New word of the day: SCOTUScare

Art credit: Tenthamendmentcenter.com

So the SCOTUS validates Obamacare in a 6-3 vote, leaving the Ohio Health Care Compact (HB 34) as the best available protection for Ohioans; see CTPP’s earlier blog here and scroll to the bottom for details on Columbus lawmakers.

William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has posted much of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent. Here are some key passages:

"Scalia points out that the words have a plain meaning:

This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the State—which means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is “established by the State.” …. [at 2, italics in original]

"Scalia argued — persuasively — that the overriding goal seems to be saving Obamacare, not exercising normal judicial interpretation of plain language:

“[T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. [at 2-3]

"Scalia wrote that the majority opinion rewrote the law “with no semblance of shame”:

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the State” is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.” Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) [at 3]

"Scalia then delivered the best line of the day. Looking back over multiple decisions from the Court to rewrite Obamacare in order to save it, Scalia insisted that the law now should be called SCOTUScare:

Today’s opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45).

The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. 

We should start calling this law SCOTUScare. [at 20-21, emphasis and hard paragraph breaks added.]

"The legacy of this Court, Scalia wrote, will live on just as Obamacare, but in infamy:

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.

I dissent.

Call or email representatives in Columbus (scroll down here). 

# # #

King vs. Burwell and Obamacare

Art credit: crooks and liars.com

The King vs. Burwell case is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court at the end of June. The SCOTUS could strike down Obamacare subsidies in 34 non-exchange states. Here is an interactive map showing the status of each state and its health care exchanges. Ohio is one of seven states categorized as “Federally facilitated marketplace; state conducting plan management.”

Last week, Betsy McCaughey identified the potential winners and losers if SCOTUS strikes down the subsidies:

If Supremes slap ObamaCare, it’s health insurers who lose

. . . the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell, expected this month . . . will determine the fate of these subsidies in 37 states.

Without subsidies, ObamaCare buyers in those states will have to pay the actual — and unaffordable — sticker price of ObamaCare. And you — taxpayers — will not have to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize insurers over the next decade.

But the dirty secret is that insurers stand to lose the most from King v. Burwell.

The Affordable Care Act compels the public to buy their product, and forces taxpayers to subsidize it. What a sweetheart deal.

The giant players — United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, Anthem and Humana — have seen stock prices double, triple, even quadruple since the law was passed in 2010. The coming ruling threatens to put an end to their gravy train.

Democrats are predicting disaster if the court rules against President Obama.

Republicans will “rue the day” they let millions of people lose their subsidies, says Nancy Pelosi. That’s crazy talk.

No one will lose their coverage immediately, the poor will be unaffected and the biggest losers will be insurance companies.

Employers, job-seekers and taxpayers actually stand to win here.

In addition, most Republicans in Congress are inclined to compromise with the president to provide some type of financial help for insurance buyers. If the Supremes gut ObamaCare, there will be many more winners than losers. Here’s how it shakes out:

The Affordable Care Act says subsidies will be provided only in states that set up their own exchanges. But only a handful of states (including New York) did.

In 37 states that didn’t, people use the federal healthcare.gov Web site instead. The Obama administration handed out subsidies to these people anyway, playing fast and loose with the law — and your money.

If the justices rule that the Obama administration can’t do that, some 7.7 million people will eventually lose their subsidies.

. . .

Insurance companies are lobbying furiously for a congressional fix.

Meanwhile, outside Washington, DC, a ruling nixing the subsidies will benefit employers and job-seekers.

Any of the 37 states that want to can set up an exchange and immediately qualify for the subsidies. But most are controlled by the GOP and won’t do it.

Without subsidies, the employer mandate is toothless, because employers are only fined if their uninsured workers go to an exchange and get a subsidy.

Employers who have been struggling to keep their workforce under 50 (where ObamaCare kicks in) and use part-timers (who aren’t subject to ObamaCare) won’t have to worry any more. Nullifying the employer mandate is likely to ignite a hiring boom.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, that looming mandate has caused 21 percent of small businesses to reduce workers’ hours, 41 percent to delay hiring and 27 percent of franchises (such as fast-food restaurants) to replace full-timers with part-timers.

