Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obamacare Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on September 13, 2015 22 Comments
This past week proved contentious for Republicans in Congress. Allies returned to the dark side, Democrats sided with a mortal enemy, and a split in the caucus over how to best handle the disastrous Iran nuclear deal boiled over into a very public battle. Amid the power struggle, the Republicans in the House came out ahead---at least as far as Obamacare is concerned. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that House Republicans have standing to sue the Obama Administration over the Administration's handling of the Obamacare rollout. The House sued Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew of both spending unappropriated money to implement the new policies, and effectively amending the employer mandate without the approval of Congress. The court ruled that the House has standing to pursue its claims relating to appropriations, but not those related to Lew's implementation of the statute. More via Reuters:
Collyer did not rule on the merits of the claims, only on the administration's motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the issue of standing, a requirement in U.S. law whereby plaintiffs have to show they have been directly harmed.

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 19, 2015 31 Comments
In the race for the 2016 Republican nomination, John Kasich is being taken seriously because he's been a popular governor for Ohio, and because...well...Ohio. As you may recall, his biggest applause lines in the first GOP debate were for his stance on caring for the mentally ill and for citing God's unconditional love on the question of gay marriage. Kasich seems to be running on compassionate conservatism 2.0, but don't take my word for it. NBC News reports:
John Kasich Pitches Compassion at Iowa State Fair Ohio Gov. John Kasich sought to portray himself as compassionate conservative and touted his gains in the polls in New Hampshire when he visited the Iowa State Fair on Tuesday. His soapbox speech, which had to be moved indoors because of rain, contained little of the red meat typically doled out when Republican presidential candidates address Iowa crowds. Instead, his speech hit on topics ranging from aid to Africa, treating Alzheimer's disease and expanding Medicaid in Ohio.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 19, 2015 22 Comments
If you've been craving red meat health care policy from the Republican candidates, hopefuls Scott Walker and Marco Rubio have something they'd like you to take a look at. This week both candidates introduced voters to their plans to repeal and replace Barack Obama's controversial health care reforms with policies they claim will roll back government intervention while still protecting Americans from the effects of another health care overhaul. Rubio's plan is anchored by three primary components:
  • "Advanceable, refundable tax credits"---according to Rubio, he envisions these credits increasing in value, and would also include relief for employers who provide insurance.
  • Regulatory reform---Rubio wants to enable purchases across state lines, expand and encourage the use of HSAs, and implement protections for people with preexisting conditions.
  • Medicare and Medicaid reform---Rubio plans to implement a block-grant system for Medicaid funding, and craft policies that will transition future Medicare recipients into a system based on choice and free market competition.
Rubio announced this plan in an editorial for Politico:

Posted by Mike LaChance on August 13, 2015 18 Comments
Carly Fiorina appeared on CNN this week with Jake Tapper who asked her how she could oppose Obamacare as a cancer survivor. Tapper respectfully pointed out that she's a survivor of breast cancer and asked about the provision which requires coverage of pre-existing conditions. Fiorina responded by saying that while she supports coverage for people with pre-existing conditions, Obamacare isn't helping many of those people. Transcript via Frank Camp of the IJ Review:
Fiorina: “I absolutely endorse that goal–I did at the time. But guess what? None of that has worked. Demonstrably, if you look at the results of Obamacare… health insurance premiums are up almost 40% now. That isn’t helping anyone with cancer, I can assure you that–” Tapper: “But the expansion of the pool allows the insurance companies to pay for the people with pre-existing conditions.” Fiorina: “…Who helped write Obamacare? The health insurance companies, and the drug companies. And guess what’s happening? Those companies are consolidating. That’s called crony capitalism.”
Watch the full exchange below:

Posted by Jay Caruso on July 22, 2015 22 Comments
When President Obama was pushing Obamacare, he stated  before a joint session of Congress in September 2009 that it would not be opened up to illegal immigrants. Remember what happened next? Representative Joe Wilson yelled, "You lie!" and it caused quite a stir. Here's the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-vt_OrSeWk Wilson may have violated the rules of decorum, but was he wrong? It has taken some time, but President Obama may owe Wilson an apology. From Forbes:

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 04, 2015 9 Comments
The White House released a memo for all Americans on Thursday. They want us to be sure to defend Obamacare from any disparaging family members. Sarah Ferris of The Hill:
White House: Have you talked to your family about ObamaCare lately? The Obama administration wants you to bring a side of healthcare politics to your family picnic this weekend. After ObamaCare’s big win at the Supreme Court last week, federal health officials are serving up some tips about talking to family members who may be less-than-enthused that ObamaCare is here to stay. “You should be prepared when Aunt Janine says something like, ‘Obamacare hasn’t helped anyone!’” a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services wrote in a blog post on Thursday. For instance, if your Uncle Ted starts calling Obamacare a train wreck, you should calmly explain that he’s “gotten ahold of some old talking points," the spokesman recommends.

Posted by Julius Kairey on June 28, 2015 26 Comments
In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision, much of social media instantly descended into a mob of gleefulness, unrestrained by reason or critical thinking. People were so ecstatic at the arrival of nationwide same-sex marriage that they could not realize what they were losing in the process. Last Friday, the Supreme Court stole from them, and all of us, something fundamental: the right to govern ourselves. The decision last week was not about whether gay marriage is a good or a bad idea. Reasonable people can disagree about that. The question was: who decides? Do the people decide by debate and deliberation, through referendums, legislative action, protests, and other democratic activity? Or do nine lawyers decide the issue by majority vote, without accountability to the people? Justice Kennedy’s opinion -- which reads like a sociological treatise rather than a legal judgement -- is nothing less than a sweeping assertion that constitutional text and history can be dispensed with when making judicial determinations.

Posted by Amy Miller on June 28, 2015 15 Comments
Last week's breathtakingly disappointing Supreme Court decision in the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case still has activists reeling. Where do we go from here? Burwell was a narrow case, but its ruling is one more brick we'll have to deal with when tearing down the health care house that Barack built. Still, progressives are riding high in the wake of the ruling, using it as a tactic to bolster confidence in the program and fight back conservative opposition to the health care law. Former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took to the airwaves to praise the ruling and above all, defend her pet program---by insisting that people stop her on the streets to thank her for Obamacare. Watch, via Real Clear Politics:
I think this law has always been about people who wanted and needed desperately affordable health coverage. There's 6.4 million people who now know the coverage that they have, can continue on with subsidies and millions more who can take advantage of it. I've been a lucky one, I've always had affordable available health care. So I feel great for the people who talk to me every day in the grocery store and on airplanes and stop me on sidewalks and tell me that this has changed their life forever. They no longer have to worry about affording health care if they get sick, taking care of their kids and this is a very good day for those Americans.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 27, 2015 14 Comments
Following the surreal decision of the Supreme Court regarding ObamaCare subsidies, Texas Representative Brian Babin (R) wants to ensure that the justices take full advantage of the law they just contorted in order to save it.  Picking up Justice Scalia's comment that the decision effectively turns ObamaCare into SCOTUScare, Babin has introduced a bill that requires Supreme Court justices to sign up for ObamaCare. Watch: From Babin's website:
U.S. Representative Brian Babin (TX-36) issued the following statement today after introducing the SCOTUScare Act (H.R. 2905), which finally eliminates their exemption and requires all U.S. Supreme Court Justices and their employees to sign up for Obamacare:

Posted by Amy Miller on June 27, 2015 17 Comments
This week's SCOTUS opinions have sent American political discourse through all areas of policy, off the pavement, and into the weeds. What's next in the fight to repeal Obamacare? Does the gay marriage ruling mean that my pastor will have to perform same sex ceremonies? They're good questions (and fair questions), and we're right to float them. Gay marriage dominated the end of the week, but the Obamacare debate is still at the forefront of discussion; namely, how we can expect to dismantle this monster of a health care law given this week's latest Supreme wrinkle? Jeb Bush has an idea---and it may put him at odds with other members of the Republican Party. Bush appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this week and fielded a controversial question: if elected President, would he support using the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster if it meant the end of Obamacare? At first, Bush seemed to want to focus on a policy solution that could unite Republicans, but when pressed, said he would consider using the controversial tactic. Via Bloomberg:
Hewitt pressed Bush, pointing out that Republicans are unlikely to get 60 Senate to defeat a filibuster if Democrats stick together and block efforts to repeal Obamacare, as they have done for years. "At that point," Hewitt said, "would you at least be open to making the argument that on this issue, before it gets its tentacles too deep, that we break the filibuster and ram through a repeal and replacement?"

Posted by New Neo on June 25, 2015 37 Comments
A dissent has no power except the power of its words and its logic. So Justice Scalia's dissent in King v. Burwell (joined by Alito and Thomas) is satisfying only in the rhetorical and intellectual sense. But it is so good that I'm highlighting it again anyway. Here are some excerpts:
[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925)...Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved... ...The somersaults of statutory interpretation [this Court has] performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 25, 2015 139 Comments
My soundbite: "The Supreme Court today rewrote Obamacare in order to save Obamacare. The plain meaning of the term 'Exchange established by the State' was contorted to mean established by the State or Federal government. That contortion, Justice Scalia correctly noted in dissent, effectively has turned Obamacare into SCOTUScare." ---------- Decision just in in King v. Burwell. Here. In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that subsidies are available on the federal exchanges. Those voting in the majority were Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Had the court ruled otherwise, it would have put all of Obamacare in jeopardy, since 38 states do not have exchanges and Obamacare is too expensive for most people without a subsidy. The issue was whether only state-established exchanges could issue tax credits, or whether the federal exchanges could also. Challengers to IRS regulations pointed to the words “established by the State” in the legislation as clear and unambiguous that subsidies were limited to state exchanges. The Court rejected this assertion:

Posted by Mike LaChance on June 23, 2015 20 Comments
Back in the fall of 2014, when the news of Grubergate broke, Obama claimed that Jonathan Gruber was just some advisor who never worked on his staff. You don't have to take my word for it. Here's a video of Obama responding to a direct question on the subject from Ed Henry of FOX News: You might be shocked to learn that our president wasn't being entirely truthful.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 21, 2015 7 Comments
Think tanks, policy wonks, legislative staffers, and politijunkies are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling on King v. Burwell. As for the rest of the country, most have clue why this case is so crucial. John David Danielson of The Federalist addressed this issue Thursday:
According to a new poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 7 in 10 Americans have heard little or nothing about King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court case that will, any day now, decide the fate of Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies for millions of Americans. Yet 63 percent of those surveyed also say that if the court rules against the government, Congress should act to keep those subsidies in place. Got that? The vast majority of Americans know almost nothing about this case, but 63 percent have an opinion about what Congress should do in response to a ruling that carries certain policy implications.
Thanks for nothing, Media. But what about those enrolled in Obamacare? The Foundation for Government Accountability surveyed voters enrolled in a federal exchange heath care plan. Obamacare customers do think Congress should act to change the law, but not for the same reasons as the general respondents surveyed in the Kaiser Family Foundation poll.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 20, 2015 24 Comments
There has been a lot of speculation, including by me, about what the Republican-controlled Congress will do should the Supreme Court rule against Obama in King v. Burwell.  Should the Court strike down federal subsidies, Republicans will need to have a plan in place to address this decision as it impacts those who are currently receiving subsidies for ObamaCare from the federal exchange because their state did not set up a state exchange. Republicans are still talking about a "fix" but are now stressing that it is to be "transitional" rather than permanent.  According to Bloomberg:
[Representative Dennis Ross of Florida] added, “There’s a strong consensus in that room” that the subsidies must be continued in some form “until Republicans can substantively change the law.” Participants at Wednesday’s closed-door meeting said key aspects of a transition plan were presented to lawmakers by Ryan, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price of Georgia and Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline of Minnesota. Along with immediate repeal of the law’s individual and employer mandates, the plan would give states the option to build their own insurance exchanges and offer subsidies, using federal money. Alternatively, people in states affected by the ruling would receive a subsidy to purchase an insurance plan either from healthcare.gov or on the open market.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 15, 2015 22 Comments
Here at LI, we've covered numerous aspects of ObamaCare from its questionable passage to legal challenges to various executive branch "tweaks" and shady exemptions to the devastating effects the law has had on millions of Americans. Now, apparently, the executive branch is going above and beyond the law in its efforts to keep the unpopular law afloat despite ample evidence that it's a disaster. Obama has repeatedly shown that he doesn't think he needs Congress' approval to change the law, and now he's being accused of funding parts of it without Congressional appropriations.  Funds set aside specifically for tax refunds owed to hard-working Americans are being used to subsidize the Basic Health Program associated with ObamaCare.  According to Paige Winfield Cunningham:
Leading Republicans are charging that the Obama administration is illegally funding yet another part of Obamacare, in addition to the part of the healthcare law over which House Republicans are already suing. Their latest criticism centers on the Affordable Care Act's basic health program, an optional program for states that started this year, in which low-income residents can get subsidized, state-contracted health plans instead of buying them through the new online marketplaces. The administration is funding the program illegally by using a pot of IRS money used for tax refunds, says Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., who leads oversight efforts on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 12, 2015 31 Comments
Electronic medical records were supposed to save doctors' time and improve results by putting your entire medical history in one place. Two major problems. First, it doesn't work. What takes a physician a couple of minutes to write on your chart now can become a burdensome scroll through computer screens:
Government regulators are backing down from many of their toughest requirements for doctors' and hospitals' use of digital medical records, just as Congress is stepping up its oversight of issues with the costly technology. Under the Affordable Care Act, doctors and hospitals are being pushed to switch from paper to electronic records.... The federal government has spent about $28 billion in incentives to help doctors install and use EHRs, also called EMRs. But these digitized records remain the bane of many doctor and patient relationships in the Louisville area and across the nation, as physicians stare at computer screens during consultations.... Electronic health records "have made our lives harder" without improving safety, said Jean Ross, co-president of National Nurses United. Last year, the nurse union called on the FDA "to enact much tougher oversight and public protections" on electronic health records use.
Accessibility by WAH