Mandating health Insurance - Obamacare

[Ryan Ruck]

If this is true, then fuck Roberts.

The Volokh Conspiracy: More Hints that Roberts Switched his Vote

June 28, 2012

Reader Stuart Buck provides more detail as to why the dissent reads like a majority opinion (see also Deborah Pearlstein at Balkanization):

1. The dissent has a whole section on severability that is completely beside the point except on the assumption that the mandate had been struck down, and now “We” have to decide whether and what to preserve of the rest of the act now that the mandate is gone.

2. Notice also that his response to Roberts is tacked on at the end, rather than worked into the body of whatever he was writing (see page 64 of his dissent). For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts’ application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what “the Government” argues (see pages 26-28).

3. On top of that, Scalia’s sections on the Commerce Clause and the Medicaid Expansion are just as long or longer than what Roberts writes (Scalia wrote 16 pages on the Commerce Clause and 21 pages on the Medicaid Expansion, compared to Roberts’ 16 pages and 14 pages respectively). Yet Scalia never writes in the vein of saying, “I agree with the Chief Justice’s opinion, but write to add a crucial discussion of some complexity.” His analysis agrees with Roberts, and makes essentially the same points in “We” language. There’s no reason for Scalia to do this at such length, unless his opinion is what came first.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan notes a related theory: Roberts assigned the opinion to himself, and wrote most of what became the four-Justice dissent. He then switched on the tax issue, and the four dissenters adopted most of his original majority opinion as a dissent. This would explain why the dissent is unsigned. Other blogs are noting that Justice Ginsburg directs much of her ire at the Chief, which is the sort of things Justices do when they think they’ve lost someone’s vote, not when they are trying to keep a tenuous vote to uphold uphold the law in question on board.

I should note that I think the Supreme Court is a political body (which is not to say that its decisions are primarily motivated by partisanship or political ideology) and that one can expect that the Court’s rulings are affected by outside events. As I noted long ago, the challenge to the individual mandate would have stood no chance if the president and the ACA were riding very high in the polls, as the Court would not have had the political wherewithal to write what would be seen as a radical opinion invalidating a popular law from a popular president. Similarly, the level of heat defenders of the ACA were giving the Court could have persuaded Roberts that discretion was the better part of valor. (By contrast, for example, historians seem to think that FDR was relieved that the Supremes removed the NIRA albatross from his neck.) Perhaps, as Rick Hasen suggests, he’d rather save his political capital for the affirmative action and voting rights cases that are coming up, especially since he found a way to give the “right” a partial victory in his commerce clause reasoning, and to limit the Spending power.

I don’t find it at all illegitimate for political actors to put pressure on the Court, so long as they stay within proper legal bounds, and keep their rhetoric within the broad boundaries of decency. But it is ironic that while liberal critics were quick to accuse the Court of playing politics by taking seriously the Obamacare challenges, it may turn out that it was only politics that saved the ACA.

[Ryan Ruck]

Breitbart TV - Report: Kennedy Visibly Angry Over Decision


(Sorry, tried to disable the autoplay and can't)

[Ryan Ruck]

You stay classy Obama...



And what was that crybaby Boehner saying about not "spiking the football" if the ruling came down in our favor?

Fuck Obama, fuck Boehner, and fuck Justice Roberts!

[American Patriot]

LOL. Ryan.... you need to just have one of your new beers, chill out and go with the flow man, we're all gonna be socialists soon... don't you know?

[vector7]

[American Patriot]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I just used that with Pelosi.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[vector7]

Democrats Love Taxes -- They Just Don't Want to Pay Them

‘Democrats who don’t pay their taxes’

Democrats' New Tax Plan Targets Private Corporations, Their Owners

Democrats Propose Bill to Force Those Who Renounce Citizenship to Pay Taxes Anyway

As democrats continue to raise taxes, will they just give out waivers for healthcare to their pet groups and corporations whereby continuing to pick their winners in the economy?

How Many Businesses Are Exempt? The Final Number of ‘Obamacare’ Waivers Is In…

Posted on January 6, 2012

Since the passage of the “Affordable Care Act,” it has been some cause for concern — scandal even — that several businesses have been granted waivers excusing them from participation in the federal program.

And now we have a final number of how many businesses are exempt from “Obamacare.”

Roughly 1,200 companies received waivers from part of the healthcare reform law, the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) said Friday.



And the Final Number of Obamacare Waivers is...“One for you, and one for you, and one for you…“

“Friday marks the last time HHS will have to update the total number of waivers, putting to rest a recurring political firestorm. The department had been updating its waiver totals every month, prompting monthly attacks from the GOP,” writes Sam Baker of The Hill.

Naturally, Republican opposition to the bill seized on these waivers as an opportunity to advance the argument that the healthcare law is “unworkable.”

So how does the HHS justify granting the waivers? The department argues that the waivers show the law provides “flexibility.”

But who gets to choose when the law is “flexible”?

“All told, 1,231 companies applied for and received waivers from the law’s restrictions on annual benefit caps,” Baker writes. “The law requires plans to gradually raise their benefit limits, and all annual limits will become illegal in 2014. Companies that received waivers can keep their caps intact until 2014.”

[vector7]

Biden Declares Supreme Court Will Rule On Human RFID Chipping

Uploaded by Amedeo777 on Jun 25, 2011

Confession and promise by Biden, RFID for human tracking and vote.

[American Patriot]

Human tracking... let's all go to the lobby and get ourselves some chips!

[MinutemanCO]

First guy to try sticking a chip in me loses a hand.

[American Patriot]

/chuckles

I like that. I'll start with the hand and move to other parts if he persists too.

[vector7]

Obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000

by Robert Allen Bonelli
29 Jun 2012, 7:13 AM PDT
107post a comment



While we were all debating the cost to our liberty due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), we were ignoring the cost to our pockets. If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty - yes, twenty - hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.

The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.

The impact of this provision on low and middle income earners, and really all working Americans, is that employers will be confronted with three choices.

The first is provide some level of health insurance, as many do today, and there would be no impact on employees.

The second choice is to pay the penalty, which would most likely be less expensive than providing health insurance, and force employees to seek their own health insurance or purchase it through federal government controlled state exchanges. Studies have estimated that 20 million Americans will lose their employee funded health insurance as a result of this provision and employers electing this option.

The third choice is for employers to lay off employees, or not hire additional employees, because Obamacare forces them to either provide health insurance or pay the new tax.

Another new tax, the Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers that begins in 2013, places a 2.3% excise tax on all items retailing for more than $100. This provision will not only drive up the cost of various medical devices ranging from mobility assistance devices to personal testing supplies, but will also impact an industry that employs 360,000 people in 6,000 plants across our country. This tax, while not a direct tax, would have significant negative impact on the middle class.

The Surtax on Investment Income for households earning $250,000 and more, beginning in 2013, will raise the Capital Gains Tax from 15% to 23.8% on investment income for these households and will raise Taxes on Dividends from 15% to 43.4% for the same households.

Aside from the impact on retired citizens dependent on dividends, this provision will pull income from the private economy. In addition, the tax rate on Other Investment Income earned by Subchapter S Corporation (which many small business are organized as, allowing the owners to claim all business income as personal income) will rise from 35% to 43.4%. This part of the provision would place additional pressure on small businesses resulting in more layoffs and less hiring, impacting all American workers.

All but one of the remaining new taxes in Obamacare are directed at health industry businesses and while they will not impact middle income families directly, the additional costs will most likely be passed on to the public. The last new tax is really interesting, it is a tax on certain biofuels!

These are the facts. It does not matter if you support Mr. Obama and his new law or if you oppose it, the new taxes on the middle class or real and all Americans should understand their impact on their families and the economy.

Citizens, regardless of political beliefs, should recognize that Obamacare was passed with almost no sunlight shined on these middle class tax increases and need to understand that the new law was sold with the promise that there would be no new middle class taxes. This is not partisan, it is simply the reality of politics.

[vector7]

Race Quotas For Obamacare Doctor

http://www.therightperspective.org/2...acare-doctors/



Among the many hidden changes to the American healthcare system that passed Congress last November are mandated racial and ethnic quotas for doctors and other health providers.