People facing a penalty for being uninsured will also come out ahead. Without subsidies, most will be exempted from the penalty, saving them $2,000 on average next year.

Despite Democrats’ dire warnings, the poor won’t be hurt. An amazing 89 percent of people who are newly insured because of ObamaCare are on Medicaid, which won’t be affected.

Ignore the alarmist rhetoric. A loss for the Obama administration in King v. Burwell will be a win for most Americans.

Read the entire article here.

# # #

American Veterans Deserve Better Health Care

From Tea Party Patriots --

When it comes to health care for veterans who have fought around the world defending our freedoms, it is our duty to provide the best treatment and the best resources in a timely manner. Anything less than that is nothing short of failure. President Obama’s Department of Veterans Affairs is failing our veterans with dozens dying before receiving necessary medical care.

In Arizona, the Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System is under fire for covering up evidence that links the deaths of veterans to prolonged waits for necessary medical care. Florida Rep. Jeff Miller, who chairs the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, says his staff has proof the Phoenix VA system secretly keeps two sets of records in order to hide information about prolonged waits that veterans must endure for treatment.

“It appears as though there could be as many as 40 veterans whose deaths could be related to delays in care,” said Miller during a hearing on Wednesday. Rep. Miller’s revelations follow VA whistleblower reports that raised red flags about VA’s record-keeping practices, as well as veterans’ deaths and mismanagement.

One doctor who retired from the Phoenix VA Medical Center last year sent a letter to the Inspector General and the U.S. Attorney, among others, claiming the Phoenix system is afflicted with “gross mismanagement of VA resources and criminal misconduct” that resulted in “systemic patient safety issues and possible wrongful deaths.”

“Possible wrongful deaths.” Welcome to Obama’s VA.

There are several lessons to be drawn from the VA problems in Phoenix; the least of which being that the federal government isn’t optimized for administering health care. Bureaucracies don’t run like private markets do. In one, misconduct, fraud, and corruption are inherently discouraged by criminal prosecution, fines and prison. In the other, mismanagement, secrecy, and the concealment of failure is rarely deterred or detected. It’s not difficult to figure out which is which.

The current problems at VA demand reform and involve more than just medical care. Nearly 600,000 veterans await a decision on their disability claims. Worse yet, VA data suggests that the backlog of claims more than 125 days old has fallen because of suspect denials. In Obama’s VA, the number of appeals following a denial of benefits has soared to more than 274,000, leaving those veterans waiting more than 400 more days to have their disability claims reviewed.

VA health care is available only to a fraction of veterans and is not an entitlement; it is an earned benefit provided to those who were wounded or otherwise disabled during their time in uniform. They deserve better than what Obama is delivering.

Another trainwreck in the future: implementing Obamacare

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare, most of us have been strategizing on how to ensure that Congress repeals the bill and any related bills and regulations. But there’s another impediment that guarantees another type of trainwreck with the (un)Affordable Healthcare Act: that is, the implementation of the bazillions of regulations, taxes, and provisions -- a computer programmer’s nightmare. Think the Y2K panic in 1999 but much much worse. From Standing Pat :

Obamacare faces significant hurdles in implementation. Healthcare is complex, and made much more complex by state and federal regulations. It is administered using massive computer systems, some of them decades old. These systems are difficult to change and modify, yet they will all require modifications to comply with the raft of new regulations introduced by Obamacare. Private organizations face the added burden of making these changes while complying with SOX [Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002] procedures. It is no exaggeration to say that SOX doubles development time and doubles the staff needed to do development. SOX makes it very difficult to use modern rapid development methodologies and forces organizations to use older methodologies that are long on paperwork and short on results. . . .

Quoting from Politico:

If state health care exchanges survive the Supreme Court challenge to health care reform, the election and state tea party activists, health policy experts are worried they could still be brought down by a much more mundane problem: information technology.

Even states that are solidly committed to pursuing an exchange are facing major logistical challenges in building the computer systems that will be able to handle enrollment when exchanges open for business in 2014.

