Page 34 of 74 FirstFirst ... 2430313233343536373844 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 1846
  1. #826
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    bag TX Repugs, elected by bag Repug voters, screwing TX citizens even more. No navigators can work before 1 Jan, AFTER 2014 signup closed, and now the bags are piling on more navigator restrictions, even using dirty trickster fraud bag O'Keefe:

    Proposed Regulation of Navigators Criticized at Hearing

    Supporters of the Affordable Care Act and its so-called navigators, who are charged with helping uninsured Texans sign up for health insurance coverage, on Friday criticized proposals for additional regulations of navigators during a Texas Department of Insurance hearing.

    Political pressure from state leaders, costly additional training and the broad definition of navigators by the state were among the top concerns raised by lawmakers,representatives of health service providers and community organizations that represent navigators working in Texas. TDI proposedthe new rules earlier this month. Aimed at addressing concerns from state leaders, the rules would require navigators to undergo criminal background checks, comply with additional privacy and Texas Medicaid training, and would prohibit conflicts of interest.

    “These rules, for the most part, do not appear they are aimed at protecting consumers,” said state Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie. “Rather, they seem clearly intended to make a political statement.”

    Turner said that navigators had become an “easy target in an all-out assault” on the federal health reform law.

    The federal government awarded almost $11 million to local organizations in Texas charged with hiring and training navigators to help individuals sign up for health insurance, as required by the Affordable Care Act, through a federal health insurance marketplace. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services already requires navigators to complete 20 to 30 hours of training and to pass a certification test, among other requirements.

    Gov. Rick Perry, who staunchly opposes the federal health reform law, first requested the additional rules in September, citing consumer privacy concerns. Other Republican state political leaders, including Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Attorney General Greg Abbott, who are both currently campaigning for office, also called for additional regulation of navigators and have called for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

    State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, who authored the bill that required TDI to make a “good-faith effort” to comply with HHS rules before implementing additional state rules, said many of TDI’s proposed rules are already included in his bill, adding that implementing the new rules would present “challenges and reduction of access” for the uninsured.
    “You need to demonstrate that the obstacle you’ve created is truly and meaningfully about consumer protection,” Watson told Insurance Commissioner Julia Rathgeber. “These rules must not be seen as the products of raw political pressure to impose needless, expensive, burdensome, bureaucratic regulations that would deny reliable health care to Texans who need it.”

    The additional rules also explicitly prohibit navigators from charging individuals for their services, selling or soliciting health insurance, recommending specific health plans, providing guidance on comparing the benefits of specific plans, and engaging in certain political activities, such as campaigning or promoting a political party or candidate.
    At the hearing, representatives of organizations that hire and train navigators said that privacy concerns raised by political leaders were unwarranted because of the experience and training navigators already have.

    Tim McKinney, CEO of United Way of Tarrant County, asked TDI to provide evidence of incidents that would demonstrate the need for “such stringent standards.”
    United Way of Tarrant County is the lead organization of the Consumer Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollment Services Consortium, which was awarded a $5.9 million grant to hire and train navigators in Texas. The consortium is made up of 16 organizations that currently employ a combined 158 navigators.

    McKinney said that the costly additional 20 to 40 hours of training TDI would impose under the new rules are excessive and that using existing, free web-based training is sufficient for navigators to help consumers understand their options.

    The estimated cost of additional training — about $800 per navigator — would be detrimental to the uninsured, McKinney said.

    “The people who will be hurt by the proposed cost increased are the people we are supposed to be serving — those who are uninsured,” McKinney said.

    At least two organizations that received navigator grants in Texas have backed out of the program in response to the state’s political pressure.

    Representatives for the Texas Hospital Association and the Teaching Hospitals of Texas organization said they were concerned that the proposed TDI rules contain a definition of a navigator that is too broad and could affect hospital staff who help patients register for health insurance.

    Allison Brim, organizing director for the Texas Organizing Project, said many of its staffers would be unable to provide members across Texas with guidance about signing up for insurance if the current language of the proposed rules was kept.

    Members of the Texas Organizaing Project made up a large portion of the modest audience at the hearing, which more than 100 people attended.

    TDI’s Friday hearing comes on the heels of a congressional field hearing Monday in Richardson during which members of the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee intended to address allegations that some navigators have broken program rules and encouraged tax fraud.

