Category Archives: Obamacare

Ya think?

Posted on by

A story appeared today in the Washington Times, “Chief Justice John Roberts may be beyond reconciliation with conservatives.” Is anyone surprised? Roberts received a pass by many in the GOP after his affirmative vote in favor of Obamacare. After his vote to support subsidies for Obamacare, Roberts lost whatever good-will he retained with conservatives and the rank-and-file GOP.

To his credit, Roberts voted against same-sex marriage and against the over-reach of the EPA in regulating the coal industry. It was Justice Anthony Kennedy who voted with the four liberals on the Court to uphold Obamacare subsidies and same-sex marriage. Ironically, while it was Kennedy who tipped the Court in favor of same-sex marriage, it was Roberts, the Chief Justice, who took the blame.

Now an outcast among conservatives, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. may get the chance to redeem himself in the coming months with his stand on affirmative action, the power of labor unions and other key cases, but some on the right say it’s too late for him to salvage his credibility with them.

The court over the next year will issue several highly consequential decisions in cases of deep importance to conservatives. The justices will decide whether labor unions can force nonmembers to pay the equivalent of union dues, whether universities should consider race during the admissions process and, in a case that could dramatically alter the political landscape, how voting districts can be drawn.

Other cases centering on abortion and gun rights also could find their way before the Supreme Court, giving Chief Justice Roberts chances to regain the faith of conservatives who believe he betrayed them with two votes in three years to salvage the Affordable Care Act and cement a central piece of President Obama’s legacy. — Ben Wolfgang – The Washington Times – Sunday, July 5, 2015

For many, it is too late for Roberts to redeem himself. He has proven himself to be unreliable in the votes that have counted. The Justice who should be more despised is Kennedy. His vote was the tipping point on the Court for same-sex marriage and in truth, he has voted with the liberal wing as often as he has for the conservative wing.

The Court had been viewed, before the first Obamacare vote, as having a majority of conservatives. That belief has been dispelled and no conservative, now, has any faith that the Court will support any conservative issue.

Facebook

Passages

Posted on by

Two British actors died over the weekend. One was world famous, the other less so. Christopher Lee starred in many films in the ’60s and ’70s playing Dracula in numerous Hammer Horror films. More recently he was known for his portrayal of the wizard, Saruman, in the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Christopher-Lee_2015

Sir Christopher Lee died Sunday, June 7, 2015 at London’s Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

Sir Christopher Lee dies at 93 – latest reaction and tributes

Screen legend famous for roles in Hammer Horror films, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars dies in hospital after suffering heart and respiratory problems

The other British actor was Ron Moody who played Fagin in the musical, Oliver! He died over the weekend, too, at age 91.

http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/88170-ron-moody-dead-oliver-actor-dies-at-91/1434026571_ron-moody-lg.jpg

Ron Moody as Fagin in the musical, Oliver!

Oliver! actor Ron Moody dies aged 91

Actor Ron Moody, who played Fagin in the hit film version of Oliver!, has died aged 91, his family says.

The British character actor was nominated for an Oscar and won a Golden Globe for his performance in the 1968 Charles Dickens adaptation.

It’s always a sad day when old familiar faces leave us. These two now join a memorable list of British actors who are no longer with us, Alec Guinness, James Mason, Ralph Richardson, to name a few.

***

This headline appeared today.

Few GOP candidates are prepared with alternatives if court rules against Obamacare

It is a stupid headline. Why should the GOP come up with an alternative. The healthcare we had before Obama and the democrats ruined it, was excellent! Contrary to the lies spread by Obama, NO ONE WAS WITHOUT HEALTHCARE! It was a violation of law to turn anyone away from an emergency room—if they really needed care.

The truth was that hospitals were inundated by people, without health insurance, who came to the ERs who were not sick. The ER was the place to go for drugs (if they could talk a doc into giving them some), to get away from an abusive spouse, or, not uncommonly, to just hang out in a cool place during the summer heat.

Were there issues with healthcare before its destruction by Obama? Yes. For instance, healthcare plans were limited to each state. What a plan could offer in one state, may not be allowed in another. One change that could be done would be to allow insurance companies to provide the same plan in multiple states. That would drive insurance costs down through competition.