As American Thinker writer Allan J. Favish notes, the bill states on pages 879-880 that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:

“shall make grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities . . . to operate a professional training program in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics, to provide financial assistance and traineeships and fellowships to those students, interns, residents or physicians who plan to work in or teach in the field of family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, or geriatrics.”

[....]

“In awarding grants or contracts under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to entities that have a demonstrated record of the following: . . . Training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds.”

The provisions continue throughout the bill to cover every medical, nursing, dental school and teaching hospital in the country. It also guarantees the institutionalization of racial, sex, and ethnic quotas in perpetuity.

The use of the word “underrepresented” before “minority” ensures that the quotas will not apply to Asians or Jews, two minority groups that are arguably over-represented in the medical field.

[Ryan Ruck]

As suspected...

Roberts Switched Views To Uphold Health Care Law

July 1, 2012



Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices () to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.

The case raised entirely new issues of power. Never before had Congress tried to force Americans to buy a private product; as a result, never before had the court ruled Congress lacked that power. It was completely uncharted waters.

To strike down the mandate as exceeding the Commerce Clause, the court would have to craft a new theory, which could have opened it up to criticism that it reached out to declare the president' health care law unconstitutional.

Roberts was willing to draw that line, but in a way that decided future cases, and not the massive health care case.

Moreover, there are passages in Roberts' opinion that are consistent with his views that unelected judges have assumed too much power over American life, and that courts generally should take a back seat to elected officials, who are closer to the people and can be voted out of office if the people don't like what they're doing.

As Roberts explained in his opinion:

"The framers created a federal government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people."

Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the court out of the red-hot dispute.

Roberts had begun to focus on a different argument to uphold the law and the mandate's penalty by defining it as a tax. That strained argument had received almost no attention in the lower courts, which had uniformly rejected it. It was seen as a long-shot by the law's supporters.

It would have been far easier, legally, for Roberts to have followed the rationale of two conservatives who voted to uphold the law in the lower courts: Appeals Court Judges Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton.

In separate opinions for the D.C.- and Cincinnati-based federal courts, Silberman and Sutton wrote that the mandate had not exceeded Congress' commerce power.

Roberts surely could have gotten the liberals to join a decision that the mandate was similar to a 1942 Commerce Clause case involving a farmer who was producing wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it. In that seminal case, the Court ruled the farmer's wheat production nonetheless affected Commerce, and Congress therefore could regulate it.

In the health care case, since no one was urging the court to overturn that precedent (Wickard v Filburn), the court could have issued a narrow opinion. It could have ruled that since it wasn't being asked to depart from settled law, the health care act would stand, based on prior precedents.

Instead, Roberts focused the majority opinion on a much more difficult legal proposition: The tax power.

But Roberts also would limit Congress' authority in future cases under the commerce power.

Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort - trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. There was a fair amount of give-and-take with Kennedy and other justices, the sources said. One justice, a source said, described it as "arm-twisting."

Even in Roberts' opinion, which was circulated among the justices in early June, there are phrases that appear tailored to get Kennedy's vote. Roberts even used some of the same language that Kennedy used during oral arguments.

During the arguments in March, Kennedy told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli:

"Here the government is saying that the federal government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases - and that changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way."

Roberts wrote in the section of his opinion analyzing the Commerce Clause:

"Accepting the government's theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the federal government."

On the surface, Kennedy would appear to have been Roberts' best shot to persuade. The other three justices - Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito - are seen as more solidly conservative and much less susceptible to pressure.

After all, it was Kennedy who "betrayed" conservatives in 1992, when he flipped his vote in a key abortion case that could have overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that guaranteed a woman's right to abortion.

In the 1992 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy initially was with conservatives, but then forged a last-minute alliance with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter to put Roe v. Wade on more solid ground than even the original decision itself.

Kennedy has long frustrated conservatives, because he occasionally joins with liberals to provide the key swing vote in cases involving social issues. They openly mock his writing style as grandiose and his jurisprudence as squishy - in other words, changeable and too moderate.

That's not entirely fair to Kennedy. In fact, there are underlying and consistent themes in his jurisprudence, much more so than in the jurisprudence of O'Connor. Kennedy has a libertarian streak, and he is skeptical of expansive government power over individuals. In fact, if there's an issue of an individual versus invasive government, Kennedy sides with the individual.

As a result, Kennedy supports the right to possess a firearm for self-defense AND a woman's right in the context of abortion. He opposes certain laws that discriminate against homosexuals or restrict a person's freedom of speech.

Kennedy also is strong on issues of federalism - and is remarkably consistent. His opinion in a 1999 case, Alden v. Maine, is considered one of the Court's finest in that area. Ruling that states were immune from private lawsuits in state courts, Kennedy wrote: "Sovereign immunity derives not from the Eleventh Amendment but from the federal structure of the original Constitution itself."

And in a 1995 term limits case, when the Court rejected state efforts to impose term limits on Members of Congress, Kennedy wrote a separate, concurring opinion to make a point about federalism:

"Federalism was our nation's own discovery. The framers split the atom of sovereignty . . . It was the genius of their idea that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other."

Those structural boundaries, Kennedy believes, help protect the individual from runaway government power, and are key components to protecting liberty.

All of that dovetails with Kennedy's position on the individual mandate in the health care law. Close associates of Kennedy never thought he would waver in the case once he recognized the federal mandate as an encroachment on individual liberty (points Kennedy later would make in his sections of the joint dissent).

In fact, Kennedy was the most forceful and engaged of all the conservatives in trying to persuade Roberts to stand firm to strike down the mandate. Two sources confirm that he didn't give up until the very end.

But Roberts didn't focus entirely on Kennedy, the sources said. He tried to persuade the conservatives to join at least the parts of his opinion with which they agreed, such as his Commerce Clause analysis.

"People, for good reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce," Roberts wrote in his opinion. "Under the government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the government would have them act.

"That is not the country the framers of our Constitution envision," Roberts wrote.

But despite Roberts' strong language on the Commerce Clause, the conservatives would have none of it, the two sources said, even though there was no significant difference in their reasoning on that issue.

Indeed, since the four conservatives agreed the mandate went beyond the commerce power, the Court now has five Justices who would constrain what Congress can do going forward - imposing significant limits on federal power.

The majority decisions were due on June 1, and the dissenters set about writing a response, due on June 15. The sources say they divided up parts of the opinion, with Kennedy and Scalia doing the bulk of the writing.

The two sources say suggestions that parts of the dissent were originally Roberts' actual majority decision for the court are inaccurate, and that the dissent was a true joint effort.

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution. There are clear elements of Scalia - and then, there is Justice Kennedy.

"The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril," the dissent said. "Today's decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it."

[Ryan Ruck]

Gov. Scott Says Florida Will Not Implement 'Obamacare'

June 30, 2012

lorida Gov. Rick Scott said that he will not support implementing federal health care reform in Florida, making up his mind roughly 36 hours after the Supreme Court ruling to uphold to law.

"We're not going to implement Obamacare in Florida," Scott told Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren late Friday night. "We're not going to expand Medicaid because we're going to do the right thing. We're not going to do the exchange."

As late as Friday afternoon, Scott was telling Florida media that he had not yet made up his mind about whether or not to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But he continued to pan the law, which he opposed even before he was elected. And he said the Medicaid program as it exists now is already too costly.

Because the Legislature sets the budget, it will ultimately decide whether or not to allocate money to implement provisions of the law. So far, leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate have not said whether or not they agree with Scott.

Jindal: Louisiana Won't Implement Obamacare

June 30, 2012

Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday that Louisiana will not take any steps toward implementing President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, even though the U.S. Supreme Court says it is constitutional and Congress has ordered states to implement it.

According to ABC News, Jindal announced Friday on a Republican National Committee conference call that he would take no steps to allow Louisiana residents to participate.

"Come this November, we are going to elect a new President and a new Congress who will repeal and replace Obamacare," Jindal said in a statement released to Louisiana reporters. "That's why we have refused to implement the Obamacare health exchange or the Medicaid expansion."

States are required under the law to establish a health insurance exchange program by January 2014. Federal grants are available to help states establish the programs, which would serve as clearinghouses for residents to obtain insurance.

The law also calls for expansion of Medicaid programs that would provide coverage to thousands more Louisiana residents.

Jindal last year said the state would not establish an insurance exchange and if Louisiana residents want to do it, they could use a national exchange.

"This whole ruling, I think is ridiculous. It's a huge expansion of federal power," Jindal said on the conference call.

Repeal of the act is not guaranteed, even if Romney is elected. Republicans and Democratic opponents of the program would have to control both the House and Senate after this fall's elections.

Jindal is a not the only Republican governor refusing to move forward.

Republicans in at least four other states want to abandon an expansion of Medicaid in the wake of the Supreme Court decision removing the threat of federal penalties.

The high court upheld most of Obama's law, but the justices said the federal government could not take away states' existing federal Medicaid dollars if they refused to widen eligibility to include adults who are only slightly above the poverty line. Some Republican governors and lawmakers quickly declared that they would not carry out the expansion.

The states considering whether to withdraw from the expansion include presidential battlegrounds Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Colorado.

"One thing is clear: State legislatures will play a big role in the future of Obamacare," said Republican state Rep. Todd Richardson of Missouri.

For elected officials, the high court decision presented a stark choice: agree to accept an ambitious expansion of Medicaid or leave behind a vast pile of federal money that could provide health care to millions of poor constituents.

The law signed by Obama in 2010 was projected to provide coverage to more than 30 million Americans, reducing by more than half the number of uninsured people. Of those, about 17 million were supposed to be added to Medicaid, the joint federal and state health care program for the poor. The rest were to be covered by a strengthened and subsidized private insurance market.

The federal government agreed to pay the full tab for the Medicaid expansion when it begins in 2014. But after three years, states must pay a gradually increasing share that tops out at 10 percent of the cost. That may not sound like much, but it translates to a commitment of billions of dollars at a time when many local officials are still anxious about the slow economic recovery.

In Texas alone, where one quarter of the population is uninsured, the Medicaid expansion is projected to provide coverage to 2 million people in the first two years alone. Over a decade, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimates the expansion would cost the state an estimated $27 billion. Lawmakers will weigh their options when they return to work in 2013.

But other states aren't waiting to announce their intentions.

Mississippi, which is one of the poorest states in the nation and has more than 640,000 people on Medicaid, could cover an additional 400,000 people if it chose to expand Medicaid. But doing so would cost about $1.7 billion over 10 years and force deep cuts to education and transportation, state officials said.

"Mississippi taxpayers simply cannot afford that cost, so our state is not inclined to drastically expand Medicaid," Republican Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves said.

Republican Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman promised to block any effort to expand Medicaid, which he said would require tax increases or education cuts. And Indiana Senate President Pro Tem David Long, also a Republican, asserted that his state "will certainly" opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

The expansion was also quickly nixed by GOP legislative leaders in Missouri, where 255,000 of the state's roughly 835,000 uninsured residents stood to be added to the program. In 2005, Missouri slashed its Medicaid eligibility for parents to the lowest levels allowed by the federal government in order to help balance the budget. The expansion in Obama's health care law would restore coverage to those people and add many more. The cost: $2 billion annually, of which Missouri would pay about $100 million beginning in 2017, with its share rising above $150 million by 2019.

"The federal government always does this -- they put something out there that looks good on the front end, but on the back end the states have to figure out how to pay for this," said Missouri House Majority Leader Tim Jones, a Republican. "In this current economic time, we're not going to consider going down that path."

In states that reject the Medicaid expansion, some lower-income residents who work could find themselves in a coverage gap between the extremely poor and the middle class. The health care law offers tax breaks to offset the cost of private insurance purchased through new online marketplaces for those whose incomes are above the poverty level. But there are no breaks for many others who earn below the poverty level but still aren't considered poor enough to receive Medicaid. The law assumed they would be covered by an expanded Medicaid program.

Bunnie Gronborg, 64, of Festus, Mo., said she has two sons in their 30s who are single fathers who lost construction jobs and now lack health insurance. She had hoped they could be covered by the Medicaid expansion, and she doesn't buy the explanation that the state cannot afford it.

"There's absolutely no reason" to reject the expansion, "except being vindictive and playing political games with people's actual health care," Gronborg said.

Scott Walker: Wisconsin Won't Launch Obamacare

July 1, 2012

Calling Obamacare a massive tax increase, Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said Sunday he is going to wait before implementing health-insurance exchanges in his state.

“We’re going to wait,” Walker said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “For people here in Wisconsin and plenty of other states across the country, we want to put the power back in the hands of the people at the state and the local level, not be driven by a federal mandate.”

He said he believes in a free-market alternative to the government-funded health-insurance program upheld last week by the Supreme Court.

“Yes, it is a tax increase,” Walker said. “That’s the whole reason why the law was upheld.”

Government-funded health insurance ultimately will lead to the rationing of healthcare to control costs, he said.

“Which do you think’s more likely to drive down healthcare costs and make our states and our jobs more competitive — having something driven by the government in terms of a mandate, or having something that opens up the door so that all of us, as consumers, play a much more active role, having skin in the game, when it comes to healthcare,” he asked. “I think the latter is the more appropriate approach.”

[American Patriot]

Do we get to go to war yet?

God.

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama to Soldiers: Pay Up

Threatens to veto bill unless it hikes health care fees for service members

June 29, 2012

The Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

“The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

President Obama’s most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration’s plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon’s budget.

Some fear the administration’s proposal is an effort to increase enrollment in the state-run insurance exchanges mandated under the president’s controversial health care law.

The administration urged the House to “reconsider” the fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs.”

The House bill has significant bipartisan support, and easily passed by a margin of 299 to 120.

[American Patriot]

That's right, let's force the military to PAY for MORE services and keep their pay low. We might even be able to eventually get rid of the WHOLE military because people will stop signing up voluntarily.

Then we can have a forced DRAFT and MAKE them do what we want including killing other Americans!

What a quaint Liberal fucking idea.

[American Patriot]

LOL I wonder WHY!???

NAACP crowd boos Romney for vowing to repeal health reform

By Michael O'Brien, msnbc.com
Follow @mpoindc

Mitt Romney found himself on the receiving end of a loud chorus of boos when he promised to repeal health care reform during a speech before the NAACP.
"If our goal is jobs, we have to stop spending over a trillion dollars more than we take in every year. So to do that, I'm going to eliminate every non-essential, expensive program I can find. That includes Obamacare, and I'm going to work to reform and save -- " Romney said, being interrupted by boos.
Romney otherwise encountered polite applause in his speech, which hit on themes of jobs and the economy -- mainstays of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's overall stump speech -- as well as education reform.
Advertise | AdChoices







The former Massachusetts governor faced an uphill task politically in speaking before the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), one of the most historic and well-established civil rights groups. President Barack Obama, as the nation's first black president, enjoys tremendous levels of support and enthusiasm from black voters, who helped propel Obama to office in 2008 in key swing states.
Romney joked about the fact that he's unlikely to win over many African American voters. "I appreciate the chance to speak first -- even before Vice President Biden gets his turn tomorrow," he said. "I just hope the Obama campaign won’t think you’re playing favorites."
But the speech, overall, was intended to portray his candidacy as one for all Americans, unified by a theme of improving the economy. Romney pledged to return to speak before the NAACP at its convention next year, should he be elected.
Romney also spoke with reverence toward the legacy of his father, Michigan Gov. George Romney, a Republican who broke with his party at times over the issue of civil rights.
"For every one of us a particular person comes to mind, someone who set a standard of conduct and made us better by their example. For me, that man is my father, George Romney," he said, detailing some of his father's work to advance civil rights.

[Ryan Ruck]

You know, his going there was a complete waste of time.

If he had any balls he would tell, the NAALCP (as Rush refers to them) to fuck off for being an inherently racist organization. Or better yet ask Ken Blackwell, Herman Cain, Allen West, Condoleezza Rice, or J.C. Watts to go speak in his place.