    Navigators have recently come under scrutiny after Project Veritas, a group led by conservative activist James O’Keefe, released videos that show navigators in Dallas suggesting to applicants that they should lie to increase the subsidies they could receive under the federal health reform.

    Republican lawmakers, including state Rep. Kenneth Sheets of Dallas and state Sen. Donna Campbell of San Marcos, cited the videos in their testimony.

    The videos revealed the “intrinsic flaws” of the “ill-defined” navigator program, Campbell said.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2013/12/...cized-hearing/

    Repugs sabotaging what they can't repeal, no matter how many TX citizens get screwed.



  2. #827
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    As Health Law Cements Its Place, G.O.P. Ponders How to Attack

    With the first enrollment deadline now passed, Republicans who have made the repeal of President Obama’s health care law their central aim are confronting a new reality: More than two million Americans are expected to be getting their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act come Jan. 1.

    The enrollment figures may be well short of what the Obama administration had hoped for. But the fact that a significant number of Americans are now benefiting from the program is resulting in a subtle shift among Republicans.

    “It’s no longer just a piece of paper that you can repeal and it goes away,” said Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin and a Tea Party favorite. “There’s something there. We have to recognize that reality. We have to deal with the people that are currently covered under Obamacare.”


    And that underscores a central fact of American politics since Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act during the Depression: Once a benefit has been bestowed, it is nearly impossible to take it away.


    Republicans are considering several ideas for how to proceed. Mr. Johnson argued that Congress should do away with the mandate that most people obtain insurance, but not the online exchanges at the heart of the law. Instead, he said, the options in the marketplaces should be augmented by other choices that fall short of the law’s coverage standards, such as catastrophic health plans. (Many policy analysts and insurance companies say such a move would not work, because the mandates are essential to delivering a diverse pool of uninsured people.)

    ( hey Johnson, $5K deductible ACA plans are already "catastrophe" plans )

    Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that health care strategy was the hottest topic of debate in closed-door political sessions.


    “The hardest problem for us is what to do next,” Mr. Graham said. “Should we just get out of the way and point out horror stories? Should we come up with a mini Contract With America on health care, or just say generally if you give us the Congress, the House and the Senate in 2014, here’s what we will do for you on multiple issues including health care? You become a more effective critic when you say, ‘Here’s what I’m for,’ and we’re not there yet. So there’s our struggle.”

    ( Hey Lindsay, you old lesbian, Repugs are FOR screwing the 99% and enriching/protecting the 1% )

    Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, said she was teaming up with Democrats on a host of incremental changes to the law, such as expanding health savings accounts and repealing a tax on medical devices. And other Republicans are wondering aloud how long they can keep up the single-minded tactic of highlighting what is wrong with the law without saying what they would do about the problems it was supposed to address.

    Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, a physician and a prominent conservative voice on health care, is pushing what he calls the Empowering Patients First Act, which would repeal the health care law but keep its prohibition on exclusions for pre-existing conditions in private health insurance.


    The bill would allow for insurance to be sold across state lines, push small businesses to pool together to buy insurance for their employees, expand tax-free health savings accounts, cap malpractice lawsuits, and offer tax credits of $2,163 for individuals and $5,799 for families to buy health plans.


    The American Action Forum, a conservative advocacy group run by Douglas Holtz Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, analyzed the Price plan this month. The group concluded that it would lower insurance premiums by as much as 19 percent by 2023, while leaving the ranks of the uninsured about 5 percentage points higher than the Affordable Care Act would by then.


    Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2012 and a possible 2016 presidential hopeful, is preparing his own health insurance plan for release early next year.


    Mr. Ryan’s plan will build on one that he and Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, introduced in 2009, according to aides familiar with it. The proposal, called the Patients’ Choice Act, would have eliminated the tax break for employer-provided health care to finance a tax credit of about $5,700 for families and $2,300 for individuals. States would have been asked to create insurance marketplaces like the ones many have created under the Affordable Care Act.


    As with the Obama health care law, the Ryan proposal demanded that insurers meet minimum standards of coverage and be prevented from excluding the sick. But instead of mandating penalties for failing to buy insurance, the approach would have automatically enrolled people unless they opted out.


    Mr. Price said on Thursday that he was “cautiously optimistic” that he, other lawmakers and House Republican leaders could meld the different approaches into one alternative health plan to take to voters — and possibly the House floor — in the 2014 election season.


