Category: Healthcare


 

 photo vigilanteagle_zpsffe14026.jpg

 

***********************************************************************************************

Commentary

By John W. Whitehead
May 20, 2013

“I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”—James A. Baldwin

 

Just in time for Memorial Day, we’re being treated to a generous serving of praise and grandstanding by politicians, corporations and others with similarly self-serving motives eager to go on record as being pro-military. Patriotic platitudes aside, however, America has done a deplorable job of caring for her veterans. We erect monuments for those who die while serving in the military, yet for those who return home, there’s little honor to be found.

 

Despite the fact that the U.S. boasts more than 23 million veterans who have served in World War II through Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan, the plight of veterans today, while often overlooked, is common knowledge: impoverished, unemployed, lacking any decent health benefits, homeless, traumatized mentally and physically, struggling with depression, thoughts of suicide, marital stress.

 

Making matters worse, thanks to Operation Vigilant Eagle, a program launched by the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are also being characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be “disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.” As a result, these servicemen and women—many of whom are decorated—are finding themselves under surveillance, threatened with incarceration or involuntary commitment, or arrested, all for daring to voice their concerns about the alarming state of our union and the erosion of our freedoms.

 

An important point to consider, however, is that the government is not merely targeting individuals who are voicing their discontent so much as it is locking up individuals trained in military warfare who are voicing feelings of discontent. Under the guise of mental health treatment and with the complicity of government psychiatrists and law enforcement officials, these veterans are increasingly being portrayed as ticking time bombs in need of intervention. In 2012, for instance, the Justice Department launched a pilot program aimed at training SWAT teams to deal with confrontations involving highly trained and often heavily armed combat veterans.

 

In the four years since the start of Operation Vigilant Eagle, the government has steadily ramped up its campaign to “silence” dissidents, especially those with military backgrounds. Coupled with the DHS’ dual reports on Rightwing and Leftwing “Extremism,” which broadly define extremists as individuals and groups “that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” these tactics have boded ill for anyone seen as opposing the government.

 

One particularly troubling mental health label being applied to veterans and others who challenge the status quo is “oppositional defiance disorder” (ODD). As journalist Anthony Martin explains, an ODD diagnosis

 

“denotes that the person exhibits ‘symptoms’ such as the questioning of authority, the refusal to follow directions, stubbornness, the unwillingness to go along with the crowd, and the practice of disobeying or ignoring orders. Persons may also receive such a label if they are considered free thinkers, nonconformists, or individuals who are suspicious of large, centralized government… At one time the accepted protocol among mental health professionals was to reserve the diagnosis of oppositional defiance disorder for children or adolescents who exhibited uncontrollable defiance toward their parents and teachers.”

 

The case of 26-year-old decorated Marine Brandon Raub—who was targeted because of his Facebook posts, interrogated by government agents about his views on government corruption, arrested with no warning, labeled mentally ill for subscribing to so-called “conspiratorial” views about the government, detained against his will in a psych ward for standing by his views, and isolated from his family, friends and attorneys—is a prime example of the government’s war on veterans.

 

Raub’s case exposes the seedy underbelly of a governmental system that is targeting Americans—especially military veterans—for expressing their discontent over America’s rapid transition to a police state.

 

On Thursday, August 16, 2012, a swarm of local police, Secret Service and FBI agents arrived at Raub’s home, asking to speak with him about posts he had made on his Facebook page made up of song lyrics, political opinions and dialogue used in a political thriller virtual card game. Among the posts cited as troublesome were lyrics to a song by the rap group Swollen Members and Raub’s views, shared increasingly by a number of Americans, that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job.

 

After a brief conversation and without providing any explanation, levying any charges against Raub or reading him his rights, law enforcement officials then handcuffed Raub and transported him first to the police headquarters, then to a medical center, where he was held against his will due to alleged concerns that his Facebook posts were “terrorist in nature.” Outraged onlookers filmed the arrest and posted the footage to YouTube, where it quickly went viral. Meanwhile, The Rutherford Institute came to Raub’s assistance, which combined with heightened media attention, may have helped prevent Raub from being successfully “disappeared” by the government.

 

Read Full Commentary Here

About these ads

California HIPAA-covered entity sues big time

This story has been updated

The Internal Revenue Service could now be facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10 million Americans, including medical records of all California state judges.