That’s largely because the system that will actually connect people to the right coverage will have to “talk” to many other systems, and the systems don’t use a common language. This includes a yet-to-be built federal “data hub” with tax and citizenship info, the enrollment systems of multiple private insurers selling exchange plans and — hardest of all — state Medicaid enrollment systems, many of which are not yet fully computerized.

[back to Standing Pat]: Anyone who has observed the Government’s sorry record on implementing complex IT systems on time and within budget just know that this is a disaster waiting to happen.

The federal government's healthcare power-grab can only make things worse. Another reason to demand that Congress repeal it.

UPDATE from Fox News at 5:17:

The Health and Human Services Department "was given a billion dollars implementation money," Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said. "That money is gone already on additional bureaucrats and IT programs, computerization for the implementation."

"Oh boy," Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute said. "HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans."

The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations -- an effort well under way:

"There's already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they're not even done yet," Rehberg said.

OBAMACARE, THE SCOTUS DECISION, AND STATES' RIGHTS

It’s not over till it’s over. The 5-4 SCOTUS decision upholding Obamacare is prompting a wide range of reactions. According to Dov Fischer at American Thinker:

There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. . . .

What is the point here? If the “federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want,” under this ruling, they may instead wield the authority of Congress to impose a tax to coerce Americans to buy things they don’t want.

It’s actually worse than that. Andy McCarthy makes the case that

the Supreme Court decided that Americans have no right to due process. Indeed, the Court not only upheld a fraud perpetrated on the public — it became a willing participant. …

Chief Justice Roberts & Co. . . . said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly. . . .

Further, it shielded the political branches from accountability for raising taxes, knowing full well that, had Obama and the Democrats leveled with the public that ObamaCare entailed a huge tax hike, it would never have had the votes to pass. . . .

The ObamaCare mandate was enacted as a penalty flowing from Congress’s Commerce Clause power. It has been upheld as a tax flowing from Congress’s power to tax-and-spend under the General Welfare Clause. As the dissent sharply demonstrates, the contention that the mandate could have been enacted as a tax is frivolous.

State Governors, such as Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) are already stepping up to the plate by refusing to to “establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state.” So has Democrat Governor John Lynch (New Hampshire). Media Trackers reports that Gov. John Kasich has announced that Ohio will not “create a health insurance exchange” with the federal government. It's an opportunity to call Kasich's office with words of solid support. PH (614) 466-3555 or e-mail him here.

Fischer further commented on the potential political consequences of the SCOTUS ruling:

Congress has a massive new mess awaiting it, all as voters prepare to vote for a new Congress and for 33 Unite States Senate seats, 23 now held by Democrats and their two “independent” allies. House Republicans solidly will vote symbolically to overturn the legislative monstrosity, and they will find endangered House Democrats breaking ranks with their leadership to vote with them. Senate Democrats facing reelection will be caught in a vise. Harry Reid will be trying desperately to prevent a vote on ObamaCare repeal from reaching the Senate floor, even as national news coverage focuses on the two national parties’ conventions.

Politico reports that "House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.” It’s not too early to call the representatives from Ohio. Republican contact info is here.

Tea Party Patriots "greet" Pres. Obama at Tri-C Metro

President Obama made a campaign stop in Cleveland today (Thursday, 14 June 2012). He spoke nearly an hour to enthusiastic supporters at the Tri-C Metro campus. Approximately 50 patriots turned up at Tri-C Metro today to register their opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies that have destroyed jobs, and have adversely affected the economy, energy (especially Ohio coal), and healthcare. Tea Party Patriots were standing with Romney supporters, despite the different messages: Tea Party Patriots were there to express opposition to President Obama’s policies; Romney supporters were there to advocate Romney’s candidacy.

Among the media that either photographed and/or interviewed participants were The Plain Dealer (scroll down) - see also here (crowd underestimated), WKYC-TV Ch. 3, WEWS-TV Ch. 5, and a reporter from the AP. Check back for updated links.

