all the spending is detailed.
That, then, leaves at least $1.6 billion unaccounted for. Yet only three states returned any portion of the money – a total of just over $1 million was given back.
The potential corruption that may have essentially led to the diversion of such a vast sum of taxpayer dollars is worthy of SCOTUS-level scrutiny.
Of course, taxpayers are forced to endure another fiscal responsibility standard entirely. The IRS has been issuing “shared responsibility payment” letters for citizens who have not procured the requisite health insurance:
Thanks Obama for the fine for not having insurance
Because the the plan I had that was 398.00 a month for my family only increased to 1400.00 a month in 2014
So I chose not to pay 1400.00 a month
So got a nice little fine
Thanks for the affordable care act.
Thanks for making it so affordable!!
And what are those of us who have paid getting for their money? Perhaps less healthcare than originally advertised!
Conservative dynamo Tammy Bruce reviewed the recent American Cancer Society revisions (ACS) to mammogram recommendations, which reduce the mammograms to once every 2 years for women over 55 and eliminate the entirely when there is less than 10 years life expectancy (i.e., 60-65 years of age).
I spoke with various individuals involved in both the medical and insurance fields, and all agreed that the government task force and the ACS guidelines will be looked to by insurance companies determining what to cover, and what not to cover; it is essentially the permission slip for health insurance companies to stop paying for annual mammograms.
But it doesn’t stop there. For some reason, the ACS also “advises against clinical breast exams in which doctors physically check a woman’s breasts for lumps,” reports Fox. This micro-managing of something only a woman and her doctor should decide simply allows the insurance company to refuse payment for that as well.
If there is a bright side to the saga, it is that Obama was at least truthful when he said that his program would reduce costs…to the federal government and the insurance companies that partnered in promoting this monstrosity.
Here’s to hoping that the next time the justices see the overwhelming evidence that Obamacare is unconstitutional, they swat it like a fly!DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.