Beyond that, not much else is needed. One exception would be to deny insurance to illegals. Force them to go to ERs where they could receive care, and then be identified, detained, and shipped back to wherever they came from. That alone, would solve much of our illegal alien problem.

Just because Obama and the democrats hated our healthcare doesn’t mean it was bad, nor ineffective. Some democrats never heard the old phrase, “If if ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Our healthcare system wasn’t broke, far from it, it was the best in the world. Obama and the democrats have reduced that effectiveness to a 3rd world level.

No, GOP, you don’t need an alternative. Kill Obamacare and I’ll bet insurance companies would respond as before. Like your old healthcare? Kill Obamacare and you’ll get it—if we ignore the lies and caterwauling from the democrats and libs.

Facebook

To be Grubered…

Posted on by
http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/12/09/Editorial-Opinion/Images/205733974.jpg?uuid=BU9scn_pEeSfOJWhh-TB9w

Jonathan Gruber, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), listens during a House Oversight Committee hearing in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2014. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

A new verb and noun has entered our political lexicon, “Gruber.” In the verb form, it means to frankly speak the truth in an extremely stupid manner. An example of this is when MIT Professor Jonathon Gruber admitted he thought Americans were stupid to believe the claims of the White House on Obamacare.

“He’s a gruber,” is another form of the word. In this case it describes someone who makes an utterly stupid statement that revealed a truth the speaker had intended to conceal.

Gruber had his time before Congress yesterday. He continued to dig himself deeper. Congressman Darryl Issa also had some pithy comments.

Gruber apologizes for ‘mean and insulting’ ObamaCare comments

Published December 09, 2014

MIT economist Jonathan Gruber tried to explain and even justify his controversial comments about ObamaCare during a profuse apology on Tuesday before a House committee — as Rep. Darrell Issa accused him of creating a false model as part of “a pattern of intentional misleading” to get ObamaCare passed. 

Gruber, himself a well-paid consultant during the drafting of the law, was hammered by Republicans on the House oversight committee at his first appearance on Capitol Hill since videos of his remarks surfaced.

Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also came down hard on Marilyn Tavvener, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who he has accused in the past of allegedly inflating enrollment numbers and “cooking the books.”

Issa told Gruber: “You made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the American people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading [of] the public about the true impact and nature of ObamaCare.” 

Gruber has come under fire for claiming ObamaCare’s authors took advantage of the “stupidity of the American voter.” 

He delivered a mea culpa of sorts in his opening remarks on Tuesday for what he called his “mean and insulting” comments, explaining some of his remarks while trying to take some of them back. After once saying a lack of transparency helped the law pass, Gruber said Tuesday he does not think it was passed in a “non-transparent fashion.” 

He also expressed regret for what he called “glib, thoughtless and sometimes downright insulting comments.” 

“I sincerely apologize for conjecturing with a tone of expertise and for doing so in such a disparaging fashion,” Gruber said. “I knew better. I know better. I’m embarrassed and I’m sorry.” 

He said he “behaved badly” but stressed that “my own inexcusable arrogance is not a flaw in the Affordable Care Act.” 

Gruber’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Tuesday marked one of Issa’s last, high-profile shots at the health care law before he hands over his chairmanship next year. Issa, R-Calif. — who has led the committee through controversial probes of the Benghazi attacks, the IRS scandal and more — led the questioning of Gruber, an MIT economist. 

The videos of Gruber’s remarks have renewed Republican concerns over the health care law, and the way in which it was drafted and passed. Lawmakers also have obtained videos that show Gruber saying the act was written in a “very tortured way.” 

Issa and democrat Elijah Cummings questioned Gruber when he appeared before the Committee. Cummings was more concerned about the truth revealed, the democrat view of voters, than the fact that the entire concept of Obamacare was a fraud.

The column continues.

During questioning, Issa asked Gruber, “Are you stupid?” 

“I don’t think so, no,” he responded. 

Issa added: “So you’re a smart man who said some … really stupid things.” 

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top Democrat on the committee, also criticized Gruber for giving opponents of the law a “PR gift.” 

“You wrapped it up with a bow,” Cummings said, while claiming the controversy “has nothing to do with the substance of this issue.” 

Business as usual in Obama’s Washington.

***

For my Navy and Marines friends…

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/navy/sports/m-footbl/auto_player/10613312.jpeg

Navy’s new “Don’t Tread on Me” football uniform.

