Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Obamacare - Health Care Law - #3420 - Another Obamacare Glitch -Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, Wall Street Journal (2) Obamacare Goes to Court - Wall Street Journal

Even if ObamaCare survives Supreme Court scrutiny next spring, its trials will be far from over. That's because the law has a major glitch that threatens its basic functioning. It's so problematic, in fact, that the Obama administration is now brazenly trying to rewrite the law without involving Congress. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers "premium assistance"—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law's cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law's full cost, support for repeal will grow.) The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange. This is where the glitch comes in: 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 wants to avoid that legislative debacle, so this summer it proposed an IRS rule to offer premium assistance in all exchanges "whether established under section 1311 or 1321." On Nov. 17 the IRS will hold a public hearing on that proposal. According to a Treasury Department spokeswoman, the administration is "confident" that offering premium assistance where Congress has not authorized it "is consistent with the intent of the law and our ability to interpret and implement it."  Read more..........

Obamacare Goes to Court - Wall Street Journal - The "constitutionality" of the Obama health care law, Harvard Law School's Laurence Tribe wrote in the New York Times earlier this year, "is open and shut," adding that the challenge against it is "a political objection in legal garb."  In announcing yesterday that it will consider the law's constitutionality, the Supreme Court said it would give an historic five-and-a-half hours to oral arguments. Perhaps by his Cambridge standard, Mr. Tribe thinks the nine Justices are a little slow. We prefer to think this shows the Court recognizes the seriousness of the constitutional issues involved. It makes those who cavalierly dismissed the very idea of a challenge two years ago look, well, constitutionally challenged.  Read more..........  Steve Peters: Conservative judges attempt to apply the law, whereas many liberal judges rewrite existing law. Chief Justice John Roberts, states his job is just to, "just call balls and strikes" Using this analogy, liberal judges change the definition on what constitutes a ball, strike, and even the required total numbers to determine if the batter has struck out, or earned a walk. Conservatives have a strong conviction that the liberals have "politicized" the court system. Do you remember how Ted Kennedy gave us the term "borked", which is now found in the dictionary? Definition: "Rejecting someone following unfavorable publicity for his ALLEGEDLY extreme views and obstruct someone through systematic defamation or vilification." Ted Kennedy and the Democrat's tried it again when they attempted to give Clarence Thomas a, "High-Tech Lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves". Not long ago, we did not talk about a judge being a Republican or a Democrat, who has lowered the bar and brought politics into the judicial system? Democrats! The liberals favorite Saul Alinsky trick is to blame us for something that they are actively doing. In this case, if ObamaCare is struck down, they will refuse to admit it has anything to do with violating the Constitution and everything to do with politics on the part of on the Supreme Court.

No comments:

Post a Comment