According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some 60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by 15 IRS agents. The personal health information seized on March 11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment data.     “This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by several Internal Revenue Service agents,” wrote Robert E. Barnes, attorney representing the John Doe Company, in the official complaint. “No search warrant authorized the seizure of these records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance whatsoever to the IRS search. IT personnel at the scene, a HIPPA facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS agents of these privileged records,” the complaint continued.   According to the complaint, the IRS agents obtained a search warrant for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the John Doe Company, however, “it did not authorize any seizure of any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all third parties completely unrelated to the matter,” the complaint read.    The IRS did not respond to multiple inquiries regarding the case.

 photo obamacarelogo_zps3de31909.jpg

 

By Pete Kasperowicz 05/16/13 06:28 PM ET

 

The House voted to repeal ObamaCare on Thursday for the third time since Republicans took over the chamber in 2011.

Only two Democrats sided with Republicans in the party-line 229-195 vote — Jim Matheson (Utah) and Mike McIntyre (N.C.). All Republicans voted in favor of repeal.

This is the 37th time the House GOP has voted to repeal or defund at least part of the bill, but this latest bill will also not become law given Democrats’ control of the Senate.

 

Still, many House Republicans had clamored for the bill from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) to be considered, while Democrats accused the GOP of wasting the House’s time.ObamaCare’s implementation is expected to be a major issue in next year’s midterm elections, and some Democrats have expressed worries that the law and its implementation problems could be a problem for their party.

The two Democrats who voted for repeal were part of a group of five Democrats who voted with Republicans in last year’s repeal vote. The other three are no longer in office — Reps. Dan Boren (Okla.), Larry Kissell (N.C.) and Mike Ross (Ark.).

The vote followed a two-hour debate in which Republicans said ObamaCare repeal is needed more than ever in light of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal, since the IRS will play a key role in enforcing the law.

Bachmann implied the scandal shows the IRS cannot stay neutral on these issues, and said Americans should be worried about IRS enforcement of the health law.

“In light of the recent revelations that have just come out within this last week regarding the outrageous activities of the Internal Revenue Service pointed against the people of the United States, every American should be concerned about the negative consequences of this bill, ObamaCare,” Bachmann said.

“The Supreme Court has ruled that ObamaCare is in fact a tax. Knowing that it’s a tax, the logical conclusion is that the entity in the United States tasked with enforcing tax policy is the IRS.”

Read Full Article Here

DoHowToEvo

Published on May 14, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder says he’s ordered a Justice Department investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups for extra tax scrutiny.

He said the FBI was coordinating with the Department of Justice to see if any laws were broken.

At a news conference Tuesday at the Justice Department, Holder called the practice, in his words, “Outrageous and unacceptable.”

Holder’s comments come a day after President Barack Obama said that, if the agency intentionally targeted such groups, “that’s outrageous and there’s no place for it.”

Steven Miller, the IRS acting chief, has acknowledged “a lack of sensitivity” in the agency’s screenings of political groups seeking tax-exempt status and insisted those mistakes won’t be repeated.

**************************************************************************************

IRS Under Fire for Scrutinizing Conservative Groups

PBSNewsHour PBSNewsHour·

Published on May 13, 2013

Reports charge the IRS targeted conservative political groups in 2012 by applying extra scrutiny to organizations that focused on government spending or the U.S. Constitution or had the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Judy Woodruff reports on responses from the president and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

***************************************************************************************

The Time Obama Made An Auditing Joke FLASHBACK 2009

StandUpFor FreedomLiberty StandUpFor FreedomLiberty

Published on May 10, 2013

President Obama was giving the commencement address at Arizona State University in 2009 where he joked about auditing the president of ASU and their board of regents . Today, the IRS apologized for unfairly targeting Tea Party groups with extra scrutiny about their tax status.