UPDATE: Big Government reports that even a liberal "like Jonathan Alter had to admit that [Obama's speech] was, overall, a dramatic failure". Quoted at The Daily Caller:

“I thought this honestly was one of the least successful speeches I’ve seen Barack Obama give in several years,” Alter said. “It was long-winded. He had a good argument to make. And at the beginning of the speech he seemed to be making it in a fairly compelling way but then he lost the thread and the speech was way too long and I think he lost his audience by the end.”

Road To Repeal rally on C-Span

On Saturday, March 24, Tea Party Patriots gathered from across the country to rally on Saturday outside the Capitol in Washington, D.C. The "Road To Repeal" rally featured Herman Cain, Ken Cuccinelli (AG for Virginia), Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center, TPP Jennie Beth Martin, Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX), and Cleveland Tea Party Patriot Ralph King, among many others. Ohio patriots drove to DC or rode on the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots bus. If you missed the event, you can watch it here on C-Span. (To watch our own Ralph King, go to the 2:40 mark).

C-Span will also be broadcasting the [same day] audio of the arguments for and against the Constitutionality of Obamacare, starting Monday, March 26. More here.

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn Introduces Health Care Choices Act

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) introduced a bill that will allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines...

Congressman Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) introduced the Health Care Choices Act today. She was joined by Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Joe Pitts, Chairman for the Subcommittee on Health, and over sixty other co-sponsors.

The Health Care Choices Act replaces onerous Washington mandates with true competition for health coverage by permitting the sale of health insurance products across state lines. The Act will allow consumers to shop for health insurance just like they do for other insurance products- online, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. It opens the consumer to greater insurance options than those offered in the state where they live.

"The health care law we repealed yesterday forces the cost of health insurance ever higher through Washington driven mandates. The Health Care Choices Act will drive down the cost of insurance through competition. Once we remove the artificial barriers created by state lines, insurance companies will be free to compete for your business; giving consumers the policies they want at a price they can afford." Mrs. Blackburn said.

In speaking about the bill Chairman Upton said: “Competition is one of the most powerful market forces. It drives down cost while improving quality, and it creates a vast array of options to meet consumers’ individual needs. Yet rigid federal constraints prevent Americans from shopping for health insurance the way they shop for car insurance and consumer products, looking at the costs and benefits offered by providers from coast to coast. I’m pleased to cosponsor this bill to empower Americans, and I welcome this and all efforts to replace Obamacare with commonsense solutions designed to bring down costs, expand access to coverage, and protect the doctor-patient relationship.”

How to repeal Obamacare in the Senate

Here is a great piece at the Heritage Foundation laying out the procedure in which the Senate can force a vote on the repeal of Obama Care...

From The Heritage Foundation --

This week the House will pass a bill to repeal Obamacare. Congressional experts will argue that the Senate won’t pass a full repeal. They are correct to argue that full repeal will not be passed by both the House and Senate in the next few months, but they may be wrong that a full repeal bill will not pass in this Congress within the next two years. If Senators don’t take two procedural steps this week, they will make it virtually impossible to ever get a vote on the House-passed full repeal bill this Congress.

The House will pass H.R. 2 this week. Once that bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.

Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. Rule 22, the filibuster rule, states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition. It is expected that Senate liberals would use Rule 22 to filibuster a full repeal of Obamacare. This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called “filibuster reform” while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.

Once a bill is held at the desk, they can gather 16 signatures, then wait until the appropriate time to file cloture. They could do so next week or next year. If the courts continue to declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional and the American people continue to despise this law, then the probability of full repeal may go up over time. At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so.

If the supporters of a full repeal of Obamacare don’t use the Senate’s rules to force a vote on full repeal, don’t take them seriously when they say they are really want to repeal President Obama’s de facto government takeover of health care.

Will they have the backbone to do this?

Tea Party Patriots Statement on House Repeal of Obamacare

Repealing Obamacare 

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

CONTACT: Ralph King
Clevelandteaparty@gmail.com

January 19, 2011                                      

GRASSROOTS AMERICANS APPLAUD HOUSE

REPEAL OF HEALTHCARE

Tea Party Patriots Calls on Senate to Follow Suit

(Cleveland, OH) - Today, the Tea Party Patriots applauded the 245-189 vote by the House to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

"During the 111th Congress politicians who consider themselves the 'ruling elite' passed a job killing, tax raising, liberty stealing bill which they called 'health care reform,'" said Jenny Beth Martin, National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.  "This was done against the clearly expressed will of the majority of the American people, and they voted to remove their unresponsive representatives in November.  Following through today, the House of Representatives lived up to its duties as the people's house and voted to repeal the disaster foisted on the American people.

"Now the question is: Will the Senate resolve to listen to will of the American people?  Many have said that Majority Leader Reid will not allow the bill to even be debated, let alone come to a vote in the Senate.  What is he scared of?  Is he unwilling to allow each Senator to stand up and be counted?  The American people have stood and been counted on this issue, and repudiated this law.  It is time for the Senate to openly and transparently debate repeal so the majority of Americans can know where they stand."

"November 2012 is not far away, and Americans will remember what happens in the Senate," said Mark Meckler, National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots.  "If the Senate refuses to allow such a debate and repeal, 2012 will once again see an historic number of incumbents removed from their seats as the people continue their quest to wrestle control of their government from an out of touch ruling elite."

"Now the ball is in Senator Reid's court," said Ralph King of the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots and TPP State (OH) co-coordinator.  "Will he stand with, or against, the American people? TheTea Party Patriots are watching." 

Tea Party Patriots is a national grassroots coalition with more than 3,000 locally organized chapters and more than 15 million supporters nationwide.  Tea Party Patriots is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting the principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets. 

Visit Tea Party Patriots online at www.TeaPartyPatriots.org.

###

Eric Cantor tells Harry Reid - "Go Ahead, I dare you!"

And the fun starts!

The House opened debate today on the full repeal of the health care reform law (Obamacare). While expected to easily pass the GOP led House, the projected outlook is not so good in the Democrat led Senate.

Responding to the cock-sure attitude of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that repealing the health care bill does not stand a chance passing in the Senate, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor threw a log on the fire and dared Reid to bring it up for a vote on the Senate Floor....

From Politico --

“If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes,” Cantor said.

Reid’s office rejected the idea.

Cantor questioned whether Democrats actually have all the support for health reform that they think they do.

“If Harry Reid is so confident that the members of that body are where he is, then let’s see them vote in that body.” More...

Judicial Watch Sues to Obtain Documents Regarding Cost-Based Rationing of Medicare/Medicaid

Judicial Watch, who just recently filed another suit against the Dept. of Health & Human Services (HHS) to obtain documents about the granting of 'exemptions' from Obama Care for some companies and Unions, has again filed suit against HHS requesting information about the rationing of Medicare/Medicaid services based on cost.

From Judicial Watch --

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit on January 3, 2011, against the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding a controversial decision by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to undertake a one-year review of the prostate cancer treatment Provenge to determine if the treatment is “reasonable and necessary” and should therefore be reimbursed.

Provenge, the first ever therapeutic vaccine cancer treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), was shown to have extended life spans by an average of four months in clinical trials with few side effects. It costs $93,000 to administer the three necessary treatments. Medicare and the FDA are legally prohibited from denying approval of a medical treatment based solely on cost. Yet multiple press reports suggest that cost is the major factor in the unusual decision by CMS to undertake a review of the treatment which could signal a move by the Obama administration to begin implementing healthcare rationing based on the cost of treatments.

Judicial Watch’s original FOIA request, filed on November 9, 2010, seeks the following information: “All records concerning CMS’s national coverage analysis of the vaccine Provenge, including but not limited to the criteria being used to analyze Provenge.”

Health and Human Services was required by law to respond to Judicial Watch’s request by December 15, 2010. However, to date, the agency has failed to provide any documents or indicate why documents should be withheld. Nor has it indicated when a response is forthcoming.

CMS Administrator Donald Berwick is on record supporting the idea of rationing healthcare based on cost. Berwick said the following in a June 2009 interview with Biotechnology Healthcare: “The social budget is limited — we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t… The decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Owing to the controversy surrounding Berwick’s statements, President Obama bypassed Senate confirmation and made Berwick a “recess appointment,” a decision criticized by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

“The Obama administration claims there is no merit to the charge that the Provenge decision is the first step in implementing healthcare rationing so why not release these records? What does the Obama administration have to hide? Provenge is an FDA approved drug that has a proven track record and the Obama administration has no legal right to deny this treatment based on its cost. But the American people are right to be concerned about this Provenge review, given the fact that a man dubbed ‘Death Panel Donald’ Berwick is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

A Victory against Obama Care in Virginia

The State of Virginia scored a huge victory yesterday against the federal mandate forcing people to purchase health care insurance under the new Obama Care bill. Below is a statement from Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli giving a brief overview of the case and what comes next...
From Ken Cuccinelli --

As I told you earlier today, Virginia won the first round of the constitutional fight over the federal health care law. I also told you I'd get back to you with more details later in the day, and I'm keeping my promise. I will tell you up front that I will also go into still more detail later this week - when time allows. Arguments and Outcomes There were two basic arguments in this case. First, Virginia argued that the individual mandate was beyond the power of Congress and the President to impose under the Constitution. Specifically, Congress claimed that their regulatory power under the Commerce Clause allowed them to order you to buy their government-approved health insurance, even if you decide not to buy health insurance. The judge ruled that the federal government does not have the power to compel you to buy health insurance as part of its attempt to regulate the entire field of health care and health insurance. Thus, Virginia won this argument. Second, the federal government advanced a 'fallback' argument in case it lost on its commerce clause argument. The feds' fallback argument was that the financial penalty you have to pay if you don't buy the government mandated health insurance is a tax. This may sound like an odd argument from a political standpoint - usually they say everything is NOT a tax (in fact, they argued the penalty was not a tax while they were trying to get the bill passed); however, they changed position after the bill became law to try and save the bill. What they were trying to do was to get the courts to agree that because the penalty would presumably raise some revenue, it was therefore a 'tax' under the taxing and spending for the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution. No judge in the country has bought this argument, and Judge Hudson was no exception. He ruled that the taxing power of Congress does not save the bill, because the penalty for not buying the mandated health insurance is not a tax. The federal government only had to win on either of these two arguments, while Virginia needed to win both to prevail, and we won both! What's Next? Certainly the federal government will appeal their loss in the district court to the 4th circuit court of appeals within the next 30 days. And whichever side loses in the 4th circuit will certainly appeal to the Supreme Court. And no one has any serious doubts that ultimately the constitutionality of the individual mandate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. That could take approximately (very rough approximation) two years. We are discussing with the Department of Justice accelerating the case, and those discussions have been very cordial thus far. More on that later. Conclusion Today is a great day for the Constitution. Today the Constitution has been protected from the federal government, and remember, an important reason for the constitution in the first place was to limit the power of the federal government. Today is also a day of a small degree of vindication. When we first filed suit, the screeching of the liberals was deafening. Everything from accusing us of playing politics instead of practicing law, to filing what they called a 'frivolous' lawsuit. I want you to know, that our team makes decisions based on the Constitution and the laws. Period. We deal with the consequences of our decisions separately, but first and foremost we have been and will continue to be true to the Constitution and laws of the United States and Virginia, regardless of whether it's easy or hard in any particular case.

To read the official ruling of the health care lawsuit click here.

Will Senator George Voinovich Support the Funding of Obama Care?

Ohio Patriots it appears our soon-to-be-retired Senator from Ohio, Senator George Voinovich, is considering supporting a continuing resolution that funds Obama Care.

That Senator Voinovich would even consider giving us a going away kick-in-our-conservative-cookies and supporting anything that funds Obama Care is mind-boggling! 

How can a pro-life Senator support something that funds tax-payer funded abortions? 

How can Senator Voinovich support the funding of a bill that will in effect roll senior citizens into a corner and let them die? 

How can Senator Voinovich support the funding of an Unconstitutional health care bill that is more about growing government and mandating liberty-stripping edicts than it is about health care?

Please help "remind" Senator Voinovich that well over half of OH residents and people in this country are AGAINST the funding of Obama Care!

From Americans For Prosperity --

A continuing resolution funding ObamaCare passed the U.S. House Wednesday and is being considered in the Senate.  We are hearing that Senator Voinovich may join with Democrats and vote for this bill, which is a violation of the clearly expressed will of Ohioans on November 2nd.  Please contact Senator Voinovich and ask him to vote against the continuing resolution that funds ObamaCare.

 

Call Senator Voinovich:  (202) 224-3353

Click here to email Senator Voinovich (editable text is provided)

Key Message Points:

1. It’s wrong to cheat the American people by voting to fund ObamaCare before a new Congress elected to de-fund it can be seated.

2. Do not disrespect the American people by pursuing the same far-left, big-government policies they just decisively rejected.

Below is a letter from Phil Kerpen, vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, fighting the lame duck threat at http://www.novemberspeaks.com/.

Will Congress get ObamaCare funding and pork this Christmas?

Last Christmas Eve, the U.S. Senate gave Americans the lump of coal known as ObamaCare.  This year, they may take our money to fund it and also force us to buy a pork-barrel full of thousands of earmarks.  On a 212-206 vote, House Democrats yesterday pushed through a flawed continuing resolution that funds ObamaCare and extends overall funding for the next year at reckless 2010 levels.

As Sen. Tom Coburn has pointed out, the House-passed bill contains significant ObamaCare funding, which is why Coburn called the bill “Trojan Horse to Fund New Health Law.”

Now the focus shifts to the Senate, where efforts are underway to amend the House-passed version—and not for the better.  Senate Democrats will offer an amendment to make it even worse with a full-blown omnibus appropriations bill packed with pork-barrel earmarks, spending increases, and even more funding for every top Obama administration priority. And unfortunately, some Senate Republicans may be poised to help the Democrats pass it.

Rumors are swirling that despite the fact Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell pulled the plug on official Republican support for the omnibus, a small group of rogue Republican appropriators are playing ball, planning to vote for the massive bloated spending bill in exchange for a parting Christmas gift of pork-barrel goodies for their states.  The most likely to do so are three appropriators, Kit Bond of Missouri and George Voinovich of Ohio, who are retiring and will never face voters again, and the highest-ranking Republican appropriator, Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

We don’t know which earmarks made it into the omnibus yet but we do know that Kit Bond requested 142 earmarks this year totaling over $600 million.  George Voinovich requested 172 earmarks totaling over $460 million, and Thad Cochran requested a whopping 712 earmarks totaling over $2.4 billion.

Other Republican senators worth worrying about identified themselves last week when they voted against the Coburn-McCaskill amendment to ban earmarks: Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

These nine Republicans must be urged to abide by the wishes of the American people and to learn the same lesson Mitch McConnell, himself an appropriator, made clear I his wonderful Senate floor speech embracing the earmark moratorium:

“Nearly every day that the Senate’s been in session for the past two years, I have come down to this spot and said that Democrats are ignoring the wishes of the American people. When it comes to earmarks, I won’t be guilty of the same thing.”

Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, some Republicans may vote for the Democrats’ pork-packed, ObamaCare-funding omnibus monstrosity.

That’s why pressuring Democrats is critical, starting with the ones who voted in favor of the Coburn-McCaskill earmark ban.

Claire McCaskill herself is the most likely Democrat to oppose the omnibus.  Unlike her pork-loving Republican colleague Kit Bond, McCaskill has requested no earmarks this year and has long been a proponent of reform.  This vote will test whether, when the rubber hits the road, she is really willing to vote to stop a rolling pork-barrel.

The other Democrats who voted with Coburn include Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), neither of whom requested any earmarks this year, along with Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).  They will be put to the test of whether their earmark reform was sincere when they have the opportunity to stop the omnibus.

Moreover, all senators need to be forcefully reminded that this will be the first vote on funding ObamaCare, a signature issue that will loom large in the 2012 election.

The bottom line is that this Congress had all year to do its job and pass legislation to fund the government before the election.  They failed.  They should not now be rewarded with a massive omnibus spending bill on their way out the door.  Sen. Coburn gets it exactly right: “It’s time for Congress to extend current tax rates, pass a clean spending bill – a ‘continuing resolution’ - without extraneous and vague health care provisions, and go home.”

Mr. Kerpen is vice president for policy at Americans for Prosperity, fighting the lame duck threat at http://www.novemberspeaks.com/.

Liberty Counsel’s Healthcare Lawsuit on Fast-Track to Court of Appeals

From Liberty Counsel --

Lynchburg, VA – Liberty University’s challenge to the healthcare law will now be heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals following today’s ruling by District Court Judge Norman Moon. Judge Moon found that Liberty University and two individual plaintiffs had standing to assert their constitutional claims against the individual and employer mandates in the healthcare law and that their claims were ripe for consideration. Judge Moon also held that the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from trying to enjoin the collection of taxes, does not bar the claims. He then ruled on the merits of the substantive claims, finding that Congress acted within its authority under the Commerce Clause when it enacted the mandates in the healthcare law.

That dismissal on the merits tees up the Commerce Clause challenge, along with other constitutional challenges based upon the First Amendment and a challenge under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), for an immediate appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. Liberty Counsel, which represents the plaintiffs in the suit, will be filing the appeal immediately. This will bring to the forefront the core constitutional issue in the case–whether Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause includes mandating that individuals and employers be compelled to purchase government approved health insurance under threat of monetary penalty.

Judge Moon’s ruling on the Commerce Clause claim contradicts decisions from courts in Richmond, Virginia, and Pensacola, Florida, which have denied similar motions to dismiss lawsuits against the healthcare bill. Those cases were not dismissed and are still pending in the district courts. The ruling by Judge Moon now allows Liberty University’s law suit to be the first case to reach the court of appeals on the substantive law issue.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law said: “I am confident that the federal healthcare law will eventually be struck down on appeal because it is unconstitutional. Congress does not have the authority to force every American to purchase a particular kind of health insurance product. I am pleased the federal court found that Liberty University and the private plaintiffs have standing to pursue this claim. The court’s ruling on the merits of the Commerce Clause, while wrong now, puts the case on a fast track to the federal court of appeals. This ruling will expedite a final resolution of the case.”

CBO Confirms Obamacare Will INCREASE Drug Prices

Last week we made a post regarding the misleading report from the Dept. of Health & Human Services claiming that the average Medicare beneficiary will save $3,500 a year in out-of-pocket health care costs under the Affordable Care Act. At that time the CBO disputed that assertion. 

Now in a letter to House Budget Committee Ranking Member Paul Ryan, the CBO highlights the latest broken promises of Obamacare...

WASHINGTON – In response to a request from House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirmed that President Obama’s massive health care law will increase prescription drug prices. The CBO confirms the range of onerous restrictions and requirements will drive health care costs up, at odds with the claims made by its proponents. CBO’s letter specifies that manufacturers will have an incentive to raise drug prices and that, as a result, health care costs will increase for some seniors and for those who are uninsured.

In response to the findings, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

"On Tuesday, the American electorate forcefully repudiated President Obama’s agenda, including his massive health care overhaul. Today, the Congressional Budget Office refuted President Obama’s claims, making clear that his policies will drive health care costs up, not down. Especially troubling for many seniors is the news that their prescription drug costs and premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. I will continue to work to repeal this deeply flawed overhaul, advancing instead patient-centered health care reform and reforms to secure Medicare for current and future generations."

- "[The] increase in prices would make federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions…"
　
- "The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs by about 1 percent. Those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates."
　
- "The premiums of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices, so the premiums paid by beneficiaries will increase slightly."

To read CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s Letter to Ranking Member Ryan: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11674/11-04-Drug_Pricing.pdf   Highlights from the CBO’s letter to Ranking Member Ryan:

Cost of prescriptions to go up under Affordable Care Act

A misleading report from the Dept. of Health & Human Services claims that the average Medicare beneficiary will save $3,500 a year in out-of-pocket health care costs under the Affordable Care Act.

But a report issued by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office asserts that the Affordable Care Act will allow pharmaceutical companies to increase their prices for drugs that are purchased through Medicare.

So they give you a nickel while they are stealing dollars out of your back pocket!