    “It’s the minority’s responsibility to provide a contrast,” he said. “It’s important that we put forward an upbeat, positive proposal, so the American people know there is an alternative.”


    Whether voices like Ms. Ayotte’s or Mr. Johnson’s will ultimately prevail is unclear, given the deep opposition among rank-and-file Republicans. Mr. Graham said that Republicans would probably get away with denouncing the Affordable Care Act through the midterm elections, but that by 2016 they would need to have a fully formed alternative.


    White House officials acknowledge that the administration needs to focus on making sure all those who enrolled in health plans actually have coverage on Jan. 1. HealthCare.gov received two million site visits on Monday, the official deadline for coverage starting Jan. 1, and the insurance call center took more than 250,000 calls, said Julie Bataille, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services. More than 129,000 people left emails on Monday after finding the website jammed with traffic, and activity remained brisk on Tuesday for those taking advantage of a 24-hour extension.


    “Millions of people visited the state and federal marketplaces this week to purchase private health plans,” said a White House spokeswoman, Tara McGuinness. “The final tallies are being rounded up, but we believe the deadline encouraged decision-making for hundreds of thousands of families who will have access to care in the new year.”


    State-run exchanges had a similar crush. Almost 26,000 people signed up in New York State on the last enrollment day. California enrolled 27,000, and Washington State 20,000. Connecticut beat its expectations with 6,700 new sign-ups.


    Some of those rushing to enroll are bound to find problems in January as private insurers struggle to line up federal and state website enrollment with actual policies, a White House official said. And at udes toward the law are not going to change overnight.


    But if Mr. Obama’s approval rating on health care is tepid, Congress’s is abysmal. Just 19 percent of Americans approve of the way congressional Republicans are handling health care. Still, a New York Times/CBS News poll this month showed that nearly two-thirds of Republican respondents wanted to have the Affordable Care Act repealed, and most Republican lawmakers are appealing to those cons uents.


    “A few million people are buying a product that has features they don’t want, paying more for it than they should have to pay for it because they had to buy it through this government-mandated mechanism,” said Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania. “I don’t think that changes anything fundamentally at all.”


    Asked what should be done with the millions of people getting health care through the law, Senator Dan Coats, Republican of Indiana, said, “Call the White House and ask them.”


    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/27...?from=homepage

    Repugs are so ed but in their echo chamber, they don't realize it.

    As with the Obama stimulus that the Repugs voted against but then claimed credit for when the checks hit their states and districts and job rolls, the Repugs should also now help Obamacare and then take full, and naturally dishonest, hypocritical credit for it.



  3. #828
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    Just got my notice today that my premium has increased from $315 to $409/month. And a notice that providers that may have been covered under my plan may no longer be. I guess that wipes out the grandfathered status so they can try to force me onto an ACA plan next year.

  4. #829
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Just got my notice today that my premium has increased from $315 to $409/month. And a notice that providers that may have been covered under my plan may no longer be. I guess that wipes out the grandfathered status so they can try to force me onto an ACA plan next year.
    That's your private insurance raising your rates to meet the minimum daily requirements under the ACA.....it may be cheaper for you to go into the exchange and shop around...

  5. #830
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    20,699
    That's your private insurance raising your rates to meet the minimum daily requirements under the ACA.....
    I don't know what you mean by minimum daily requirements. I know starting January 1st they have to start using the federal rating standard which doesn't allow as much variation based on health status and experience rating. In other words, we don't get to benefit for staying healthy for the 11 years we've had this policy and we now get to chip in more for all the fat asses in Texas.

    ...it may be cheaper for you to go into the exchange and shop around...
    $392 for a bronze plan with a $6000 deductible...not a better deal.
    Last edited by SnakeBoy; 12-26-2013 at 11:55 PM.

  6. #831
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    $392 for a bronze plan with a $6000 deductible...not a better deal.
    The vast majority of drivers never have a wreck or make a claim, but they pay auto insurance to cover all the drunk drivers[ wrecks/manslaughter, stolen cars disappearing into MX, TEEN drivers, etc, etc.

    btw, FOR-PROFIT health insurance is expensive because doctors and hospitals charge EXORBITANT prices and health insurers have to pay investors and execs, aka, wealth redistribution upwards.

    All that for-profit rip-off, inefficient, corrupt, kludgeocracy ain't ACA's fault.