***************************************************************************************

 photo obamacarelogo_zps3de31909.jpg

He  fails to discuss the fact that the majority of the constituents  in those  Republican  governed  States agree  with their States  decision.  They  want  nothing to do  with  Obamacare…….But that  would  not  fall into the  sweet  little  package  being  used  by  both  sides of  the  aisle.  That  little topic   he  loves  to  use  at  every turn,  claiming  that  the other side  is  playing  politics.  How  convenient for  him.  The  truth is this is not   a fight  for the  good of  the  People  or  the  Nation.   But  rather  a fight  to  control  the  flow  of all those  taxpayer   and  corporate  lobbyist  dollars.  A  political  game  of Tug-of-War  if you  will.  

Partisan BS at  it’s finest!

He  also  fails to  address something  aside from  the fact that  while  those  who do not  have insurance may be  his  concern because  those who already have  insurance have  seen the  changes  and  the  added  cost that  have been  implemented  by the  healthcare  program.  There  has  been  no  adequate  discussion on the repercussions to   middle  class Americans  who are  having to make  due with smaller paychecks  and the ever rising  costs  associated  with the  financial  rot that  is  affecting  this  Nation.  Yes  those  who qualify  will be  able to receive free healthcare or State  sponsored  healthcare.  What  about  those  who make   just  enough  to  keep their  bills paid  and  food on the table?

What  about  those  barely  able  to  eek  out a living with what  little  they  make and  still be able to  put  gas in the  car  to keep  going  to that  underpaid job?

Who is  going to help them  when the  time  comes  to  get  this   insurance  exchange,  that  is  being  touted  as  the answer to all our  ills ( pun most  definitely intended),   is more than they  can  possibly  afford  and still feed their  children?

The fact is that those  who cannot  afford  insurance because  they   literally cannot afford  to , even , take  their  kids  to  a  burger  king for a  cheap meal just as a treat,  something once  taken  for  granted by  mainstream  families  everywhere in this  Nation. 

They  cannot  afford  a kid  meal’s worth  out  of  their established  budget and   yet  they  will be  expected  to pay  for insurance? 

Adding insult to injury they  will be  found   to not  qualify  for  the  financial  assistance necessary to  receive discounted  or  free  healthcare  because  they  make  more than is allowed  according to the  bean counters  that  established  the criteria, from their   cushy  offices in  Washington.  The  simple  truth is  they  will either  have  to  pay  for an  insurance  they  cannot  afford   or they  will have  to  pay  a  fine that they  still cannot  afford.  Either  way   the  middle  working  class pays out the  nose  , like it  or  not .  

After all  ,  with all the  homeless  American  families  now  eating in  soup  kitchens  and   sleeping in cars  or  in shelters,  what’s a few  more  right ? 

They  won’t lose  any  sleep  over it that  much  has  been made painfully  obvious.  As  they are  so  far  removed  from the  everyday   struggle that   Americans  have  to  simply  survive. The truth being that they  are unable to  fathom  what  it is  like going to bed  at  night hungry  because  the  only  food  in the  house  has  been  set  aside  to make  sure  the  children  have  something to  eat.

Either  way  we  don’t get  to  choose  because  this  legislation  has been  jammed   down   our throats  and  now they are  worried  about  their  2014  campaign?

Yes, well  we  already  know that the only  thing  politicians  care about  is  being  re-elected  so they  can  keep  filling  their  pockets  with their  ill gotten  gain  from  selling the  American  people  down the  river.  That  however,  does  not a proper  and  just program  make of the  Healthcare program  that  has  now  been made  law against the  will and to the  detriment of  the PEOPLE!!

~Desert Rose~

*********************************************************************************************************************

Obama defends health law as Democrats fret over 2014 elections

By Sam Baker 05/10/13 03:29 PM ET

President Obama on Friday sought to quell Democratic worries and public misconceptions about his healthcare law, months before its biggest provisions are set to take effect.

Members of Obama’s own party have relentlessly criticized the administration for not doing enough to sell the public on ObamaCare, especially as new coverage options are about to come online. Some Democrats fear a rough rollout could cost them in the 2014 midterms.

“Undoubtedly, there will be some mistakes and hiccups” as major pieces of the law fall into place later this year, Obama said Friday.

But he said the law’s supporters “have an obligation to now make sure that full implementation moves forward the way it needs to.”Most of the law’s biggest provisions will take effect between Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, 2014.

“I’m here to tell you, I am 110 percent committed to getting it done right,” Obama said.