At the 115th meeting of the football teams from the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy on Saturday, the Midshipmen will be decked out in special uniforms featuring a stylized version of the First Navy Jack, the rattlesnake flag first flown at the bow of naval vessels during the Revolutionary War warning foes “DON’T TREAD ON ME.” Navy leads the series 58-49-7.

***

Boehner is planning on selling out conservatives with his newly announced budget. The budget contains funding for Obamacare and Amnesty and provides funding through September, 2015. Boehner fears the MSM and is giving in to the democrats. He should fear us, those who voted for the new GOP-led Congress, instead.

BUDGET DEAL: WILL THE FAT LADY SING?
Though we have seen similar deals evaporate before, an agreement has reportedly been reached on a $1.1 trillion spending bill that, if passed, would avert a partial government shutdown while delaying a fight over President Obama’s immigration actions until early 2015. Fox News: “The GOP-led House Appropriations Committee released the plan, which would keep most of the government funded through September 2015, following days of backroom negotiations. The government technically runs out of money at midnight Thursday. The narrow window raises the likelihood that lawmakers will have to pass a stopgap spending bill to buy time…. Strong opposition to the House budget plan from the Republicans’ conservative caucus could force GOP chamber leaders to rely on Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown. House Speaker John Boehner can afford to lose only 17 caucus votes before he must turn to support from House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi, D-Calif., has said her party would be willing to help but has signaled she may make some demands.” — FOX Newsletter.

Boehner is not without opposition, however.

GOPers push amendment to defund temporary amnesty – DailyCaller: “[N]ew anti-amnesty language is being pushed by Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, South Carolina’s Rep. Mick Mulvaney and Virginia Rep. Dave Brat…The draft amendment [to the budget bill] bars various agencies from spending any money to implement Obama’s amnesty, including any fees paid by legal immigrants to immigration agencies…The amendment will be examined on Wednesday by the powerful rules committee, which sets the rules for debates.” — FOX Newsletter and The Daily Caller.

Boehner and McConnell are working to tighten their control of the House and the Senate. Representative Darryl Issa is being shuffled off to an “Intellecutal Property” committee and Senator Jeff Session is being booted off his Budget Committee.

Facebook

Friday Follies for November 14, 2014

Posted on by

I haven’t used the ‘Follies’ headline for awhile. I do so when there are a number of items appearing on the ‘net but none worthy for a longer post nor discussion.

We won the mid-term ten days ago. We should be celebrating but we’re not. Why? Because we are watching the Washington GOP leadership selling us down the river0—again. The day after the election, McConnell tells a reporter he will not use Congress’ more potent weapon, the power of the purse. “We won’t shut down the government!” he declares meaning he will continue with the stream of CRs and upholding Harry Reid’s plan for funding everything we’re against—Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, open border, and governmental tyranny across the nation.

“Throw the bum out!”  Too late, McConnell has been re-elected as Majority leader. Boehner was re-elected Speaker of the House with only three dissenting votes.

McConnell chosen as next Senate majority leader, Boehner re-elected as House speaker

WASHINGTON –  Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell joined House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio on Thursday at the pinnacle of the congressional and Republican power structures in Washington — two establishment deal-cutters, each on occasion frustrated by the other’s inability to rein in their party’s most zealous ideologues.

The pair, formally selected Thursday to lead their party’s new majority control of Congress, will be charged with guiding Republicans on Capitol Hill for the final two years of President Obama’s presidency. Their success or failure could determine whether the GOP can take back the White House in 2016.

McConnell, 72, is taciturn and rarely cracks a smile. “Why don’t you get a life?” he joked to photographers trying to snap photos of him after he was unanimously chosen by his Senate GOP colleagues Thursday to serve as the new majority leader starting in January.

The article blathers on here, if you’ve the stomach to read it.

***

For some good news, Sullivan has been declared the winner in the Alaska Senate race. Begich continues to wallow in his fantasy and has not, as far as I know, conceded the race. No class. A common fault of democrats.

Sullivan brings up the number of GOP Senators to 53. The last race still to be determined is Cassidy vs. Landrieu in Louisiana. Landrieu is pushing the Keystone Pipeline bill in an attempt to gain votes but it doesn’t appears to have helped.

‘Her campaign is running on fumes’: Final Senate race looks to be a Louisiana laugher as internal polls show GOP’s Bill Cassidy opening up 16-point lead over Sen. Mary Landrieu

  • Poll commissioned by GOP candidate’s campaign shows massive advantage leading up to Dec. 6 runoff 
  • Win by GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy would bring total Republican pickup to a whopping 10 seats
  • Landrieu is hoping a long-awaited vote on the Keystone XL pipeline will improve her fortunes
  • Poll was leaked in Washington to send a message to energy lobbyists who think she can prevail
  • Survey is an ‘automated’ phone poll that Landrieu’s campaign considers less credible than traditional surveys conducted by voice
  • ‘Her campaign is running on fumes,’ the pollster told MailOnline 

Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu is trailing her Republican challenger by a giant 16-point margin in a runoff for one of Louisiana’s two U.S. Senate seats, according to poll results obtained by MailOnline.

The survey, commissioned by GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy’s campaign, was leaked to media in order to fire a shot over the senator’s bow and send a signal to energy lobbyists that her ship is taking on water.

It suggests that Democrats’ worst fears have been realized even though Landrieu edged Cassidy by 1 percentage point on Election Day.

…

A second Republican candidate, Rob Maness, won 14 per cent of the vote on Nov. 4, enough to deny them both the 50-percent showing required to avoid a December 6 runoff. 

Now Maness has endorsed Cassidy, helping him erase his 1-point deficit with Landrieu and adding far more.

Cassidy is ‘trying to shut K Street down for Mary’ by selectively releasing the polling data, a source close to his campaign in Louisiana told MailOnline.

‘The energy folks, the lobbyists, keep trying to say she has a chance to win. That’s why it was leaked.’

Landrieu has lined up for what Republican Capitol Hill aides are calling the ‘Hail Mary XL,’ a legislative strategy to save her Senate seat by winning a vote to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring 700,000 barrels of oil daily from the Canadian province of Alberta to the Gulf coast.

From the information I’ve been able to gather, Landrieu is toast. Cassidy will bring the total number of GOP Senators to 54. It would be nice if McConnell would use that number as leverage dealing with Obama and the democrats but my expectation for that is…nil.

One question I have…why do we see these breaking news stories in the UK Daily Mail instead of a US news outlet? Our country is in sad shape when we have to use foreign sources for news here in the US.

***

I wrote yesterday about the push to expand Missouri’s medicaid using the three-year funding promised as part of Obamacare. What the advocates for that expansion don’t bother to tell you is that the state would be responsible for the added ocsts after that third year. Why is Jackson County and Truman Medical Centers in such dire straits? Increased cost of medical care compounded by the cost of complying with federal regulations.

Those increased cost are having another negative medical impact—rural hospitals.

Rural hospitals in critical condition

Rural hospitals serve many of society’s most vulnerable.

Jayne O’Donnell and Laura Ungar, USA TODAY

RICHLAND, Ga. — Stewart-Webster Hospital had only 25 beds when it still treated patients. The rural hospital served this small town of 1,400 residents and those in the surrounding farms and crossroads for more than six decades.

But since the hospital closed in the spring of last year, many of those in need have to travel up to 40 miles to other hospitals. That’s roughly the same distance it takes to get from Times Square to Greenwich, Conn., or from the White House to Baltimore, or from downtown San Francisco to San Jose.

Those trips would be unthinkable for city residents, but it’s becoming a common way of life for many rural residents in this state, and across the nation.

Since the beginning of 2010, 43 rural hospitals — with a total of more than 1,500 beds — have closed, according to data from the North Carolina Rural Health Research Program. The pace of closures has quickened: from 3 in 2010 to 13 in 2013, and 12 already this year. Georgia alone has lost five rural hospitals since 2012, and at least six more are teetering on the brink of collapse. Each of the state’s closed hospitals served about 10,000 people — a lot for remaining area hospitals to absorb.

The Affordable Care Act was designed to improve access to health care for all Americans and will give them another chance at getting health insurance during open enrollment starting this Saturday. But critics say the ACA is also accelerating the demise of rural outposts that cater to many of society’s most vulnerable. These hospitals treat some of the sickest and poorest patients — those least aware of how to stay healthy. Hospital officials contend that the law’s penalties for having to re-admit patients soon after they’re released are impossible to avoid and create a crushing burden.

