Chief Justice John Roberts - On the Conservative Hot Seat Again

Chief Justice John Roberts, not only agreed with the court on King vs. Burell, he wrote the opinion that upheld another potential stumbling block for “obamacare”. As a result, some Conservatives are mighty teed off. (Politico). That said if one reads the opinion (here in PDF), the man played by the rules of the Constitution and the Court, ruling from what it appears with prudence, rather than say, any political inference.

In addition to those reforms, the Act requires the creation of an “Exchange” in each State—basically, a marketplace that allows people to compare and purchase insurance plans. The Act gives each State the opportunity to establish its own Exchange, but provides that the Federal Government will establish the Exchange if the State does not. This case is about whether the Act’s interlocking re- 2 KING v. BURWELL Opinion of the Court forms apply equally in each State no matter who establishes the State’s Exchange. Specifically, the question presented is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange.

…..

In addition to those three reforms, the Act requires the creation of an “Exchange” in each State where people can shop for insurance, usually online. 42 U. S. C. §18031(b)(1). An Exchange may be created in one of two ways. First, the Act provides that “[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.” Ibid. Second, if a State nonetheless chooses not to establish its own Exchange, the Act provides that the Secretary of Health and Human Services “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1). The issue in this case is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange rather than a State Exchange. The Act initially provides that tax credits “shall be allowed” for any “applicable taxpayer.” 26 U. S. C. §36B(a). The Act then provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [hereinafter 42 U. S. C. §18031].” 26 U. S. C. §§36B(b)–(c) (emphasis added).

The IRS addressed the availability of tax credits by promulgating a rule that made them available on both State and Federal Exchanges. 77 Fed. Reg. 30378 (2012). As relevant here, the IRS Rule provides that a taxpayer is eligible for a tax credit if he enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange,” 26 CFR §1.36B–2 (2013), which is defined as “an Exchange serving the individual market . . . regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State . . . or by HHS,” 45 CFR §155.20 (2014). At this point, 16 States and the District of Columbia have established their own Exchanges; the other 34 States have elected to have HHS do so.

We begin with the text of Section 36B. As relevant here, Section 36B allows an individual to receive tax credits only if the individual enrolls in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” In other words, three things must be true: First, the individual must enroll in an insurance plan through “an Exchange.” Second, that Exchange must be “established by the State.” And third, that Exchange must be established “under [42 U. S. C. §18031].” We address each requirement in turn. First, all parties agree that a Federal Exchange qualifies as “an Exchange” for purposes of Section 36B. See Brief for Petitioners 22; Brief for Respondents 22. Section 18031 provides that “[e]ach State shall . . . establish an American Health Benefit Exchange . . . for the State.” §18031(b)(1). Although phrased as a requirement, the Act gives the States “flexibility” by allowing them to “elect” whether they want to establish an Exchange. §18041(b). If the State chooses not to do so, Section 18041 provides that the Secretary “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” §18041(c)(1) (emphasis added). (read balance here at supreme court.gov).

Therefore, the Chief Justice sided with the law as it was written. Sour Grapes ensued

Here comes the spin – Obama Care to drive 2 million out of workforce – Leaving a job or reducing hours to qualify for O-Care? – How to Fix the Entire Government – simple steps – any idiot could figure out.

From Investors Business Daily - Obama Care Means Less Work Social Security Worse – headline that makes one wonder if the hits will keep on coming, and of course, they do.

First, the incentive not to work:

ObamaCare's work disincentives will reduce employment levels by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs by 2017, the Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday.

Less work, slower economic growth and burgeoning entitlement-fueled deficits marked the CBO's downbeat 10-year outlook, adding to concerns about the long-term budget.

Further, due to a reduction in the workforce, Social Security is in even more jeopardy:

The outlook for less work than expected from modest earners and a greater share of earnings going to those with high incomes looks particularly troubling for the future of Social Security. The retirement program's annual cash deficits will spiral to $313 billion by 2024 from $68 billion in 2013, CBO said.

Investors Business Daily.

And what did one expect? With Nancy Pelosi quipping, one has to sign the bill in order for one to find out what’s in it – to the burgeoning budget, misleading figures, “you can keep your doctor”, finding that doctors are bailing, You can keep your insurance, finding policies cancelled, and the rollout of the website – less than stellar adds up to a big – What on earth is wrong with those people in Washington?

Did they leave their brains at the door?

Apparently.

How to fix this mess:

Expand Medicare, or keep Medicare for those who are indigent. The Congress and Federal Employees have a health care program with options – make that Congress Care – and allow those who would join the pool at reduced rates – do so. Allow insurers to cross state lines, driving up competition and driving down costs. Make current mandates “a la cart” – for example: infertility services, one could buy a rider for their policy, leaving those who neither want nor need the coverage free to enjoy lower premiums. One thing that should be mandated as covered for all is routine physicals, including mammograms, obgyn exams, colonoscopies and prostrate exam – annually. Finally cap litigation awards, remove class action suits from the medical lexicon, leaving a straight forward open road for individual mal-practice suits. Take the flipping tax off the medical device industry.

The aforementioned simple and easy steps –would not only put the healthcare back to buff, but allow it to flourish.

There should be no incentives to students to enter the field; the field should be enough of an incentive in a free market. Remove mandates that have ties to the IRS or its state equivalent. What those mandate accomplishes nothing more than numbers – as there is a way out (hardship) in all cases, fewer people are insured as state programs are costly. Taking off the mandates, would encourage those who would be paying the states/fed into paying for lower cost insurance plans.

It doesn’t take a Congressperson, a Senator or any other number of Washington elites to figure it out, if this one person could do so (and so many others have) then it should be a no-brainer. We, as a nation, need to get government out of industry and health care is – industry.

Other issues easily solved: Immigration – enforce existing laws –if one must figure out what to-do with twelve million people here, offer them visa’s and insure they have a job. Stop giving crime fighting cash to Mexico –and let them hash it out on their own – they attacked Texas, they lost but they had the temerity –they should get some of that back.

Medical Marijuana – really who cares –it’s medical, it’s marijuana, it’s a weed any eon can grow, and it has benefits – let the states decide

Marriage – let the states decide.

Religion, let the individual decide -freedom of not freedom from (see Constitution)

Women –if we are stupid enough to let one issue allow us to vote like sheep – were doomed, and I mean regardless of the side of life upon which one stands.

A short history: Roe vs. Wade, 1970’s, Presidents since that time: Jimmy Carter (D), Ronald Regan (R), George H. Bush (R), Bill Clinton (D), George W Bush (R), and Barack Obama (D). We have had houses and senates controlled by both parties, intermittently – getting less done by the decade. Not one time, not once, has any one politician done anything to take away one’s birth control or anything to stop abortion. Both of those items are women’s issues and both are economic. If one is pro-choice, buy the goods, have the abortion, if one is pro-life, don’t’. Simple. No government subsidies necessary for any companies that make huge profits from abortions and birth control (Planned Parenthood – we accept all insurance). If we, as women, dropped that issue as a non-starter, stopped giving money to politicians and groups based on the 40 year inability to move the goalpost one inch, and focused on say – economic parity, we would no longer be groups with “and minorities” – as we are a large block that could rule the planet, if we so chose.

Finally Social Security.

Yes, the elites believe we the people are not to be trusted with our own money –because we might not always exercise sound judgment – of course, that’s the pot calling the kettle black – that said, options should be in place, where in this day and age, those putting retirement savings into the government account known a social security could self-direct funds, similar to anyone’s 401k – that would 1) reduce the ability of the Congress to pilfer funds as the accounts would be private, and 2)the rate of return would be higher.

Fixed.

Nancy Pelosi – Is Up for Reelection in 2014 – #1 Reason Obamacare In Place Today

Nancy Pelosi, the U.S. Representative from California 12th District - who got a "gig on 30-Rock" (TV Show) - Image from and article here at Reuters.com

Nancy Pelosi is up for reelection in 2014, in fact she, along with every single Congressional Representative in the U.S. is up for reelection every two years. Congressional Representatives are elected during Mid-Term elections and again during the General Election (when the U.S. votes for a new President).

Nancy Pelosi, in 2009, was the Speaker of the House of Representatives (one Chamber of Congress), as such she was the one individual who pushed Obamacare through stating the infamous words: We have to pass the bill, so you can find out what’s in it” (YouTube) – She is still a cheerleader for the Democrat team, rather than the United States citizens - On NBC news, Ms. Pelosi suggested that all Democrats would stand tall in 2014 in support of Obamacare”. This might not set well with other Democrats, who are facing reelection in both the House of Representatives or the Senate (Both Houses of Congress), as the problems with the Bill, including the rollout fiasco, the high insurance premiums, the loss of policies for millions of people, the part-time status of most workers whose employers don’t want to pay the price for Obamacare, et al., who will have to face constituents who are not enamored of the plan as it was put together by, voted on, and passed and supported by the – Democrats, specifically Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi is the U.S. Representative of the 12th District, which includes the City of San Francisco - that’s it; one City delivered upon the nation the most badly crafted legislation in history.

If Ms. Pelosi had said there was a mistake made and we need to fix it, or offered to work with Republican’s who had some reasonable ideas, instead of sticking to the Democrat Party Line rather than throwing the American Public a life-line, then she would be suitable for reelection. As it now stands it behooves those who vote in San Francisco to take a hard look at any other candidate and choose an alternative U.S. Representative.

A few suggestions as to fixes for “Obamacare” or The Affordable Health Care Act: remove the mandate on individuals and corporations – offer Medicare, with no to limited premiums to those who cannot afford private health insurance-Medicare is already in place. Open state borders, all of them to competition. When a state has only 3 insurance carriers, there is no incentive for those insurers to lower premiums. However, when there is ample competition, the insurers do lower premiums and fast. One shining example is Massachusetts auto insurance changes. Several years ago, Massachusetts only allowed certain carriers to offer auto insurance in the state – Massachusetts had some of the highest auto insurance rates in the nation, until the State opened up the borders allowing competition – there were no changes in the quality of the plans, there was an instant reduction in pricing on premiums however. This made buying car insurance affordable.

The same would be true for health insurance. Only an idiot would think otherwise. This brings up the point that any Representative or Senator who supported Obamacare in any way, shape or form, or did not vote to stop Obamacare when they had the chance so it could be revised –should be shown the proverbial door. This is regardless of whether or not that individual is a Democrat or Republican. It is time to put the Party aside and put the people first. If a representative, such as the CA 12th District’s, Nancy Pelosi, is not smart enough to do the job, or is making additional cash from lobbyists who will make money off the suffering of the Citizens, then, that individual should be replaced – get out and vote.

Cruz’in in Dallas – Defund Obamacare – The Option and the Consequences

Ted Cruz, at a town hall meeting in Dallas suggested that the Congress Stop the Affordable Health Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare by simply defunding the program. He was greeted with enthusiastic support and a smattering of protestors(Dallas Morning News). One might think that Cruz is suggesting a tactic that would be so deplorable that the entire government would come to a screeching half. Frankly, should Congress halt funding, as it does hold the purse strings, one might look to history to see if it is feasible, and what type of tool it might be to stop a program that is obviously harmful to the nations financial stability and most especially the financial security and health of millions of American’s who will be shuttled into the Obamacare program, against their will.

The Kaiser Foundation offers the scenario where premiums for private pay family plans are in the neighborhood of $16,000 annually, which is a “modest increase” – As insurance carriers attempt to get out of Obama care exchanges, successfully, those employer groups are faced with the decision as to whether or not to fund employees healthcare programs or pay a smaller fine to just shove them into the nearest exchange. (Graph’s, etc., at Kaiser).

Therefore, Cruz has a good point, should Congress shut down the government, it would be an inconvenience to most American’s living on fixed incomes, but it would depend a great deal on the messaging as well as the willingness of the Republican’s in Congress and the Senate to step up and do the right thing rather than worry about how the Media and the General Public who would never vote for them anyhow, perceives those individuals. Frankly, it is a big bargaining chip to use in opposition when one is in the Congress. One might want to ask how the budget was balanced, and other reforms that drove the economy to success under the Clinton Administration were accomplished. Or, one might ask Newt Gingrich, who pushed the nation into a shutdown, as part of a larger showdown, forcing the hand of then President Clinton to act.

It was, in essence, a lot of bleating about something that bruised a few polecat class egos, and helped the nation prosper.

If one is not concerned with ego, then one might want to do something right for the nation. Cruz is obvious in his consideration for those who work for a living and the millions upon millions of individuals who will lose their healthcare, and be forced into a system that has yet to meet any of its benchmarks for readiness. In other words, those individuals will be without adequate coverage, or coverage of any kind, while employers will simply pay a fine. Meanwhile, Congress, the Unions, and others who have won exceptions from participating in the plan, will live life as normal. Whether on is a Democrat or Republican, one must take a long hard look at what the program really is, rather than base decisions on partisan nonsense and, ultimately one would find that agreement with Cruz is a normal course of action. Hopefully, there are others of his ilk ready to perform the job they were hired to do.