Public polling shows the healthcare law remains unpopular — just 35 percent of those polled in the most recent Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll said they have a favorable opinion of the law, while 40 percent had an unfavorable view.

That’s a major concern for Democrats ahead of a midterm election that historically goes against the president’s party. Republicans are hoping to add to their advantage in the House, and to retake the Senate.

Obama, for his part, is hoping to buck history. If Republicans gain congressional seats next year, his years as a lame-duck president are likely to begin immediately. But by gaining seats — and especially by winning back the House — Obama could give himself a chance to add to his record in the last two years of his term.

A senior administration official downplayed the bad polling Friday, saying reactions to the health law break along partisan lines and that internal polls look slightly better for the White House.

Read Full Article Here

**********************************************************************************************************************

Poll: Many Americans uninformed about health care overhaul, some don’t know it’s law

A Tea Party member reaches for a pamphlet titled “The Impact of Obamacare”, at a “Food for Free Minds Tea Party Rally” in Littleton, New Hampshire October 27, 2012. REUTERS/Jessica Rinaldi

President Barack Obama reflects on the status of the Affordable Care Act while speaking Tuesday at the White House.

As the Obama administration girds for “glitches and bumps” along the path to full implementation of the health-care law, a new poll indicates many Americans are still unclear about the details of the new law and, in some cases, unaware it’s actually law of the land.

A whopping 42 percent of Americans do not know that the Affordable Care Act is, in fact, law. Included in that 42 percent — 12 percent believe it has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent think the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it, and 23 percent are unsure of its status, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll.

For the record, no portion of the law has been repealed; and the Supreme Court upheld it last summer in a 5-4 decision. The law continues to be viewed more negatively than positively, with just 35 percent saying they have a favorable view and 40 percent saying they have an unfavorable one. But the prolonged implementation, complexity of the law, and messaging by opponents has aided in the confusion. The administration is starting to push back, beginning with the president.

“It’s still a big undertaking,” President Barack Obama acknowledged Tuesday in a press conference at the White House. “And what we’re doing is making sure that every single day we are constantly trying to hit our marks so that it will be in place. … Even if we do everything perfectly, there will still be glitches and bumps. … And that’s pretty much true of every government program that’s ever been set up.”

The poll comes as the administration Tuesday took one step to streamline the application process for health insurance for the uninsured, unveiling a shorter, three-page application form rather than the earlier, 21-page version that was criticized. Enrollment begins Oct. 1 for insurance that would take effect Jan. 1.

Nearly half of all Americans – 49 percent – say they still do not have enough information about the law and how it will impact their families. There are plenty of people happy to try and fill in the gaps.

Republicans, for example, have begun mounting a messaging campaign against the law’s implementation, hoping it can help them in the 2014 midterms and potentially hand over control of the Senate to the GOP, which needs to net six seats to accomplish that goal.

They have seized, in particular, on retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’ comment at a hearing earlier this month that implementation of the law will not just see “glitches and bumps,” but said it will be a “train wreck.”

“I urge my friends on the other side to join with Republicans and stop this ‘train wreck’ before things get even worse,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, up for re-election in 2014, said on the floor of the upper chamber.

Views of the law have gotten worse since the presidential election, sliding from 43 percent favorable to 35 percent. Democrats are mostly responsible for the drop, as pre-election partisanship begins to fade and details of implementation begin to come into focus.

But on Tuesday, President Obama –  in his most extensive defense of the implementation of the law so far –  said, “Despite all the hue and cry and ‘sky is falling’ predictions about this stuff, if you’ve already got health insurance, then that part of ‘Obamacare’ that affects you, it’s pretty much already in place.”

What remains, he added, is getting the 10 percent to 15 percent of Americans who do not have health insurance, and who will face a penalty next year if they choose not to purchase it, to enroll in state or federal exchanges. The federal government’s job is also made more difficult, the president said, because big states like Florida and Texas, both states with Republican governors, have opted against setting up exchanges.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

Schumer: Health Insurance Rates Likely To Spike, Obamacare Partly Responsible

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

Rochester, N.Y. (CBS DC) – Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat and longtime backer of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, said that insurance rates are likely to spike – and “Obamacare” is partly to blame.

Speaking with WHEC Rochester, Schumer said, “Our insurance department is empowered to protect families and we’re going to watch them like a hawk to make sure they do, because if they don’t, these rates could go through the roof.”

“It’s in part because of Obamacare, but health care costs have been going up in double digits for years and years and years. The good news is in this bill, there’s a way to stop it.”

The comments from Schumer were in response to many insurance companies’ failure to announce premium increases for next year. Some healthcare experts are warning that premiums could go up by more than 10 percent on January 1 when Obamacare kicks in across the country.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

GOP seeks $4B for ObamaCare program

By Sam Baker 04/17/13 07:52 PM ET

House Republicans are trying to pump $4 billion into an ObamaCare program.

The Energy and Commerce Committee passed a bill Wednesday to beef up funding for the healthcare law’s high-risk insurance pools, which have stopped accepting new patients due to a lack of funding.

The additional money for high-risk pools would come out of another part of the healthcare law — its fund for prevention and public health, which Republicans decry as a “slush fund.”

It’s the first time Republicans have tried to fix, rather than repeal, a program in the healthcare law, and the move has angered many on the right.
Some Republicans were clearly prepared for criticism.

“A minority of our conference feels that the only vote that should be taken against ObamaCare is a repeal vote — all or nothing, to kill it dead,” Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said. “I’ve always felt that … if we see areas we can chip away at, that are the most egregious parts of the bill, we really should do that.”

Republicans have a lot riding on the performance of the high-risk pools.

While the program is a relatively small piece of the Affordable Care Act, high-risk pools make up the cornerstone of Republican plans to “repeal and replace” the law.

House Republicans have said high-risk pools should replace one of the healthcare law’s most popular provisions — the requirement that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions.

If the high-risk pools in the Affordable Care Act prove ineffective, Republicans could have a harder time making the argument that they could help make up a viable alternative to ObamaCare.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said it’s “ironic” that Republicans are trying to spend more money on a government-run healthcare system, while the Democrats’ healthcare law covers the uninsured through the private market.

“People ought to be able to buy insurance,” Waxman said. “And people with pre-existing conditions are higher-risk and would be charged a higher price if we didn’t spread out the population to get as many people as possible covered.”

Under a high-risk pool, the government pays to insure sick people who have been denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. The pools contain only the sickest and most expensive patients, and the government is left with the bill.

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers lose the right to deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and the cost of covering sick people is spread across the entire healthcare system. The law established temporary high-risk pools as a bridge until the ban on coverage denials takes effect on Jan. 1, 2014.

Read Full Article Here

************************************************************************************************************************

May 9, 2013

Geneva College in Beaver Falls, Pa., was founded in 1848 by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America and is ‘committed to a Christian worldview that acknowledges God’s sovereignty over every area of creation.’ (Photo from college’s website)

Geneva’s original lawsuit, filed in February, was dismissed a few weeks later “for lack of ripeness,” based partly on the Obama administration’s announcement that it was offering accommodation to religious entities such as Geneva that do not fit Obamacare’s definition of a “religious employer.”

But in its motion to reconsider, Geneva College called the “accommodation” a “smoke and mirrors” approach that would still require the college to provide and pay for a plan that allows employees access to the objectionable services.

Geneva told the court its objection to the contraceptive mandate remains unchanged despite the Obama administration’s proposed accommodation; and it further argued that it has already begun negotiating the terms of its student health insurance plan for the 2013-2014 plan year (which begins on August 1, 2013), and must now choose between making available insurance with objectionable provisions — or eliminating its student health insurance plan altogether.

“All Americans, including job creators and providers, should be free to live according to their faith rather than be forced into violating their own consciences,” said Gregory S. Baylor, a senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Geneva. “The court has done the right thing in allowing Geneva College to remain in this lawsuit…to ensure that the government doesn’t punish people of faith for making decisions consistent with that faith.”

Read Full Article Here

By David Edwards
Thursday, May 2, 2013 12:58 EDT
The Raw Story
[Image via Mary Austin, Creative Commons licensed]
  • 6326

     

  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

The South Carolina state House on Wednesday passed a so-called “nullification” bill that is declares President Barack Obama’s health care reform law to be “null and void,” and criminalizes it’s implementation.