“The stand-alone, community hospital is going the way of the dinosaur,” says Angela Mattie, chairwoman of the health care management and organizational leadership department at Connecticut’s Quinnipiac University, known for its public opinion surveys on issues including public health.

The closings threaten to decimate a network of rural hospitals the federal government first established beginning in the late 1940s to ensure that no one would be without health care. It was a theme that resonated during the push for the new health law. But rural hospital officials and others say that federal regulators — along with state governments — are now starving the hospitals they created with policies and reimbursement rates that make it nearly impossible for them to stay afloat.

Low Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements hurt these hospitals more than others because it’s how most of their patients are insured, if they are at all. Here in Stewart County, it’s a problem that expanding Medicaid to all of the poorest patients -– which the ACA intended but 23 states including Georgia have not done, according to the federal government — would help, but wouldn’t solve.

“They set the whole rural system up for failure,” says Jimmy Lewis, CEO of Hometown Health, an association representing rural hospitals in Georgia and Alabama, believed to be the next state facing mass closures. “Through entitlements and a mandate to provide service without regard to condition, they got us to (the highest reimbursements), and now they’re pulling the rug out from under us.”

For many rural hospitals, partnering with big health systems is the only hope for survival. Some have resorted to begging large hospitals for mergers or at least money to help them pay their bills. But Douglas Leonard, president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said these days, “I’m not sure they can get anyone to answer the phone when they call.”

The article continues at the website. Obamacare does not just increase the cost of an individual’s medical care, it also reduces the reimbursement of those services to hospitals and physicians. In the end, we all suffer. The institutions with tighter cash flows are hit first and worse.

Now what?

Posted on by

The elections are over. The ‘Pubs have won and many of the new ‘Pubs at the state, local and federal level are new conservatives who subscribe to the same values as that of the various Tea Party groups.

We won and everything that we want will happen, right? No, unfortunately, they won’t…at least not immediately. Missouri had some significant wins. The Missouri House now numbers 118 ‘Pubs including a former dem, almost a DINO, who flipped parties after being re-elected unopposed. The ‘Pubs also maintained their possession of the Missouri Senate increasing their veto-proof numbers from 24 to 25. That’s bad news for Jay Nixon’s last two years in office.

Nixon’s will have more problems going forward due to the passage of Missouri Amendment #10. That amendment restricts Nixon’s ability to withhold funds allocated and approved by the legislature—like funds for Education. Nixon’s excuse is the need to have a balanced budget, another state constitutional requirement. However, Nixon’s authority to withhold funds has been a club, punishing some at the expense of others while shifting funds to other, ‘more praise-worthy’ agencies. He withheld education funds while other dems and the NEA claimed that Education was underfunded. The truth was that Education was well funded but Nixon refused to release the money.

It became apparent that Nixon’s refusal to release funds was a political ploy when, after the election, he released some of the funds he had withheld. Nixon continues to use the excuse of insufficient revenues. However, Nixon’s projections conflicts with the projections made by the legislature as part of their due-diligence when they created the budget. Missouri’s revenues continually reach higher levels that Nixon’s projections. I would suggest Nixon fire his economic advisers and hire the ones used by the legislature.

Getting back to today’s topic, the ‘Pubs have won. Now what?

That is a good question. All too many think change can be made immediately, overnight. Well, that isn’t going to happen. Missouri is much more likely to enact more change than the ‘Pubs in Washington. The Missouri ‘Pubs have veto-proof majorities in both houses of the legislature. In Washington, only the House has a veto-proof majority. The Senate ‘Pubs only have a simple majority.

The bare truth is the the ‘Pub majority in Congress cannot override Obama’s veto. They can cut short Obama’s political appointments. Thanks to Harry Reid’s use of the Nuclear Option, the ‘Pubs don’t require a 60-vote majority for passage. (There is a push by the dems and some RINOs to reinstate that Nuclear Option. There is also a ground-swell of opposition to maintain Reid’s change. What was good for the dems should now be good for the ‘Pubs.)

Regardless, immediate change won’t happen. Obamacare won’t be repealed. Obama will veto any bill to repeal it and there aren’t enough votes to override Obama’s veto.

Mitch McConnell has already surrendered Congress’ primary weapon, the power of the purse. In an interview after Tuesday’s election, he was asked by a lib reporter if the ‘Pubs were going to shut down the government again. Instead of saying the Congress was going to send Obama a budget, the first in six years, if Obama vetos that budget, it would be him, not the ‘Pubs who would be shutting down the government. Instead, McConnell said he would cave in to Obama and the dems. If McConnell won’t use the power of the purse to carve off chunks of Obamacare, he concedes power to the liberals. The power of the purse is the only real power Congress has over the Executive…and Judicial branches.

So, what can be done? The voters won’t have any leverage now until 2016 and the RNC fought hard against their base to maintain their control of the party in this last election.

The first thing is to nominate a conservative for President, like Ted Cruz, and get him elected as President—WHILE MAINTAINING THE ‘PUB MAJORITY IN CONGRESS. Then, like Obama’s first two years in office, the ‘Pubs can pass and/or repeal bills and have a President in office who will sign them. Remember, it was a democrat controlled Congress and a democrat President that passed Obamacare, Dodd-Franks, and expanded the regulatory reach of government agencies. It will take the same degree of control to reverse those acts.

We have made progress in regaining control from the liberals. The ‘Pubs control more statehouses and governorships than ever before. 

We need to take control of Washington and keep that control while removing the built-up tyranny of federal agencies and federal judgeships across the country. We see every day acts of lawfare by liberals using federal judges to make changes the libs cannot make by legislative action. It is those judges who must be removed, one by one, to reverse the liberal corruption of our nation and culture.

As I said once before, “Rot begins at the head, recovery begins from the bottom.” With control of the state legislatures, we can make change via a Convention of States, if necessary, that will curtail progressivism and socialism before they become fatal. That is a last resort. In the mean time, let’s make all the change we can with the political power we have. If that means McConnell must go as Senate Majority Leader, let’s make it so.

Facebook

Illegal!

Posted on by

A federal appeals court dealt Obamacare another blow—Obama’s subsidies are illegal.

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

– CNBC

This is a breaking news story. Please check back to the link above for updates.

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.

In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up by a state.

The decision is certain to be challenged by the Obama Administration, and does not immediately have the effect of law. But if it is ultimately upheld, it would cause insurance rates for those people who lost the subsidies to dramatically rise.

HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 86 percent of its 5.45 million customers received a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.

In a report issued Thursday, the consultancy Avalere Health said that if those subsidies were removed this year from the 4.7 million people who received them in HealthCare.gov states, their premiums would have been an average of 76 percent higher in price than what they are paying now.

…

Before the decision, a leading Obamacare expert who was firmly opposed to the plantiffs’ arguments said a ruling in their favor could have major consequences for the health-care reform law.

“If the courts were to decide that the Halbig plaintiffs were right, it would be a huge threat to the ACA,” said that expert,Timothy Jost, a professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.

…

On Monday, one of the intellectual godfathers of the argument that is the basis of the Halbig case, as well as three other similar pending court challenges, said that tens of millions of people would be freed from Obamacare mandates in the affected states if the challenges prevailed.

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said more than 250,000 firms in those states—which have about 57 million workers—would not be subject to the employer mandate being phased in starting next year. That rule, which hinges on the availability of subsidies on Obamacare exchanges, will compel employers with 50 or more full-time workers to offer affordable health insurance or pay a fine.

The crucial point to this court decision is in the last paragraph above—no subsidies, no employer mandate. If the employer mandate is declared illegal, then why would anyone want to stay in the program…Obamacare…if their rates go up an estimated 76%?

The decision is bad news for Obama, his sycophants and Obamacare.

***

Dave Helling, writing in the Kansas City “Red” Star laments on the lack of discussion about issues in the upcoming Primary two weeks from today. Helling’s lament was echoed in the PoliticMO newsletter this morning.

AUGUST BALLOT — “After dragging for months, the primary is now just two weeks away,’ Dave Helling previews in the KC Star: “That deadline does not seem to have quickened the pace of local campaigns, however. They seem slightly listless, as if the voters’ verdict is still months in the future. Missouri’s three-fourths cent sales tax for transportation improvements has probably drawn the most interest. It would be the largest tax hike in state history. But where’s the campaign? Normally, two weeks out, you would see tax supporters holding news conferences at crumbling bridges. Ads would suck up TV time. Letters to the editor would extol (or denounce) the proposal. Have you seen much of this? I haven’t, either. …

“Sluggish campaigns lead to low turnout. …  In most years, “no” voters are more motivated and a small turnout would endanger the tax. But it’s also possible the quiet campaign has helped tamp down anti-tax fervor in Missouri. In either case, it’s probably too late for consultants to reconfigure their campaigns. It’s going to be hard to awaken voters in the next two weeks after putting many of them to sleep over the last six months.” — KC Star.

Perhaps Mr. Helling should look at his own editorial board for that lack of interest. If stories aren’t reported, the great unwashed, i.e., those who only get their news from that liberal Kansas City rag, are unaware of those issues. It makes me wonder if the average denizen of Kansas City is even aware an election is scheduled two weeks from today. Don’t blame any apparent lack of interest of the lack of substance in the issues, Mr. Helling. Blame those like the KC Star editorial board for down-playing those issues hoping that a low turnout will allow the tax increase in Amendment 7 to pass. The KC Star hasn’t yet seen a tax increase it didn’t like.

Facebook

SCOTUS Strikes Again

Posted on by

The Supreme Court released two decisions this morning, both of them decided along liberal/conservative lines, 5 to 4.  The first decision, from Illinois health care workers against SEIU, sided against the union. It wasn’t unanimous but it was a rebuke to unions planning to expand at the expense of the public. On a 5-4 decisions, SCOTUS says that public service unions like SEIU cannot force non-members to pay dues.

Court: Public union can’t make nonmembers pay fees

By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court dealt a blow to public sector unions Monday, ruling that thousands of home health care workers in Illinois cannot be required to pay fees that help cover the union’s costs of collective bargaining.

In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, the justices said the practice violates the First Amendment rights of nonmembers who disagree with the positions that unions take.

The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have bolstered their ranks – and bank accounts – in Illinois and other states by signing up hundreds of thousands of in-home care workers. It could lead to an exodus of members who will have little incentive to pay dues if nonmembers don’t have to share the burden of union costs.

But the ruling was limited to this particular segment of workers – not private sector unions – and it stopped short of overturning decades of practice that has generally allowed public sector unions to pass through their representation costs to nonmembers.

Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said home care workers are different from other types of government employees because they work primarily for their disabled or elderly customers and do not have most of the rights and benefits of state employees.

You can read the entire article here.

A lawyer friend of mine explained that the defense, the Illinois health care litigators, argued for an exception. Therefore, SCOTUS could only grant that exception. If the grounds of the argument had been wider or on other grounds, the decision could have been different—knocking down all union extortion of dues from non-members…or siding with the union. In any case it was a step in the right direction even it it does apply only to public sector unions.

The second decision announced today is one the religious and 1st Amendment advocates have been waiting for. It is the famous Hobby-Lobby, Mardel and Conestoga suit against HHS that would force these companies to provide contraception insurance against the company owner’s religious views.

Hobby Lobby Wins Contraceptive Ruling in Supreme Court

Jun 30, 2014, 10:25 AM ET

Companies are not required to pay for employees’ contraceptives for women if they have religious objections, the Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices’ decision came in a 5-4 ruling in the much anticipated case.

The court holds: “As applied to closely held corporations the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA”

Alito wrote that “RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for profit corporations like Conestoga and Hobby Lobby” and the “The HHS contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion.”

“The Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrict means of furthering that interest,” according to the majority opinion.

Alito wrote that the onwers of Hobby Lobby believe that the coverage required of the health care law “is connected to the destruction of an embryo in a way that is sufficient to make it immoral for them to provide the coverage … HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] has not shown that it lacks other means of achieving its desired goal without imposing a substantial burden on the exercise of religion by the objecting parties in these cases.”

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those FRFR companies,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.

The rest of the article can be read here.

Justice Ginsberg called Alito’s written decision, ‘radical’. She thinks the 1st Amendment is radical, too. She has said before that she believes the Constitution is not a good example for other countries.

It was not a good day for Obama and his union sycophants. It was a good day for the rest of us. Missouri HB 1617 was passed in this last legislative session and will be put before the voters in the November general election. HB 1617, also known as ‘Paycheck Protection’ will require public service unions in Missouri to acquire written permission to deduct dues and from state employee’s paychecks. The unions will no longer force the state to arbitrarily act as the union’s agent to collect union dues.

As a friend of mine says, “It’s a good day for Liberty!”

Facebook
%d bloggers like this: