Why Obamacare Could be Heading to the Supreme Court (Again)

This past week, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, over the vigorous dissent of four judges on that court, denied rehearing en banc (legalese for an entire court rather than just a panel of three judges) in the case of Sissel v. United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Sissel is a case against Obamacare led by the Pacific Legal Foundation, arguing that Obamacare is invalid because it violated the Origination Clause.

Now, the challengers have ninety days to file a writ of certiorari (an appeal) before the U.S. Supreme Court.

This important case deals with the Origination Clause of the Constitution— which reads:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Founders included this clause primarily to balance out the unique powers the Senate wields, and to ensure that the power of drawing revenue from the people by taxing them would be initiated by the branch that was closest to them (remember, at that time the Senate was elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote) and whose members would have to stand for re-election every two years.

In the first major Obamacare decision, NFIB v. Sibelius, the Court upheld the law as a tax—something that surprised many people.

But if it’s a tax, shouldn’t the bill have originated in the House?

As it happens, Obamacare “originated” in the House in only a very formalistic sense.

H.R. 3590, the bill that became Obamacare, was originally titled “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” and had nothing to do with health care.

But to secure passage of Obamacare, the Senate decided to take this bill, which had passed the House, and gut it entirely, replacing the entire text of that bill with the Obamacare title and text and keeping only the bill number.

After it passed the Senate, the House then approved the new Senate-drafted bill through a reconciliation bill.

The House made no changes to the text, which, because of the Senate’s obscure procedural rules, meant that when the bill went back to the Senate, it was not subject to a filibuster.

This was significant because, in the interim, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., had died and been replaced by Scott Brown, R-Mass., thereby depriving the Democrats of the 60 votes they would need to defeat an otherwise inevitable Republican filibuster.

And thus was Obamacare born.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

Under Obamacare, Uninsured Rate Fell to Lowest Level in 50 Years. Why There’s More to That Number.

Nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, a new survey found that the number of uninsured Americans decreased to less than 10 percent of the population in the first three months of 2015, which is the lowest level in the survey’s 50-year history. 

However, experts say the change could be mostly attributed to the Obama administration’s expansion of Medicaid.

According to the survey from the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the Centers for Disease Control, the number of people who were uninsured declined from 36 million in 2014 to 29 million in the first three months of 2015. Among adults between the ages of 18 and 64, the percentage of those who were uninsured dropped from 16.3 percent in 2014 to 13 percent in 2015’s first quarter.

The changes to the rate of uninsured come nearly two years after Obamacare’s implementation, which went into effect October 2013.

While the drop speaks to the mission of the health care law, Ed Haislmaier, a health policy expert, pointed to outside factors that affect the decrease in the number of uninsured Americans.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health policy at The Heritage Foundation, said that though it’s likely the Obama administration was likely “in the ballpark” for the changes in the number of uninsured, the survey had limitations.

Primarily, the government relied on answers from 26,121 respondents as opposed to an actual count, such as the number of people enrolled in health coverage, data that can be provided by health insurance companies.

“They’re trying to say how many people didn’t have coverage and extrapolate from that,” Haislmaier said.

Most notably, though, the survey failed to address an increase to the Medicaid rolls, which stemmed from Medicaid expansion created under Obamacare.

According to Haislmaier, Medicaid enrollment from January 2014 to March 2015 went from approximately 60.9 million to 71 million.

Via: Daily Signal

Continue Reading.....

U.S. House and Senate Each Said They Had Only 45 Employees--Then Signed Up 12,359 for Insurance on Obamacare 'Small-Business' Exchange

 (CNSNews.com) – Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives certified that they had only 45 employees each in order to sign up for the District of Columbia’s Small Business Exchange. But 12,359 - or 86 percent of the exchange's enrollees - are members of Congress, congressional staff members, and their spouses and dependents, according to an appeal filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals by Judicial Watch.

The public interest law firm announced Monday that it is appealing the February dismissal of its lawsuit challenging congressional participation in the Obamacare exchange even though the D.C. Exchange Act limits enrollment to small companies with 50 or fewer employees.

“Congress obviously has far more than 50 employees,” Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha pointed out in his opening brief. “It has thousands of employees.”

Congress enrolled in the small business exchange when its previous coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan was terminated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and congressional employees stood to lose thousands of dollars in “employer contributions” if they enrolled in the District’s individual exchange.

According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives both certified that they “employ 50 or fewer full time equivalent employees.”

In October 2013, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final rule that provides an “employer contribution” covering about three-quarters of the premiums of congressional employees enrolled in the small business exchange starting Jan. 1, 2014.

The OPM rule “allowed at least 12,359 congressional employees and their spouses and dependents to obtain health insurance through the Small Business Exchange…These 12,359 participants represent an astonishing 86% of the Small Business Exchange’s total enrollment,” the appeal states.

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last October on behalf of Kirby Vining, a D.C. resident since 1986, who objected to the expenditure of municipal funds to insure congressional employees in an exchange that was established specifically for small employers in the District.

“Congress authored the law [ACA], and is going to rather questionable lengths to avoid compliance with the law it drafted,” Vining said.

D.C. resident Kirby Vining. (CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

Although the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority conceded that D.C. law limits participation in the exchange to small employers, it argued in court that “the local statute must yield to the extent the federal statute or regulation applies.”

In its motion to dismiss the case, the authority also stated that the exchange “has been funded exclusively by federal grants awarded to the District to establish its Exchange, and more recently, an assessment imposed on health carriers doing business in the District.”

In dismissing the lawsuit, D.C. Superior Court Judge Herbert Dixon ruled that Vining had no standing to challenge the OPM rule because he “has not demonstrated a reasonable inference that municipal taxpayer funds have been appropriated to defendant exchange authority to establish a cognizable injury to maintain standing to bring his underlying complaint.”

However, in a budget report submitted to Congress, the Exchange Authority’s actual budget for Fiscal Year 2013 ($10.9 million) and FY 2014 ($66.1 million) was identified as " ‘municipal monies’ as originating from the District’s General Fund. No monies are identified as Federal Funds, Private Revenue, or Intra-District Funds,” according to the appeal.

“In Fiscal Year 2015, the Exchange Authority’s budget was reclassified from the General Fund to a newly created fund, separate and distinct from ‘Federal Funds’,” it continued.

Dixon also ruled that the OPM rule preempts the D.C. Exchange Act, noting that “allowing members of Congress and their staff to participate in the District’s small business health options program is authorized by federal regulations.”

But Judicial Watch argues in its appeal that the D.C. law cannot be preempted because it is “completely consistent and entirely compatible” with the federal law and in fact its “sole purpose is to implement various provisions of ACA.”

“In reality, the court ruled that a determination by a federal bureaucrat – in this instance, the director of OPM – trumps the 50-employee limit of the Exchange Act, at least with respect to Congress,” the group’s appeal brief stated. “No lawful regulation – much less a regulation that purports to delegate such authority to an agency head – can do that, and the Court cites no legal authority whatsoever for their astonishing conclusion that it can.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that allowing Congress to enroll in an exchange meant for small businesses is both “unlawful and unethical.”

“It is an abuse of District taxpayers to use D.C. funds to subsidize illegal health insurance for Congress,” Fitton said in a statement.  “It is unlawful and unethical for District officials to use local dollars to participate in Congress’s Obamacare fraud. 

“The highest court in the District of Columbia must affirm the right of District taxpayers to protect their monies from being misappropriated by corrupt District officials.”

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Watchdog: Government failing to fully screen Obamacare applications

The Obama administration failed to properly review whether some Obamacare applicants were U.S. citizens or in jail, two factors that should disqualify people from getting health insurance under the law, according to a scathing report from a federal watchdog.

The finding of ineffective screening for applicants came about a month after an undercover operation discovered that fake applications were able to enroll in Obamacare and get subsidies. The report could also spark further outcry from Republicans in Congress, who have claimed for years that the administration has poorly managed the exchanges.

The review, conducted by the Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General, looked at 90 applications to Obamacare. They also interviewed marketplace officials and reviewed other documentation.

A slew of problems were discovered while reviewing the applications, including whether the applicant was in jail, the report said.

"Not all of the federal marketplace's internal controls were effective in ensuring that individuals were determined eligible for enrollment in QHPs and eligible for insurance affordability programs according to federal requirements," the report said.

Other inadequate controls included failing to not always properly verify Social Security numbers, citizenship, family size and annual household income, which helps determine the amount of subsidies an applicant could receive.

The report said it also identified weaknesses in the federal marketplace's procedures for resolving inconsistencies. For instance, the marketplace resolved differences in annual household income using a different method than the one it's supposed to be using, the report said.

The watchdog called on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which manage the federal exchange, to adopt several reforms. Among them are to improve procedures related to resolving inconsistencies and improve its methods for rooting out problems in an application.

The agency concurred with its recommendations and has either taken or planned to address the measures.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Everybody Has To Pay This New Obamacare Tax

All Americans who bought health insurance policies this year – not just those enrolled in Obamacare – face a 41 percent increase in excise taxes because of hidden fees contained in an obscure section of the Affordable Care Act, according to an investigation by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Virtually everyone who pays for health care insurance this year will be affected by the tax. The little-known tax was imposed on all consumers regardless of whether they obtained their insurance through Obamacare or through their employer or as individuals in the private market.

This year the tax will cost individuals more than $500 in extra premiums according to one actuarial estimate. Families who purchased insurance will see their premiums go up by more than $700.

The new tax also hits senior citizens who rely on Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage. It will land on the nation’s poor who depend upon Medicaid-managed care programs.

The 41 percent sticker shock increase doesn’t stop in 2015, however. Over the next four years, the statutorily mandated Obamacare fees are expected to double again.

Over the next decade, consumers will pay more than $145 billion for the tax, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The levy will continue to go up each and every year into the future.

The tax was buried by congressional authors in section 9010 of the law and was envisioned as a way to raise future funds to pay for Obamacare.

The Obamacare fees were designed by the program’s authors to be delayed, kicking in only in 2014 at $8 billion and mushrooming into a $14.3 billion annual price tag on insurance policies by 2018.

Republican Sen. John Barrasso, who favors repeal of section 9010, said the tax “is another example of how the president’s health care law was designed so the most painful parts of the law kick in years later.”

CBO reported the fee was a “statutorily fixed” amount that must be collected each year from consumers, as opposed to a percentage rate.

The statute describes the levy is an “annual fee” but health-care economists say it has been commonly referred to as an excise tax.

The Joint Committee on Taxation said the Obamacare tax was “similar to an excise tax based on the sales price of health insurance contracts.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading...

Cost of Obesity 'Will Wipe Out Healthcare'

Obesity weighs heavily on American health and wealth.

Carrying extra pounds undermines several major weight-bearing pillars of value-based healthcare, including disease prevention, population health management, and cost control. In interviews and email exchanges over the past week, a trio of obesity experts helped me gauge the crisis and suggested ways to slash obesity rates.

Jay H. Shubrook Jr., DO, a diabetes specialist and professor at Touro University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Vallejo, CA, says the societal costs of obesity are becoming too great to bear.

"Our public health is at stake," he says. "We will not make meaningful headway on the prevention and treatment of chronic disease until we change the infrastructure that supports unhealthy habits. An immigrant from almost any other country who moves to the U.S. becomes at higher risk for diabetes once they live here. We have a sedentary lifestyle with an abundance of high caloric foods at our disposal."

Shubrook has been witnessing the impact of historically high obesity rates in his patients for nearly two decades.

Before moving to California this year, he served in several clinical, leadership, and academic positions at OhioHealth O'Bleness Hospital, a 132-bed acute care facility in Athens, Ohio. In 2013, O'Bleness identified obesity and poor dietary infrastructure in Athens County as "areas of concern" in the organization's Community Health Needs Assessment. In addition to pegging the adult obesity rate in Athens County at about 31%, the O'Bleness health needs assessment sounds an alarm over limited access to healthy foods in low-income areas and an overly high percentage of fast food restaurants among the area's eateries.

"Obesity is a crisis for two reasons," Shubrook says. "We are seeing lower life expectancy rates among our children, and we already know we can't handle the economic impact of diabetes. It will wipe out healthcare."

Otis Brawley, MD, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society, says obesity is one of the top cancer risk factors in the United States.

"The combination of high caloric intake, obesity, and lack of physical activity will surpass tobacco as the leading cause of cancer death within the next two decades. It is already a leading cause of heart disease, diabetes, and orthopedic injury," he says.

Poor dietary habits and high obesity rates threaten to cripple the healthcare industry and the broader economy, Brawley says. "It is imperative that we reverse the trend, as healthcare costs associated with [the obesity] epidemic are already dragging our economy down and eventually will collapse our economy if it continues over the next several decades."

Justin Noble, a certified nutrition coach, children's book author, and co-founder ofMyBodyVillage.com, says the healthcare industry will be unable to "move the needle" on cost of services as long as obesity and other lifestyle-related health risk factors remain out of control.

"The main issue with healthcare in America is that it is focused on treatment instead of prevention. Eighty-six percent of all healthcare spending in 2010 was for people with one or more chronic medical conditions. The gross majority of these conditions are brought about by lack of exercise, poor diet, stress, smoking, and alcohol consumption. In a nutshell, these ailments are brought on by the choices people make. If we put more effort into giving people the tools and the resources they need to make healthy choices, we will find ourselves paying less for the diseases associated with these poor choices. Until that happens, I only see the needle moving up."

Via: MedPage Today

Continue Reading.....

2016 race takes us toward banana republic status

Which of these Republicans can win swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? 

John Minchillo AP

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy

The GOP has won the popular vote only once in the six presidential elections since 1992. That occurred in 2004 when President George W. Bush was reelected with a scant 51 percent of the vote over Democrat, John Kerry. Yes, Bush also won in 2000, but he lost the popular vote in an election that was decided by the Supreme Court. Other than 2004, the Republican nominee has not won more than 47 percent of the popular vote. Nothing suggests 2016 will be any different.

The Democrats have a significant structural advantage in amassing the 270 electoral votes it takes to win. Over the past six elections the Democrats have won 18 states and the District of Columbia every time, netting them 240 electoral votes. The Republicans have been able to carry only 13 states every time. Those states netted them a paltry 102 electoral votes.

LeRoy Goldman

In order to break this pattern the Republicans must nominate a candidate who can carry some of the states that routinely vote Democratic, and they need to be states with more than a trivial number of electoral votes. The obvious targets are in the Rust Belt – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which together have 46 electoral votes. That’s more than enough to change the outcome of the presidential election. A Republican who can’t win in one or more of these states will be another loser. And that rules out virtually all of the occupants in the current GOP Presidential Clown Car.

GOP thriving

However, in May Sean Trende and David Byler published an excellent analysis of party strength in Real Clear Politics, and it shows that the GOP is the strongest it has been in decades in Congress and at the state level. Let’s examine this strange, but real, disconnect between a party that can’t win the White House, while reigning supreme everywhere else.

Trende and Byler’s analysis shows the 54 Senate seats the Republicans now control is their second-best showing since 1928. Their 247 House seats is the best since 1928. There are 31 Republican governors, and the GOP controls both houses of the legislature in 30 states.

From 1954 until 1994 the GOP was a permanent minority in the House of Representatives. The picture was almost as bleak in the Senate. During most of that time a Republican was president. And the government worked. The American people wanted the two parties to negotiate with one another to reach compromises, which is exactly what they did.

Health care revolt

In 1994 everything changed. The Republicans came out of the wilderness. They gained 54 House seats and eight Senate seats. And in 2010 and 2014 they struck again, first retaking the House and then the Senate. Why? Hillarycare and Obamacare. Virulent opposition to Hillarycare triggered the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, and Obamacare reignited intense voter opposition to the president’s health program and the partisan manner by which the Democrats rammed it through.

Many of these newly elected Republicans are radicals, unwilling to compromise. Both sides bear major responsibility for paralyzing the federal government. Neither side will back down. Trading in Hillary for Obama next year is a certain recipe for more of the same.

Both parties deserve the public’s contempt. Yet voters continue to perpetuate the impasse. Banana republic, here we come.

Goldman worked on Capitol Hill and at the National Institutes of Health. He has retired to Flat Rock and can be reached at tks12no12@gmail.com.

Via: Charlotte Observer

Continue Reading....

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy

[VIDEO] Trump on Obamacare: "Insurance Companies Are Making A Fortune Because They Have Control Of Politicians"

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS: Gentlemen, the next series of questions deals with Obamacare and the role of the federal government. Mr. Trump, Obamacare is one of the things you call a disaster. 

DONALD TRUMP: Complete disaster, yes.

BAIER: Saying it needs to be repealed and replaced.

TRUMP: Correct.

BAIER: Now 15 years ago you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian style system. Why were you for that then and why aren't you for it now? 

TRUMP: First of all I'd like to go back to [Iraq] -- in July of 2004 I came out strongly against the war with Iraq because it was going to destabilize the Middle East. I'm the only one on the stage that knew that and had the vision to say it and that's exactly what happened. So I just want to say that. 

As far as single-payer, it works in Canada, works incredibly well in Scotland. Could have worked in a different age, which is the age you're talking about here. What I would like to see is a private system without the artificial lines around every state. I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees and if I'm negotiating in New York or New Jersey or California, I have like one bidder. 

Nobody can bid. You know why? The insurance companies are making a fortune because they have control of the politicians. Of course with the exception of the politicians on the stage. But they have total control of the politicians. They're making a fortune.

Via: Real Clear Politics Video

Continue Reading....

GOP Candidates Bash Tax Code, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank

Reforming the tax code and repealing two of President Obama’s signature pieces of legislation – ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank banking reform bill – would promote economic growth and are key priorities for the top Republican candidates for president.

In a wide-ranging debate in Cleveland sponsored by Fox News, several of the ten candidates who participated said repealing ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank would benefit U.S. businesses by lowering expenses and easing regulations that have created costly obstacles for business owners.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio said the U.S. economy has “radically transformed” in the last five years and that many categories of good paying jobs “are gone.”

“The economy we live in today is dramatically different than it was five years ago,” Rubio said, and small businesses in particular are struggling under the regulatory burdens of ObamaCare, Obama’s signature health care reform legislation, and the Dodd-Frank banking legislation passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Both pieces of legislation need to be repealed, Rubio said. In addition, the tax code needs to be reformed such that the tax rates for small business is lowered to 25%. “We need to make America fair for all businesses but especially for small biz,” he said.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has said he would promote policies that would lift economic growth to a 4% growth rate (or GDP), well above the current 2% to 3% range anticipated for 2015.

Bush said that a higher growth rate is possible if better quality jobs are created and the U.S. fixes a “convoluted tax code.” He also called for repealing ObamaCare, saying it raises costs for business owners.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said the IRS should be eliminated.

Ohio Governor John Kasich was asked how Republicans can differentiate themselves from a Democratic challenger who argued Republicans are only out to help the rich. Kasich said Republican policies promote economic growth and “economic growth is the key to everything.”

Businessman Donald Trump, speaking broadly on the U.S. economy, said, “We don’t win any more, we lose to China, we lose to Mexico. We need to turn it around.” Trump also said he would repeal ObamaCare.

Responding to a question targeting the four times Trump companies filed for bankruptcy protection, Trump said he only availed himself of U.S. law as any good businessman would.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker defended his record of job creation in his state, saying he dramatically lowered the state’s unemployment rate. He also called for reforming the tax code and easing regulations on businesses.

“I think most of us understand that people, not the government creates jobs,” Walker said.

On the hot button issue of immigration, Walker said the issue impacted the broader economy and that the U.S. needs an immigration policy that “gives priority to American working families” and keeps wages high.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, facing a question about his handling of the struggling New Jersey economy, said the state is now creating jobs under his administration, a dramatic turnaround from his predecessor.

Neurosurgeon Ben Carson said he would scrap the current tax system and replace it with a system of tithing, the religious practice of donating a percentage of a household’s earnings. “We need a significantly changed tax system,” he said.

Via: Fox Business

Continue Reading....

Clinton Fundraises With Founder of Doctor-Owned Hospital Hurt by Obamacare

Alonzo Cantu currently seeking federal permission for major hospital expansion

Hillary Clinton will attend a $2,700 per person fundraiser Friday night at the South Texas home of Alonzo Cantu, a longtime donor who founded a hospital that would have been banned from opening under Obamacare, and cannot expand due to the law.

Cantu is the founder of and major investor in the Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, a physician-owned hospital that was impacted by the Affordable Care Act’s ban on the ownership structure. The law banned the construction of any new physician-owned hospitals starting in 2011, and created a “legal minefield” for ones already in existence.

His opposition to the law puts him at odds on the issue with Clinton, who recently reaffirmed her pledge to defend the health care act on a campaign stop in Iowa.

Cantu’s hospital was one of the institutions that battled against Obamacare restricitons, which forced dozens of developers to bail on plans to break ground on new facilities.

The Doctors Hospital at Renaissance fought to get a waiver that would allow it to avoid the restrictions on expansion and onerous requirements such as filing annual reports to the federal government.

It currently is seeking permission from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to go ahead with a $200 million expansion plan that would double the hospital’s size.

Due to the Affordable Care Act, the government must approve all expansion plans for physician-owned hospitals.

Clinton has been lobbied by Cantu on the issue before.

He collected more than $600,000 for Clinton in the opening months of her failed 2008 presidential bid, and the “driving force” behind the money he raised for her from doctors was his request that she “block legislation that many believe could hobble the hospital Cantu built in town,” according to theWashington Post.

In response to a proposed 2007 bill that would have forced physician-owned hospitals to restructure, Cantu “brought together the doctors and local leaders, and they agreed to try to raise money for Clinton.”

Cantu referred to the Clinton donations as “protection money.” One doctor recalls Cantu urging him and saying, “We’ve got to give this money to Hillary so we can be exempt from the bill.”

The legislation that included the provision limiting physician-owned hospitals passed in the House but did not advance through the Senate.

Cantu has kept Clinton’s ear through the consistency of his support.

His first political donation, worth $1,000, went to President Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. He started giving to Hillary Clinton right when she decided to run for Senate in 1999. He gave $25,000 to Ready for Hillary in 2013 and has given up to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Cantu alone has turned South Texas into a fundraising hotbed for Clinton. In 2008, Clinton outraised Obama $888,000 to $7,450 in Cantu’s hometown. The fundraising success was “based almost entirely on her friendship” with Cantu, according to the Washington Post.

Clinton’s campaign did not return a request for comment on her current position on the restrictions placed on Cantu’s hospital.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading.....