Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Obamacare Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 18, 2014 14 Comments
Obama's recent claim that Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was "some adviser who never worked on our staff" will now be subject to new scrutiny given a video that surfaced yesterday. Brendan Bordelon of National Review has the scoop:
Obama in 2006: ‘I Have Stolen Ideas Liberally’ From Jonathan Gruber This weekend, President Obama dismissed MIT professor Jonathan Gruber as “some adviser who never worked on our staff.” But back in 2006, the president struck a much more laudatory tone while addressing the future architect of Obamacare. At a Brookings Institution meeting in 2006, Obama praised the policy accomplishments of the man who would later imperil the Affordable Care Act through repeated comments belittling the intelligence of American voters. In the video provided by conservative group American Commitment, the president calls Gruber one of “the brightest minds from academia and policy circles,” claiming he’s one of a small group of experts from whom he’s “stolen ideas liberally.”
Watch it all here: Deroy Murdock of National Review notes that Obamacare made Gruber a very wealthy man:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 16, 2014 14 Comments
Religious organizations challenging the PPACA's contraception mandate have lost their latest battle against the Act's "religious accommodation." Last week the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia threw out a series of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the accommodation on multiple grounds. These organizations have argued that the accommodation does not provide adequate protections to religious freedom because an organization's request actually "triggers" a provision that activates substitute coverage:
The contraceptive coverage opt-out mechanism substantially burdens Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, Plaintiffs contend, by failing to extricate them from providing, paying for, or facilitating access to contraception. In particular, they assert that the notice they submit in requesting accommodation is a “trigger” that activates substitute coverage, and that the government will “hijack” their health plans and use them as “conduits” for providing contraceptive coverage to their employees and students. Plaintiffs dispute that the government has any compelling interest in obliging them to give notice of their wish to take advantage of the accommodation. And they argue that the government has failed to show that the notice requirement is the least restrictive means of serving any such interest.
The Court, however, was not convinced:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 15, 2014 26 Comments
In the wake of the 4th, 5th and 6th new Jonathan Gruber videos, the Republican National Committee has created a new video called #Grubering. GOP Chairman Reince Priebus explained why in a press release yesterday:
RNC Releases New “#Grubering” Video WASHINGTON – Today, the Republican National Committee (RNC) released a new web video entitled “#Grubering,” highlighting clips of ObamaCare comments made by Jonathan Gruber and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. “Gruber’s comments reveal how President Obama and Democrats like Nancy Pelosi took advantage of Americans and violated the trust of voters. Like Gruber, they clearly think Americans are too ‘stupid’ to figure out what’s in our own best interest,” said Chairman Priebus. “In 2009, Nancy Pelosi encouraged Americans to read Gruber’s ObamaCare analysis, and now she is claiming she doesn’t know who Gruber is. The lack of transparency from the White House and Democrat leaders is appalling.”
Here's the spot: Gruber's insulting remarks have gone viral and even CNN is reporting the story now.

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 14, 2014 37 Comments
Now that Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has been exposed for the liberal pseudo-mastermind that he is, people are beginning to ask Democratic Party leaders how much they knew about him. Nancy Pelosi denied knowing him yesterday, but she's been caught in a lie. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post reported:
Nancy Pelosi says she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in 2009. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn't even "know who he is." Many have pointed out since then that Pelosi's office has cited Gruber's work in the past. That's notable, but it's very unlikely Pelosi herself wrote those press releases herself or even participated in their drafting. But then there's this: Pelosi herself has also mentioned Gruber and his work -- back in November 2009, at the height of the Obamacare debate.
Here's the video. Who do you believe--Ms. Pelosi, or your lying eyes?

Posted by Amy Miller on November 10, 2014 38 Comments
One of Obamacare's architects was recently caught in a nasty moment of honesty that has the potential to further damage Democrats who signed on to the Affordable Care Act. Jonathan Gruber, who served as a technical advisor to President Obama during the ACA's planning phases, revealed during a panel discussion that Obamacare was not designed as a tax, and that the lack of transparency about the new law was the only thing that saved the controversial legislation from an untimely death in Congress. American Commitment has the video:
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 07, 2014 26 Comments
The issue of subsidies on the federal exchange has been accepted by the Supreme Court. Scotusblog reports:
The Supreme Court, moving back into the abiding controversy over the new health care law, agreed early Friday afternoon to decide how far the federal government can extend its program of subsidies to buyers of health insurance. At issue is whether the program of tax credits applies only in the consumer marketplaces set up by 16 states, and not at federally-run sites in 34 states. Rather than waiting until Monday to announce its action, which would be the usual mode at this time in the Court year, the Justices released the order granting review of King v. Burwell not long after finishing their closed-door private Conference. By adding the case to its decision docket at this point, without waiting for further action in lower federal courts, as the Obama administration had asked, the Court assured that it would rule on the case during the current Term. If it confines the subsidies to the state-run “exchanges,” it is widely understood that this would crash the Affordable Care Act’s carefully balanced economic arrangements.
We previously wrote about the King case, Whipsaw: 4th Circuit upholds Obamacare federal exchange subsidy after D.C. Circuit rejects:

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 30, 2014 8 Comments
To be fair, Senator Kay Hagan wasn't the only Democrat who said people would be able to keep their healthcare plans and doctors under Obamacare. Lots of Democrats made that claim, including Obama and many of his supporters in the media. It's funny how they're so tongue tied now. Kay Hagan was asked about her position in a TV Interview Tuesday night. Transcript and video by the Washington Free Beacon:
Kay Hagan Won’t Say She Regrets Falsely Telling People They Could Keep Their Health Plans Senator Kay Hagan (D., N.C.) refused to answer whether she regrets repeating President Obama’s famous lie that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Hagan talked about failed legislative proposals to help North Carolinians keep their health care plans instead of expressing regret over her endorsement of President Obama’s statement in a TV interview Tuesday night. “But if you knew then what you know now, do you think you would have said it that many times?” the anchor asked.
Here's the video: The North Carolina senate race took an especially nasty turn recently when Harry Reid's super PAC tried to blame Hagan's Republican challenger Thom Tillis for the death of Trayvon Martin.

Posted by Mike LaChance on October 25, 2014 5 Comments
Some people think Obamacare is ancient history and Democrats would certainly like to believe that but it's still an important issue. Byron York of the Washington Examiner explains the how and why:
Who says Obamacare isn't major factor in midterms? Some Democrats and their advocates in the press believe Obamacare, a year into implementation, is no longer much of a factor in the midterm elections. But no one has told Republican candidates, who are still pounding away at the Affordable Care Act on the stump. And no one has told voters, especially those in states with closely contested Senate races, who regularly place it among the top issues of the campaign. In Arkansas, Republican challenger Tom Cotton is pulling ahead of incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor partly on the strength of a relentless focus on Obamacare. Cotton's newest ad attacks Pryor over the law, as did two of Cotton's four previous ads. "In our polling, [Obamacare] continues to be just as hot as it's been all year long," says a source in the Cotton campaign. "If you look at a word cloud of voters' biggest hesitation in voting for Mark Pryor, the two biggest words are 'Obama' and 'Obamacare.' Everything after that is almost an afterthought."
Voters have every reason to be suspicious. It turns out there are some things we won't be told until after the election. Valerie Richardson of the Washington Times has the story:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 30, 2014 4 Comments
The latest video from the Foundation for Government Accountability argues that Medicaid expansion under Obamacare places convicts in line for Medicaid benefits before the elderly and vulnerable.

According to the FGA:

“Everyone should know that a lawmaker calling for expansion is asking for criminals to get priority medical care at the expense of the disabled, elderly, children and others already enrolled in the current Medicaid program,” said FGA CEO Tarren Bragdon.

“What’s worse is that the victims of violent crimes will now be paying the medical bills of those who victimized them, all while watching their grandparent’s and children’s health care suffer.”

Lawmakers in expansion states have decided to put their most needy citizens on the chopping block so they can move able-bodied, working-age adults; almost all of whom (82 percent) have no children to support, nearly half of whom (45 percent) do not work, many of whom (35 percent) with a record of run-ins with the criminal justice system to the front of the line. So what happens to those on the ObamaCare chopping block? States that previously expanded Medicaid had to eliminate coverage for life-saving organ transplants, overload waitlists for services, cap enrollment and raise patient costs, all because promises were broken and costs exceeded projections.

Here's the quite operatic video:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 30, 2014 5 Comments
In case you haven't noticed, the Affordable Care Act has been the subject of multiple lawsuits since its inception; most recently, states have gone to the courts to challenge an IRS rule providing federal subsidies on the Obamacare health care exchanges. A district court in Oklahoma is the latest federal court to steamroll the federal government's argument---and the judges who decided to allow it:
Noting that Obama administration wants to issue Exchange subsidies in states with federal Exchanges even though the PPACA (quoting Halbig) “unambiguously restricts the [Exchange] subsidy to insurance purchased on Exchanges ‘established by the State,’” Judge White argues that the government’s interpretation (quoting the Tenth Circuit in Sundance Assocs., Inc., v. Reno) “leads us down a path toward Alice’s Wonderland, where up is down and down is up, and words mean anything.” As evidence, White quotes the concurring opinion in King: “‘[E]stablished by the State’ indeed means established by the state – except when it does not[.]”

Posted by Mike LaChance on September 28, 2014 29 Comments
Remember when the left scoffed at Sarah Palin for pointing out that Obamacare would lead to rationing and death panels? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who was involved in the creation of Obamacare, doesn't. In case you missed it, Dr. Emanuel recently penned a ghoulish piece for The Atlantic in which he said that he hopes to die by age 75. Nothing creepy about this:
Why I Hope to Die at 75 An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly Seventy-five. That’s how long I want to live: 75 years. This preference drives my daughters crazy. It drives my brothers crazy. My loving friends think I am crazy. They think that I can’t mean what I say; that I haven’t thought clearly about this, because there is so much in the world to see and do. To convince me of my errors, they enumerate the myriad people I know who are over 75 and doing quite well. They are certain that as I get closer to 75, I will push the desired age back to 80, then 85, maybe even 90.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 16, 2014 20 Comments
For all the times we've been told Obamacare does not fund abortion, a new GAO report proves exactly the opposite. Salon wrote this fantastic piece decrying anti-choice activists who bought into the Obamacare-abortion myth, and last night the Washington Examiner released their findings related to the GAO report and recapped the debate as follows:
Again and again, during the congressional debate, Obamacare defenders promised: Obamacare subsidies won't subsidize abortion; customers will be able to choose insurance plans that don't cover abortion; Obamacare subsidies, if they want to pay for abortion coverage, will be billed separately. A new GAO report shows that Obamacare is failing on these counts. Warning of "bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost," for instance, President Obama told Congress in 2009: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place."
The Examiner summarized the GAO report:
Customers in five states have no abortion-free plans available to them, and in many states, customers can't tell which plans cover abortion and which don't. In Washington State, for instance, the state's exchange bills customers on behalf of insurers--and the exchange covers abortion with federal tax dollars. The GAO found: "the exchange’s billing system was not assessing any premium to individuals whose premiums are fully subsidized under the law if these individuals are enrolled in QHPs that cover non-excepted abortion services."

Posted by Prudence Paine on September 10, 2014 21 Comments
Last week, Planned Parenthood announced its opposition to Republican proposals to make contraceptives available as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs. Let me paraphrase Planned Parenthood's three points of opposition:

1) The expanded access to birth control is being offered by Republicans. Republicans hate women. Ergo, vote for Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO).

Planned Parenthood claims that GOP efforts to expand birth control access is "an empty gesture," because (get ready for non sequiturs) Republicans want to repeal Obamacare and support the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The Washington Examiner notes that "A number of Republican Senate candidates have backed over-the-counter birth control in races this year, including Cory Gardner in Colorado, Thom Tillis in North Carolina, Ed Gillespie in Virginia, Mike McFadden in Minnesota." What the leading abortion provider's press release does not mention is that OTC contraceptives would free many women from having to go to (and pay) its offices to get a prescription for the drugs. If birth control pills were easy to get over-the-counter, Planned Parenthood would lose a tremendous revenue stream. It benefits when the government forces women to go to its prescription-writing centers. It benefits by restricting a woman's access to birth control. By Planned Parenthood's own 2012 statistics, 34 percent of its revenue comes from "contraception" services, 37.9 percent of which are "oral" contraceptives. That's 13 percent of its annual take that could vanish if birth control pills were sold next to aspirin and antacids. Its 2013 annual report shows Planned Parenthood took in $1.2 billion dollars, so it stands to lose $156 million a year if GOP proposals gain ground.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 05, 2014 14 Comments
I don't know how I missed this yesterday. Actually, I do know. I was off the internets for most of the day, and the world kept turning without me. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted (Order embedded at bottom of post) en banc (full court) hearing in the Halbig case, in which an appeals court panel found that the IRS had no authority to grant people who signed up for Obamacare on the federal exchange tax subsidies which, under the statute, were only for those who signed up on state exchanges. The same day as the original Halbig decision was released, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reached a different conclusion. The split in Circuits convinced just about everyone that the case was on the fast track to the Supreme Court. But many speculated at the time that the D.C. Circuit, packed with Obama appointees, would take the case en banc, uphold the IRS regs, and avoid a Circuit split. I didn't think that would happen, but I was wrong. Via Prof. Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 01, 2014 13 Comments
The American Medical Association wants to jumpstart a health care discussion that died a political death almost five years ago: to "death panel," or not to "death panel?" Of course, we're not talking about actual panels making life-or-death decisions on behalf of patients, but mandated coverage for "end of life discussions" between patients and doctors. Back in 2009, Sarah Palin coined the divisive term, and woke America up to the possibility that yes, handing over our health care decisions to the government a little bit at a time could backfire in spectacular and inhumane ways. The New York Times reports that the AMA is putting pressure on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to begin covering these end of life discussions. If the Center adopts the AMA's recommendations, Medicare patients could start receiving coverage for these conversations as early as next year. From the Times:
“We think it’s really important to incentivize this kind of care,” said Dr. Barbara Levy, chairwoman of the A.M.A. committee that submits reimbursement recommendations to Medicare. “The idea is to make sure patients and their families understand the consequences, the pros and cons and options so they can make the best decision for them.” Now, some doctors conduct such conversations for free or shoehorn them into other medical visits. Dr. Joseph Hinterberger, a family physician here in Dundee, wants to avoid situations in which he has had to decide for incapacitated patients who had no family or stated preferences.
Although the Affordable Care Act contains no coverage requirements for end of life conversations, many private insurance companies have made the choice on their own to cover these appointments.
Accessibility by WAH