The South Carolina Freedom of Health Care Protection Act was passed by a state House vote of 65 to 39. The bill intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

The measure would allow the state Attorney General “to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction” any person who is believed to be causing harm with the implementation of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Any South Carolina taxpayer who is forced to pay a penalty due to the federal health care mandate would be able to deduct the full amount of the penalty from their state taxes.

Additionally, the measure would outlaw state and local government from creating or using non-profit health care exchanges a outlined by the health care reform law.

States rights advocates see nullification as a viable alternative to secession because they claim the state has authority under the Tenth Amendment to invalidate unconstitutional legislation.

But many constitutional scholars believe that the Tenth Amendment is too vague to be used as a way for states to usurp federal authority on key issues.

Read Full Article Here

May 2, 2013

sebelius-obama

President Barack Obama hugs HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after signing the Obamacare law on March 23, 2010. (White House photo/Pete Souza)

(CNSNews.com) – Here comes another legal challenge to Obamacare: On Thursday, a group of small business owners and individuals in six states sued the federal government over an IRS regulation that they say goes beyond the “plain language” of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs argue that federal subsidies intended to help lower-income people afford insurance are going to states that should not get them.

The way the Affordable Care Act is written, states that refuse to set up their own health care exchanges are not eligible for the federal premium subsidies.

But the IRS rule says lower-income people living in those states will get federal subsidies to help them pay for their insurance premiums — even though the Affordable Care Act’s statutory language limits those subsidies to exchanges established by the states.

The lawsuit says because of the IRS rule that illegally expands federal subsidies to all states, the plaintiffs “will be forced to either purchase or sponsor specific insurance that they otherwise would not purchase or sponsor, or expose themselves to financial penalties.”

Bottom line: The plaintiffs want nothing to do with Obamacare, and they say the availability of federal subsidies will force them into it — or penalize them for avoiding it.

Here’s the background: To encourage states to establish their own health insurance exchanges, Congress offered low- and moderate- income residents premium assistance – in the form of refundable tax credits — to help them buy insurance on state health exchanges.

States that refused to establish their own exchanges — leaving it to the federal government instead — would not get subsidized premiums.

As it turns out, a majority of states (33) have refused to establish their own health care exchanges. But regardless of statutory language limiting subsidized premiums to exchanges established by the states, the IRS has issued a rule authorizing federal subsidies even in states that are letting the federal government establish their exchanges for them.

Disbursing monies from the U.S. Treasury in this way exceeds the authority granted by Obamacare, the plaintiffs argue. As the lawsuit put it, “The IRS Rule squarely contravenes the express text of the ACA, ignoring the clear limitations that Congress imposed on the availability of the federal subsidies.”

“Agencies are bound by the laws enacted by Congress,” said Sam Kazman, general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which is coordinating the lawsuit. “Obamacare is already an incredibly massive program.  For the IRS to expand it even more, without congressional authorization and in a manner aimed at undercutting state choice, is flagrantly illegal.”

Read Full Article  Here

 photo obamacarelogo_zps3de31909.jpg

………………….

The Hill

By Elise Viebeck 04/16/13 10:14 AM ET

House Republicans are moving quickly on a new bill to strengthen ObamaCare’s temporary insurance plan for people with pre-existing conditions.

The Helping Sick Americans Now Act (H.R. 1549) was introduced late Monday and is scheduled for a mark-up Wednesday in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The measure seeks to shore up the Pre-Existing Conditions Insurance Plan (PCIP), a struggling program designed to offer insurance to vulnerable patients while the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented.The Obama administration announced earlier this year that it would suspend enrollment in the PCIP, citing cost concerns.

GOP lawmakers have since mounted a push to transfer money from the law’s public and preventive health fund — disparaged as a “slush” fund by Republicans — to reopen the PCIP’s enrollment.

The new measure follows a letter from House GOP leaders to President Obama asking him to make that move without congressional action.

Read Full Article Here

Reblogged from Personal Liberty Digest™:

Give us a break! That’s what Congress finally did on Saturday, when after a marathon session in the Senate, Congressmen all agreed to head out of town for their two-week spring break. So we’re safe from their meddlesome efforts until April 8.

But what a show they put on before they left. After arguing most of the night, the Senate finally managed to pass its first budget in four years at 4:56 in the morning.

Read more… 1,008 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 739 other followers