    Health care is $3T/year wealth-sucking kludgeocracy that owns assholes like Baucus and other Congressman, has captured regulators and rulemakers like FDA.

    us Baucus, who is Senate Finance chairman and who hired a health insurance exec/lobbyist to write ACA, has received $Ms contributions from the health care sector.

  7. #832
    5 Bill_Brasky's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Post Count
    11,220
    This is so re ed. Certain gots have been actively trying to sabotage this thing since it was introduced. And now that its not working the way its supposed to the same gots are complaining that it didn't work. No .....

  8. #833
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    This is so re ed. Certain gots have been actively trying to sabotage this thing since it was introduced. And now that its not working the way its
    supposed to the same gots are complaining that it didn't work. No .....

    It's working pretty damn well.

    ankle-biting Repugs are ing that changing rules and moving deadlines are unCons utional, ILLEGAL, impeach Obama!
    Repugs HATE that govt would actually try, bend over backwards, to help Human-Americans rather than them over.

    Because big for-profit private contractors can't code a big system for , including mighty Oracle just trying to write the exchange for one state, tiny Oregon, ain't ACA's fault.

    Oregon fiasco: Online health exchange yet to launch

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022505737_oregonhealthcarexml.html



  9. #834
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596



    It's working pretty damn well.

    ankle-biting Repugs are ing that changing rules and moving deadlines are unCons utional, ILLEGAL, impeach Obama!
    Repugs HATE that govt would actually try, bend over backwards, to help Human-Americans rather than them over.

    Because big for-profit private contractors can't code a big system for , including mighty Oracle just trying to write the exchange for one state, tiny Oregon, ain't ACA's fault.

    Oregon fiasco: Online health exchange yet to launch

    http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022505737_oregonhealthcarexml.html


    Are you claiming these were not uncons utional?

  10. #835
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Are you claiming these were not uncons utional?
    He claims what ever he thinks looks bad on repugs.

  11. #836
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Are you claiming these were not uncons utional?
    where does the Cons ution say anything about ACA rule making or rule changing?

    I suppose that the Repugs could and would always sue ACA in a federal court packed with extremist Repug judge(s).

  12. #837
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    where does the Cons ution say anything about ACA rule making or rule changing?

    I suppose that the Repugs could and would always sue ACA in a federal court packed with extremist Repug judge(s).
    How are laws changed?

  13. #838
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    That is what I thought.

  14. #839
    Banned
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Post Count
    5,870
    That is what I thought.
    damn you sound like a whiny got ass . did you get ed too hard up the ass last night? calm down

  15. #840
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    damn you sound like a whiny got ass . did you get ed too hard up the ass last night? calm down
    Thank you lincoln for your contribution to the political forum! Now run along back to the club and ask others how to get a girl's phone number while working behind a cash register.

  16. #841
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    How are laws changed?
    The ACA law isn't in question.

    It's the rules implementing the law that are being, rules modified to help govt help Human-Americans, for a change.

    writing, modifying the rules implementing a law don't need Congressional approval. Just like the BigFinance lobbyists gutting the rules, adding 100s of huge loopholes of the CFPB law.

    go suck a big, black, hard one, don't worry it's not loaded.

  17. #842
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    The ACA law isn't in question.

    It's the rules implementing the law that are being, rules modified to help govt help Human-Americans, for a change.

    writing, modifying the rules implementing a law don't need Congressional approval. Just like the BigFinance lobbyists gutting the rules, adding 100s of huge loopholes of the CFPB law.

    go suck a big, black, hard one, don't worry it's not loaded.

    As a responsible gun owner I treat every gun as if it is loaded.

    Obama is not faithfully executing the law as written. Maybe he should have read these things over and understood them better before signing it into law. These aren't the first uncons utional things he's done and I'm sure there will be many more.

    1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

    2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

    3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

    4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

    5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”

  18. #843
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...al-100254.html

    One week later, states are still wrestling with whether to implement Barack Obama’s answer to the wave of dropped plans that greeted the launch of his signature health care initiative. The president’s “fix,” announced last Thursday in a somber news conference, allows insurance companies to renew policies that do not meet the minimum care standards of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which go into effect on Jan. 1.
    So far, only 13 states have said they will cooperate with the administration’s initiative, however, and some have refused. The debate has turned mostly on questions of actuarial policy. But the bigger problem states must consider is that the fix itself is uncons utional. And even if the president did have the authority to take such action, state compliance with it would still break the law.

    First, the fix exceeds the president’s discretion in implementing the law and amounts to legislation from the White House. The president has no cons utional authority to rewrite or unbundle statutes, especially in ways that impose new obligations on people, as the fix does.

    But the Obama administration claims an “inherent authority to exercise discretion” in enforcing laws by not enforcing key parts of the ACA at all for one year. And how does argument that hold up? Not very well. Certainly, the chief executive has some discretion to decide how strongly to apply a law, and the timing of enforcement. However, complete non-enforcement of multiple statutes without any argument that they are uncons utional certainly tests the limits of that discretion.

    The difference between executive discretion and rewriting a law can be blurry, but the latter can generally be characterized as involving broad policy, while the former involves particular cir stances that arise in the administration of a law. (To put it differently, enforcement discretion goes to how a law is implemented, not if.)

    It is hard to think of anything more like broad policy than the central provisions of what has been called the most significant piece of legislation in a generation. Moreover, Congress is actively working on similar measures, but with differences the president considers objectionable. This further demonstrates the primarily legislative nature of the fix.

    Indeed, far from mere “non-enforcement,” the fix imposes entirely novel requirements on insurers. Insurers have to make a variety of disclaimers and statements against interest to benefit from the non-enforcement. This is not a requirement found in the Affordable Care Act or its attendant regulations. The new requirements for insurers are highly detailed, showing this is thus not simply a delay, but substantive new regulation, adopted by dictate.

    The second cons utional infirmity relates not to Congress, but the states. Unlike prior exercises of presidential enforcement discretion, the fix depends on states violating federal law. That is because it does not change the law on the books. Rather, the feds are simply signaling that they will not enforce certain provisions for some time.
    But many parts of Obamacare do have to be applied by states, the traditional front lines of insurance regulation. States, however, lack “enforcement discretion” when it comes to ignoring federal law, even when the president thinks it would be a good idea. As the president has often reminded us, the ACA is “the law of the land,” and remains so after the fix.
    The Cons ution’s Supremacy Clause makes federal law—not presidential policies— binding on the states. So what’s a state insurance commissioner to do? Federal law requires health plans to have a mandatory level of “minimum coverage.” Thus it is not clear how a state insurance commissioner can authorize a plan that violates federal law. Such action would create a direct conflict between state action and federal law—and the latter automatically wins (even without the broad view of preemption of state laws that the administration has championed in immigration cases).
    And the fix might violate state laws as well. Most states have passed “conforming legislation” that imports the ACA regulations into state law, so they can be enforced by state officials. But again, state governors—let alone state insurance commissioners—do not necessarily have the broad “enforcement discretion” over state law that Obama claims over federal law. Such sweeping non-enforcement might even be illegal under some
    states’ cons utional and administrative principles.

    The incorporation of the ACA into state law also opens more possibilities for judicial challenge. While the Cons ution limits standing to challenge non-enforcement in federal courts, state courts do not operate under these limits, and can potentially hear cases that would not make it into federal court.

    President Obama’s fix, of course, only “encourages” states to go along with his plan, as the letter to state insurance commissioners puts it. The administration is only “encouraging” states to disobey federal law, in other words. This is something new. Even the radical and discredited states rights’ “doctrine of nullification” only allows states to ignore federal laws that they consider uncons utional, not simply politically inconvenient.
    Eugene Kontorovich is professor at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches cons utional law.


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz2oiqxTgyc

  19. #844
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,130
    As a responsible gun owner I treat every gun as if it is loaded.

    Obama is not faithfully executing the law as written. Maybe he should have read these things over and understood them better before signing it into law. These aren't the first uncons utional things he's done and I'm sure there will be many more.

    1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.

    2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.

    3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.

    4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.

    5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”
    fundamentalrefounding.com

    I love it when TSA is too embarrassed to link his bull . Why hasn't the house impeached Barry yet if the case is as open and shut as our conservative blogger friend with 5 readers seems to believe?
    Last edited by Th'Pusher; 12-27-2013 at 08:21 PM.

  20. #845
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    fundamentalrefounding.com

    I love it when TSA is too embarrassed to link his bull . Why hasn't the house impeached Barry yet if the case is as open and shut as our conservative blogger friend with 5 readers seems to believe?
    fundamentalrefounding.com

    Try
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...tions-of-2013/

    Seems to me the author is a bit more than just some blogger you found on that website. Google failed you.

    Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in cons utional studies at the Cato Ins ute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato, he was a special assistant/advisor to the Multi-National Force in Iraq on rule of law issues and practiced international, political, commercial, and an rust litigation at Patton Boggs and Cleary Gottlieb. Shapiro has contributed to a variety of academic, popular, and professional publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, L.A. Times, USA Today, National Law Journal, Weekly Standard, New York Times Online, and National Review Online. He also regularly provides commentary for various media outlets, including CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS, NBC, Univision and Telemundo, The Colbert Report, NPR, and American Public Media’s Marketplace. Shapiro has provided testimony to Congress and state legislatures and, as coordinator of Cato’s amicus brief program, filed more than 100 “friend of the court” briefs in the Supreme Court. He lectures regularly on behalf of the Federalist Society and other groups, is a member of the Legal Studies Ins ute’s board of visitors at The Fund for American Studies, was an inaugural Washington Fellow at the National Review Ins ute, and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School. Before entering private practice, Shapiro clerked for Judge E. Grady Jolly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, while living in Mississippi and traveling around the Deep South. He holds an A.B. from Princeton University, an M.Sc. from the London School of Economics, and a J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School (where he became a Tony Patiño Fellow). Shapiro is a member of the bars of New York, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a native speaker of English and Russian, is fluent in Spanish and French, and is proficient in Italian and Portuguese.

  21. #846
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,130
    fundamentalrefounding.com

    Try
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...tions-of-2013/

    Seems to me the author is a bit more than just some blogger you found on that website. Google failed you.
    It did. Maybe you can link your articles in the future instead of putting the onus on the reader to look it up...

    btw, CATO via Forbes. Nice combo. So why no impeachment from the house? Not conservative enough?

  22. #847
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/how-obama...-cons ution/

    As President Obama’s signature legislation is rolled out nationwide, a recently released book raises serious questions about the cons utionality of Obamacare.

    In “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” New York Times bestselling authors Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott make the case Obamacare not only is uncons utional, it illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marks an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of Internal Revenue Service power.



    Klein and Elliott quote scholars and legal organizations contending Obamacare cons utes a clear case of “taxation without representation.”

    “Impeachable Offenses” shows Obamacare may violate multiple sections of the Cons ution, as WND reported.

    While the Obama administration may argue the health-care legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court, “Impeachable Offenses” reports the White House has been hard at work changing the implementation of key sections of Obamacare without congressional oversight.

    Taxation without representation

    One part of the Cons ution that may be violated is Article 1, Section 9, which stipulates: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”


    The section is clarified in the 16th Amendment: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

    The Supreme Court ruled the health-care mandate under the legislation is a tax. However, according to experts cited in “Impeachable Offenses,” this tax does not satisfy the requirements of any of the three types of valid cons utional taxes – income, excise or direct.

    Write Klein and Elliott: “Because the penalty is not assessed on income, it is not a valid income tax. Because the penalty is not assessed uniformly or proportionately, and is triggered by economic inactivity, it is not a valid excise tax. Finally, because Obamacare fails to apportion the tax among the states by population, it is not a valid direct tax.”

    Despite Obama’s public statements that the individual mandate was not a tax, the Supreme Court ruled June 28, 2012, in a 5 to 4 vote, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the majority, that the requirement that the majority of Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty was cons utional, authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes.

    “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Cons ution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

    In a second 5-4 vote, again with Justice Roberts joining the majority, the court rejected the administration’s most vigorous argument in support of the law, that Congress held the power to regulate interstate commerce.

    The Commerce Clause, the Court ruled, did not apply.

    However, Klein and Elliott do ent the White House has been changing the law without involving Congress since the Supreme Court ruling, and multiple sections of the implementation of Obamacare are uncons utional.

    Bribing states?

    “Impeachable Offenses” cites Jonathan H. Adler of the Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Michael F. Cannon of the Cato Ins ute.

    The duo found: “The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. … Obamacare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321).

    “In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of Obamacare’s spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.”

    The Obama administration, however, was furiously at work in an attempt to avoid a legislative debacle. The administration proposed an IRS rule to “offer premium assistance in all exchanges ‘whether established under section 1311 or 1321,’” Adler and Cannon said.

