Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obamacare Tag

Posted by Casey Breznick on February 14, 2015 19 Comments
"Socialism is like a nude beach. Sounds pretty good until you actually get there." Iowahawk on Twitter
Last week, Cornell's President David Skorton dropped a bombshell on the student body when he announced, in an email sent to all students, a $350 student health fee to be levied on all students who do not purchase Cornell's Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP) starting next academic year. Immediately, the campus erupted in outrage over yet another hike in the cost to attend Cornell---one that would not be covered by financial aid because it is a fee and one that was announced so suddenly without any warning from the University administration. The Cornell Review, the campus's conservative publication of which I am Editor-in-Chief, was the first to break the story and has worked diligently all week gathering and reporting as much information as possible to bring the situation to national attention. I am scheduled to appear on Fox & Friends Sunday morning (tentatively 7:20 a.m. Eastern)[see update below] to discuss the student protests. When the fee was first announced, the student body---conservative, liberal, and apolitical---united in a way it rarely does, directing collective indignation towards the administration for shoving more costs onto students and their families.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 13, 2015 15 Comments
Earlier this week, President Obama sat down to promote Obamacare interview with Buzzfeed and Vox.
Post by BuzzFeed Video.
That the President chose listacles, cat memes, and explainer 'journalism' was not unnoticed by Right leaning media, and thus outrage ensued. Many, like Fox New's Greta Van Susteren simply want our president to be SERIOUS. ISIS is crucifying and beheading their way across the Middle East, Yemen is in shambles, thanks to Senate Democrats, DHS could potentially start the month of March unfunded, Montana is trying to ban yoga pants, Jon Stewart is leaving The Daily Show, and the whole world is going to hell. And here's our President turned gif, wielding a Selfie Stick, striking his best Tom Cruise in a dirty mirror.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 10, 2015 41 Comments
Due to regulations imposed by Obamacare, some businesses are cutting the work hours of their employees. This was a known, predicted consequence of the Affordable Care Act. Staples is just the latest newsworthy example. Remember, businesses can only try to survive under the given set of rules---but some employees are having a hard time keeping that in mind when they see their pay stubs. Ashley Lutz of Business Insider:
Staples threatens to fire employees who work more than 25 hours a week Part-time Staples workers are furious that they could be fired for working more than 25 hours a week. The company implemented the policy to avoid paying benefits under the Affordable Care Act, reports Sapna Maheshwari at Buzzfeed. The healthcare law mandates that workers with more than 30 hours a week receive healthcare. If Staples doesn't offer benefits, it could be fined $3,000 in penalties per person. Buzzfeed spoke with several Staples workers who revealed their hours have been drastically cut over the past year. Many reported working as few as 20 hours. The workers started a petition on Change.org asking the company not to "cut part-time hours because of Obamacare."
It's terrible that these folks are losing work hours, but it's not unexpected, and it's not the fault of Staples---that's just as far as an employee wants to look when it's suddenly gotten harder to pay the bills and feed their families. You think it's bad now, wait until people start dealing with their tax returns.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 36 Comments
In the months leading up to the first Supreme Court Obamacare decision, there was a concerted media and Democratic effort to portray the legitimacy of the Court, and particularly the legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts, as dependent on the outcome. The argument went that holding Obamacare's mandate to be unconstitutional would be such a huge interference in the political process that the Court would lose its supposed role as neutral referee and become a political player. Because as we all know, that has never happened before (/sarc), see, Roe v. Wade, etc. This pressure reportedly caused Roberts to change his vote, and to join with the for liberal members of the Court in finding the mandate justified under Congress' taxing power. Now the media pressure is mounting on Obamacare II, the subsidy case the Court accepted this term. The issue is whether the statutory language of Obamacare permits subsidies (the only way Obamacare policies are affordable for most) on the federal exchange set up when most states refused. This issue of statutory interpretation is not exceptional legally, except that the political stakes are so high. If the statute is read not to permit the subsidies, Obamacare likely crumbles of its own weight. Enter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court and judicial reporter for The NY Times, with scare mongering about the legitimacy of the Court, The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court:

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on January 26, 2015 30 Comments
The upcoming Supreme Court case of King v. Burwell holds much in the balance, including the very financial sustainability of President Obama’s signature law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ability for the law to support itself would almost certainly collapse. At issue in King is the legality of an IRS rule allowing exchanges operated by the federal government to issue tax subsidies to qualified individuals purchasing health insurance through the exchange. This is an incredibly complex issue, and many courts, scholars, and commentators have spent thousands upon thousands (upon thousands) of pages of argument attempting to arrive at the proper conclusion. Ultimately, we must wait until the Supreme Court decides this case at the end of the term to learn the definitive conclusion. The complexity of the law notwithstanding, many commentators remain convinced that any ruling against the government would be one for politics over the law, leading to familiar questions of the “institutional legitimacy” of the Supreme Court should they rule against the government. This is nothing new, especially when it comes to the issue of PPACA. Indeed, in the wake of the 2012 PPACA challenge, a litany of law professors and legal scholars shared in the assessment that striking down PPACA would result in substantial costs “for the Court as institution and for its credibility carrying out its vital national role going forward.”

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 11, 2015 8 Comments
Single payer activists disrupted the inauguration of Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin this weekend. Somewhere between November and now, we forgot to tell them that even though a Democrat won the election, they lost. Mike Donoghue of the Burlington Free Press:
Police ID 29 arrested at Statehouse protest The Vermont State Police have identified the 29 protesters arrested on suspicion of unlawful trespass for ignoring orders to leave the Statehouse following a sit-in Thursday in Montpelier. James Haslam, executive director of the Vermont Workers' Center and the organizer of the sit-in protest over single-payer health care on the day of Gov. Peter Shumlin's inauguration, was not among them. "I had some commitments in the morning to deliver two little kids to school. Family comes first," Haslam told the Burlington Free Press. Haslam, who kept his distance, said others were prepared to be arrested. For his part, Shumlin said he was disappointed some protesters tried to interrupt his inaugural address, but was bothered more that the demonstrators disrupted the final benediction by the Rev. Robert Potter of the Peacham Congregational Church. "I found it heartbreaking," he said.
The incident was caught on video, watch it below.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 04, 2015 13 Comments
Tax season is right around the corner and this year brings another consequence of the Affordable Care Act. Many Americans are going to discover that instead of getting a tax refund, they will owe money to the IRS. Tami Luhby of CNN Money reports:
Obamacare tax surprise looming Obamacare enrollees who received subsidies to help pay for coverage will soon have to reconcile how much they actually earned in 2014 with how much they estimated when they applied many, many months ago. This will likely lead to some very unhappy Americans. Those who underestimated their income either will receive smaller tax refunds or will owe the IRS money. That's because subsidies are actually tax credits and are based on annual income, but folks got their 2014 subsidy before knowing exactly what they'd make in 2014. So you'll have to reconcile the two with the IRS during the upcoming tax filing season. It won't be surprising if many enrollees guessed wrong. The sign up period began in October 2013 and many people did not know what they'd earn in 2014. Some went off what they earned in 2012... Those who underestimated their earnings could owe thousands of dollars, though there is a $2,500 cap for those who remain eligible for subsidies. The threshold for eligibility is based on income - $45,900 for an individual and $94,200 for a family in 2014.
Isn't it great how Democrats have tied our healthcare system to our tax system?

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 03, 2015 12 Comments
King v. Burwell is the case the Supreme Court agreed to hear involving Obamacare subsidies on federal exchange. You will recall that the legal issue is whether the IRS violated the express provisions of Obamacare by issuing rules allowing taxpayers to claims federal subsidies when purchasing on the federal exchange, even though the language of the statute appears not to allow that. In King, the Fourth Circuit ruled that there was possible ambiguity and another potential reading of the law, such that apparently clear language was not that clear, giving the IRS leeway to interpret the statute. In another case, Halbig v. Burwell, a D.C. Circuit panel had ruled that the subsidies were not available on the federal exchange, but that ruling was vacated pending the entire D.C. Circuit Court hearing the case en banc. In a surprise move, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the King case even though there was no split in the Circuits (after the Halbig decision was vacated). King will be one of the biggest decisions of this term, and if the Obama administration loses the case, it could be the death of Obamacare as we know it, because 37 states have refused to create state exchanges. Obamacare is affordable only with subsidies, and if the subsidies are not available to citizens of 37 states, the system likely collapses. One key issue is whether the wording of the statute was a mistake or misstatement, or reflected a logical policy. Obamacare was set up in such a way as to put pressure on states to create state exchanges by providing for federal subsidies in the form of tax credits only for purchases on state exchanges. This was a conscious decision, as explained by none other than Jonathan Gruber: Into the fray leaps Mark Levin and his Landmark Legal Foundation, which just filed a friend of the court, Amicus Curiae Brief. The full Brief is embedded below.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 29, 2014 57 Comments
For months, nay years, I have been predicting that the promise of quality healthcare for the poor via rapidly expanded Medicaid enrollments was a house of cards, a fraud, a three-card monte game, a sham, a man-made disaster, a Gruberesque fake meant to deceive the "stupid" people into believing that the promise of Obamacare was real instead of styrofoam faux-Greek columns basking in the neon light of Hollywood-driven love and media sycophancy. For many reasons, but mostly because doctors would not work for peanuts, they would revolt like the kulaks and choose not to work rather than see the fruits of their labors handed out for free or close to free: And now, for "BREAKING" news, As Medicaid Rolls Swell, Cuts in Payments to Doctors Threaten Access to Care (via Instapundit):
Just as millions of people are gaining insurance through Medicaid, the program is poised to make deep cuts in payments to many doctors, prompting some physicians and consumer advocates to warn that the reductions could make it more difficult for Medicaid patients to obtain care. The Affordable Care Act provided a big increase in Medicaid payments for primary care in 2013 and 2014. But the increase expires on Thursday — just weeks after the Obama administration told the Supreme Court that doctors and other providers had no legal right to challenge the adequacy of payments they received from Medicaid. The impact will vary by state, but a study by the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan research organization, estimates that doctors who have been receiving the enhanced payments will see their fees for primary care cut by 43 percent, on average.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 20, 2014 6 Comments
The ultra-liberal state of Vermont never liked Obamacare but not for the reasons most Americans object to the law. Vermont felt it didn't go far enough and was determined to establish its own single payer system. As of this week, that plan is dead. Sarah Wheaton of Politico:
Why single payer died in Vermont Vermont was supposed to be the beacon for a single-payer health care system in America. But now its plans are in ruins, and its onetime champion Gov. Peter Shumlin may have set back the cause. Advocates of a “Medicare for all” approach were largely sidelined during the national Obamacare debate. The health law left a private insurance system in place and didn’t even include a weaker “public option” government plan to run alongside more traditional commercial ones. So single-payer advocates looked instead to make a breakthrough in the states. Bills have been introduced from Hawaii to New York; former Medicare chief Don Berwick made it a key plank of his unsuccessful primary race for Massachusetts governor. Vermont under Shumlin became the most visible trailblazer. Until Wednesday, when the governor admitted what critics had said all along: He couldn’t pay for it.
Advocates of a single payer healthcare system may not realize just how bad this news is for them. Vermont was their best shot. John Fund of National Review noted this:
Health-care experts from outside Vermont point out some of the implications. “It’s a very liberal state, and its leaders spent years trying to design a system that would work,” Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute observes. “If Vermont can’t make it work, single-payer can’t work anywhere in the country where the economy has free and competitive markets. It’s more evidence that centralized government health care is simply not workable in America.”
All is not lost for the Green Mountain state. One of their senators might even run for president.

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 19, 2014 21 Comments
In the haze of the recent news about Cuba, you may not have heard that Dr. Vivek Murthy has been confirmed as the new Surgeon General of the United States. Tanya Somanader of the White House blog reported:
The Nation's Doctor: Dr. Vivek Murthy Is Confirmed as Surgeon General The Surgeon General is America's doctor, responsible for providing Americans with the best scientific information on how to improve our collective well-being. Now, Dr. Vivek Murthy will be the next physician to don the lab coat of the Surgeon General after the Senate confirmed his nomination today. "I applaud the Senate for confirming Vivek Murthy to be our country’s next Surgeon General," the President said following the confirmation. "As ‘America’s Doctor,’ Vivek will hit the ground running to make sure every American has the information they need to keep themselves and their families safe. He’ll bring his lifetime of experience promoting public health to bear on priorities ranging from stopping new diseases to helping our kids grow up healthy and strong."
Dr. Murthy supported Obama's candidacy for president and was also an integral member of "Doctors for America" which has ties to Obama's campaign machine "Organizing for America." In a 2009 column, Michelle Malkin connected the dots:

Posted by Mike LaChance on December 17, 2014 8 Comments
In case you're not aware, the damning videos of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, which confirmed the worst fears of every single critic of Obamacare, weren't uncovered by a journalist. The entire American media complex was scooped by a regular guy who started looking into the way the law was passed after losing his healthcare plan. James O'Keefe of Project Veritas recently sat down with the man only identified as "Rich" for an enlightening interview, in which he explains why he released the videos:
Project Veritas is releasing a video interview of the man who recently brought videos of MIT economist and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber to public attention. Award-winning journalist and best-selling author James O’Keefe conducted the interview, which is being distributed on YouTube. During the interview, “Rich” stated that there was intentional mislabeling in the Affordable Care Act in order to hide a secret agenda in the bill: A two-hundred-and-fifty billion dollar per year tax grab. “President Obama promised us the most transparent administration in history,” said Project Veritas President James O’Keefe. “Rich has opened a new debate about an effect of the Affordable Care Act which will impact over one hundred and fifty million Americans. We deserve to know if part of the Obamacare plan was intended to eliminate the two hundred and fifty billion dollar yearly tax break. If this is the case, we also deserve to why this information was kept from the public by the White House.”
Watch the interview below: All is not lost for Gruber. In fact, one person thinks he deserves an award.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on December 14, 2014 10 Comments
Watching the maneuvering to rush through CRomnibus 2014, a massive bill few have read, reminds me of how Senate Democrats pushed through Obamacare legislation on December 24, 2009. That Senate bill became the foundation of the Obamcare eventually enacted, because Senate Dems lost their filibuster proof majority when Scott Brown was elected in January 2010. The House Dems were forced to swallow the Senate bill, with only minor "reconciliation" changes. I wrote just before passage, Dems Break It, They Own It:
Equally important was the fact that the Democratic bills, regardless of which version one picks, were monumental disasters waiting to happen, as I have written about almost 200 times in the past several months. I have analyzed, among other things, the unprecedented and possibly unconstitutional individual mandate, the use of the IRS as health care enforcer, the expansion of government bureaucracies, the increase in job-killing taxes, and a host of other fundamental flaws in Democratic proposals. For Republicans to sign onto this manmade disaster would be to betray our traditions, our constitutional form of government, and individual liberties.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on December 09, 2014 45 Comments

Jonathan Gruber testifies before an unimpressed Congressional Oversight Committee...

Posted by Amy Miller on November 26, 2014 9 Comments
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) might just be the worst Democratic Policy and Communications Center head of all time. Or, the best, depending on how invested you are to Congressional Dems' current messaging strategy. Yesterday, Schumer stood up at the National Press Club and unequivocally threw President Obama and his coalition under the bus for pressing forward with health care reform at the expense of more "middle class"-oriented programs. Fusion has his remarks:
The “mandate” voters had provided Democrats with their 2008 victories, Schumer said, was put on the wrong problem. “After passing the stimulus, Democrats should have continued to propose middle class-oriented programs and built on the partial success of the stimulus, but unfortunately Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them. We took their mandate and put all of our focus on the wrong problem – health care reform,” Schumer said. “The plight of uninsured Americans and the hardships caused by unfair insurance company practices certainly needed to be addressed,” he added. “But it wasn’t the change we were hired to make. Americans were crying out for an end to the recession, for better wages and more jobs — not for changes in their health care.”
Sure, Schumer was one of Obamacare's biggest cheerleaders, but that was then and this is now, people!

Posted by Amy Miller on November 22, 2014 48 Comments
Today the House GOP sued the Obama Administration in federal court over the Administration's decision to make changes to the version of the Affordable Care Act that Congress passed. From CNN:
The one-two punch from Boehner marks a new era of tension between Republicans who will officially take over Congress in January, and the President who has signaled that despite his party's losses in the midterms, he plans to proceed with his agenda without GOP cooperation. After two Washington firms pulled out of commitments to represent the House in recent months, Boehner hired George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley earlier this week. Turley is an expert on constitutional law and has appeared on multiple television networks as a legal analyst. Boehner and other top congressional Republican leaders are also contemplating a filing a separate lawsuit challenging the president's authority to take executive action to give 5 million immigrants temporary status.
This move has been coming since July, when the chamber passed House Resolution 676, which authorized the lawsuit. Although lawmakers are already being criticized for not taking immediate action to stop Obama's executive order on immigration, there's a good reason for the delay.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 21, 2014 10 Comments
The House of Representatives filed suit this morning over Obama administration unilateral changes to Obamacare. A complete copy of the Complaint is embedded at the bottom of this post. This is expected to be the template for suit over immigration changes announced last night. The NY Times describes the claims in the lawsuit:
The lawsuit — filed against the secretaries of the Health and Human Services and Treasury Departments — focuses on two crucial aspects of the way the administration has put the Affordable Care Act into effect. The suit accuses the Obama administration of unlawfully postponing a requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to their full-time employees or pay penalties. (Larger companies are defined as those with 50 or more employees.) In July 2013, the administration deferred that requirement until 2015. Seven months later, the administration announced a further delay, until 2016, for employers with 50 to 99 employees. The suit also challenges what it says is President Obama’s unlawful giveaway of roughly $175 billion to insurance companies under the law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration will pay that amount to the companies over the next 10 years, though the funds have not been appropriated by Congress. The lawsuit argues that it is an unlawful transfer of funds.
Accessibility by WAH