    The Treasury Department, they continued, was “confident” that the IRS had the authority to offer premium assistance where Congress had not authorized it and that this overreach was “consistent with the intent of the law and [its] ability to interpret and implement it.”

    “Such confidence is misplaced,” Adler and Cannon asserted. “The text of the law is perfectly clear. And without congressional authorization, the IRS lacks the power to dispense tax credits or spend money.”

    In May 2012 the IRS released its final regulations that would “provide guidance to individuals who enroll in qualified health plans through Affordable Insurance Exchanges and claim the premium tax credit, and to exchanges that make qualified health plans available to individuals and employers.”

    Free-market advocate Phil Kerpen, cited in “Impeachable Offenses,” called the regulations an “outrageous edict that attempts to up-end the ability of states to opt out of [Obama’s] health care law’s new en lement.”

    Kerpen called the Obama administration out for what he said was an obvious attempt to “bribe states to participate by manipulating language in the law that is meant to authorize start-up grants to instead fund years of operating expenses.”

    Indeed, a July 2012 announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services offered states six full years of funding.

    Was the maneuver cons utional? Article I, Section 1, states: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

    Congress does not vest the power to write and rewrite laws in HHS and IRS; nor can unelected bureaucrats impose taxes on states that legitimately opted out of a federal program, Kerpen continued.

    “Impeachable Offenses” further cites Adler and Cannon on how the IRS went ahead in May 2012 and finalized “a rule that will issue tax credits – and therefore will trigger cost-sharing subsidies and employer-mandate penalties – through federal exchanges.”

    They contended that the rule is not only illegal, but it also lacks any statutory authority.

    ‘State’s rights violated’

    The 10th Amendment to the Cons ution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Cons ution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The Tenth Amendment Center, which was among the plaintiffs that took Obamacare to the Supreme Court, clarifies that the amendment was “written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government.”

    “In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.”

    As of February 2013, only 17 states and the District of Columbia planned to run their own exchanges, while another seven opted for state-federal exchanges. The 26 states that have chosen to opt out entirely challenged the law in the Supreme Court

    In January 2010, Ken Klukowski explained that the 10th Amendment does not apply here in the way many people have thought – although it does apply in a more serious manner, “Impeachable Offenses” relates. Klukowski co-authored with former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell the 2010 book “The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Cons ution and Build an Imperial Presidency.”

    Citing two cases from the 1990s, Klukowski wrote that the Supreme Court “shocked the legal world” by striking down the cases for violating the 10th Amendment.

    The first case was in 1992, New York v. United States, in which the Court “struck down a federal law requiring states to pass state laws for the disposal of radioactive waste, and to issue regulations for implementing those laws.”

    In the second case, Printz v. United States in 1997, the Court “struck down a provision of the Brady Act – a federal gun-control law – that required state and local law enforcement to run background checks on handgun purchasers.”

    From these two cases, Klukowski explained, “emerged the anti-commandeering principle, holding that the 10th Amendment forbids the federal government from commandeering – or ordering – any branch of state government to do anything.”

    “The states are sovereign and answer only to their voters, not to Washington, D.C.,” he said.

    The commandeering principle is the real problem for Obamacare, write Klein and Elliott, since the law requires each states to set up insurance exchanges.

    “It then requires the states to pass regulations for implementing those laws. And it further requires the states to dedicate staff and spend state money to administer those programs,” said Klukowski.

    In his opinion, Obamacare is a “straight-out repeat of those 1992 and 1997 cases.”

    “The main difference is that Obamacare violates the anti-commandeering principle in a far more severe and egregious way than those previous laws ever did,” Klukowski concluded.

    Originated in Senate?

    “Impeachable Offenses” cites Article 1, Section 7, of the Cons ution, which states: “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.”

    The Sacramento, Calif.-based Pacific Legal Foundation filed a challenge to Obamacare that contends it is uncons utional, because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House.

    The foundation claims that under the Origination Clause of the Cons ution, “all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.”

    The tip to follow this course of action came from the Supreme Court itself. In his June 28, 2012, ruling, it was noted that Chief Justice Roberts took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate.

    The Justice Department claimed that the bill did not originate as a spending bill and therefore does not violate the Origination Clause.

    The bill, which began life as House Resolution 3590, then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act, was stripped of its contents after it passed in the House in a process known as “gut and amend.” The legislation was replaced entirely with the thousands of pages of what eventually became Obamacare and given a new name.

    The Obama government’s position is that while using the resolution as a “‘s bill’ may be inelegant … it’s not uncons utional.”

    The foundation’s response, as do ented in “Impeachable Offenses,” was that “it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue.”

    “Unlike in the prior cases [cited by the Justice Department], the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

    While the Justice Department contended that raising revenue was incidental to Obamacare’s “central purpose” – to improve the nation’s health care system – the foundation’s attorney, Timothy Sandefur, disagreed.

    “What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.

    Creating commerce

    The Commerce Clause, as stated in Article 1, Section 8, of the Cons ution, grants Congress the rights to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce, Klein and Elliott note.

    Since the 1930s, Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly,” relates Ilya Somin, an associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law and co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review.

    “But every previous case expanding the commerce power involved some sort of ‘economic activity,’ such as operating a business or consuming a product. Failure to purchase health insurance is neither commerce nor an interstate activity. Indeed, it is the absence of commerce,” Somin added.

    Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett, a former student of Harvard Law School professors Charles Fried and Laurence Tribe, “both of whom argued for the cons utionality of the [economic] mandate,” writes Klein and Elliott, has been referred to as “the ‘mastermind’ of the legal challenge” against Obamacare.

    Barnett opined in a March 2011 debate with his former teachers: “Though Congress can compel people to be drafted into the military or sit on a jury, those activities relate to, as the Supreme Court put it, the ‘supreme and noble duty’ of citizenship . … There is no supreme and noble duty of citizens to enter into contracts with private companies.” Barnett added that “the mandate would result in a ‘fundamental alteration in the status of American citizens.’”

    Even the Congressional Budget Office weighed in, stating in January 2010: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

    Illegal penalty?

    Obamacare affixes a financial penalty on Americans who fail to purchase health insurance to regulate behavior – regulatory powers not granted in the Cons ution, do ents “Impeachable Offenses.”

    Scott P. Richert commented after the Supreme Court ruling: “Congress has been given the green light to do something that even the most imaginative interpretation of the Commerce Clause would not allow: to compel the supposedly free citizens of the United States to purchase anything that Congress deems in those citizens’ best interest – or to compel them to purchase one thing rather than another.”

    Richert, executive editor of Chronicles, the monthly magazine published by the conservative think tank the Rockford Ins ute, continued: “All Congress has to do is to pass legislation levying a tax on those who, say, fail to purchase smoke detectors for their homes, or who insist on purchasing a car that runs on gasoline over one that runs on electricity.”

    Cronyism, corruption, cover-ups

    The Daily Mail of London has called the “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”

    “Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.

    “Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups do ented in this news-making book,” Klein said.

    The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-do ented indictment based on major alleged violations.

    Among the alleged offenses enumerated in the book:

    Obamacare not only is uncons utional but illegally bypasses Congress, infringes on states’ rights and marking an unprecedented and unauthorized expansion of IRS power.
    Sidestepping Congress, Obama already has granted largely unreported de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens using illicit interagency directives and executive orders.
    The Obama administration recklessly endangered the public by releasing from prison criminal illegal aliens at a rate far beyond what is publicly known.
    The president’s personal role in the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, with new evidence regarding what was transpiring at the U.S. mission prior to the assault – arguably impeachable activities in and of themselves.
    Illicit edicts on gun control in addition to the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running operation intended, the book shows, to collect fraudulent gun data.
    From “fusion centers” to data mining to drones to alarming Department of Homeland Security power grabs, how U.S. citizens are fast arriving at the stage of living under a virtual surveillance regime.
    New evidence of rank corruption, cronyism and impeachable offenses related to Obama’s first-term “green” funding adventures.
    The illegality of leading a U.S.-NATO military campaign without congressional approval.
    Obama has weakened America both domestically and abroad by emboldening enemies, tacitly supporting a Muslim Brotherhood revolution, spurning allies and minimizing the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/how-obama...FjISwwDZHdA.99

  23. #848
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,130
    Tldr. And wnd

  24. #849
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    It did. Maybe you can link your articles in the future instead of putting the onus on the reader to look it up...

    btw, CATO via Forbes. Nice combo. So why no impeachment from the house? Not conservative enough?
    He doesn't speak of impeachment in his article, why should we? Care to discuss how what Obama has done is not uncons utional?

  25. #850
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    22,596
    Again, care to discuss this or we just going to post smilies?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •