5th Circuit Court of Appeals Says Obamacare Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional and Sent The Case Back to Lower Court to Decide If The Rest of It Also Is Unconstitutional

A federal appeals court has ruled that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. In the meantime, everything else in the law continues to be administered. The appeals court has directed the lower court to look at two issues: Is there any remaining part of the Act that can continue under the Constitution, and do states have the option of rejecting the law. [Collectivists in both major parties are in panic over the threat of losing government control over health care and passionately argue that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance if there are any serious restraints introduced to coverage. What they fail to say is that the American people already have lost their insurance. The fine print in the policies may look and read like insurance, but the reality is that they are a scheme to promise, promise, promise and tax, tax, tax until the system breaks, leaving only the political and financial elite with real health care. The rest will suffer and die prematurely and, in the meantime, live in poverty and slavery.] -GEG

A federal appeals court has found the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate unconstitutional but did not invalidate the entire law, which remains in effect.

The 2-1 decision by the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals likely pushes any Supreme Court action on Obamacare until after the 2020 election but again thrusts the issue of health care into the forefront of the campaign — and extends the uncertainty surrounding the future of the landmark law, long a political target for President Donald Trump and other Republicans.
The challenge was brought by Texas and a coalition of Republican states after a failed 2017 congressional repeal effort, then later joined by the Trump administration — which, in a dramatic reversal from its earlier position, argued the entire law should be thrown out. “Let the courts do their job,” Attorney General William Barr told Congress earlier this year.
The ruling should not affect the millions of Americans who signed up for 2020 coverage on the exchanges in recent weeks. Nearly 3.9 million people had selected policies through December 7, but millions more signed up or were automatically re-enrolled in policies through the end of open enrollment, which finished early Wednesday morning in most states.
Protections for those with preexisting conditions — one of the law’s most popular provisions — remain in effect.
The court case is part of what once was considered a long-shot attempt to gut the Affordable Care Act. But two courts have now sided with the argument that a key part of Obamacare — the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance — is no longer constitutional.
“The most straightforward reading applies: the mandate is a command.
Using that meaning, the individual mandate is unconstitutional,” Wednesday’s ruling states.

Read full article here…

Additional source:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/court-strikes-down-obamacare-s-individual-mandate-unconstitutional-n1104476




Study Shows Obamacare For Illegal Immigrants Could Cost Taxpayers $23-Billion A Year!


A new study shows that taxpayers could have to pay out as much as $23-billion a year to give “Obamacare” health coverage to illegal immigrants. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that there are nearly 5-million illegals who would receive subsidies through the so-called Affordable Care Act. Cities already are paying back-breaking costs for immigrants. Los Angeles County paid nearly $1.3-billion in welfare during 2015 and 2016 to families of illegal immigrants. -GEG

The federal government is running a nearly trillion-dollar deficit this fiscal year. The reason (and this isn’t complex): It spends more than it brings in.

 

When households go into the red, couples usually take a simple step — stop spending so much.

But not our government.

Case in point: A new study shows that taxpayers could have to pay out as much as $23 billion a year to give “Obamacare” health coverage to illegal aliens.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) calculates that there are nearly 5 million illegals who would qualify for subsidies through the health care system created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by former president Barack Obama. The average cost would be about $4,500, so if all of them took the subsidies, it’d cost $22.5 billion.

Read full article here…




Taxes in the US Must Be Doubled to Pay for ‘Medicare for All,’ aka the Single-Payer Program, Promoted by the Left


Presidential candidates on the left are campaigning for ‘Medicare for all,’ which is single-payer government subsidized healthcare, that has a price tag of $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Seth Denson, a healthcare expert, says that the US takes in $3.6 trillion in taxes per year and would need to double taxes in order to pay for Bernie Sanders’ single-payer healthcare. State-funded healthcare would eliminate insurance and about three million jobs in the insurance industry and related businesses. Polls show that 71% of Americans favor the single-payer modal when they are told that it guarantees insurance for all, but support drops to only 37% when people are told that the single-payer model will increase taxes.




Justice Department Endorses Federal Court Move to Eliminate Obamacare in Its Entirety



YOURCOMMENTSHERE

Democrats deflated by the anticlimactic end to Robert Mueller’s
Russia probe desperately wanted to change the subject — and the Trump
administration was only happy to oblige.

House and Senate Democrats on Tuesday seized on the Justice
Department’s endorsement of a federal court ruling to eliminate
Obamacare in its entirety, immediately renewing attacks on the GOP for
trying to gut the law’s popular protections and rip health coverage from
more than 20 million Americans.

The administration’s surprise decision — a shift from its prior stance that only parts of the Affordable Care Act should be thrown out — offered a unifying moment for Democrats still grappling with the news that Mueller would not charge President Donald Trump with any crimes and comes as the party readies a fresh legislative offensive on health care.

“It’s disgusting. It’s horrible,” said Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New
Mexico, the No. 4 House Democrat. “It’s what they were trying to do
during the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, it’s what Republicans were
doing when they filed the lawsuit. The president’s been clear about his
position the whole time.”

And even as Democrats decried the move, they also saw it as a political gold mine.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) told Democrats in a closed-door caucus meeting Tuesday that the DOJ’s decision was “a gift” to Democrats, who have struggled for months to keep the focus on their legislative agenda and not all things Mueller.

Read full article here…




Texas: Federal Judge Rules That Obamacare Is Unconstitutional


Judge Reed O’Connor, a US District Judge in Texas, appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that Obamacare violates the Constitution. The case was brought to court by 20 Republican state attorneys general. The judge ruled that the law’s individual mandate, which requires Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty, violates the Constitution. Furthermore, because the mandate is “essential” to the rest of the process, all of Obamacare is invalid. The ruling will be challenged by Democrats. -GEG

A Texas federal judge on Friday ruled that Obamacare violated the Constitution, likely pushing the ruling towards the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas appointed by former President George W. Bush, ruled that Obamacare violated the Constitution.

Twenty Republican state attorneys general brought the suit, Texas v. Azar, who asked the court to rule that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Constitution after Republicans managed to zero out Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year. The judge ruled that the law’s individual mandate violates the Constitution and therefore the entire ACA violates the Constitution.

Judge O’Connor acknowledged that health care is a “politically charged affair — inflaming emotions and testing civility.”

However, O’Connor added that the courts “are not tasked with, nor are they suited to, policymaking.”

O’Connor said that because the individual mandate is “essential” to the rest of the ACA, all of Obamacare is invalid.

“Congress stated many times unequivocally — through enacted text signed by the president — that the individual mandate is ‘essential’ to the ACA,” O’Connor wrote. “And this essentiality, the ACA’s text makes clear, means the mandate must work ‘together with the other provisions’ for the Act to function as intended.”

Read full article here…



Five States Win $839 Million Lawsuit Against Obamacare Program’s Unconstitutional Tax on States

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, requires medical providers to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee, even though the ACA exempts states from paying that fee when providing health care.  The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama era created a regulation requiring states to pay the fee anyway, a fee that is styled as a tax on the states.  Texas sued in federal court and was joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana- the states were awarded a total of $839 million.   The mainstream media is ignoring this story because it supports President Trump’s contention that parts of Obamacare are illegal and should be repealed.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is leading a five-state coalition that on Thursday won an $839 million judgment against the federal government in an Obamacare lawsuit, a massive blow to the Obama administration’s namesake legislation.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA, better known as Obamacare) requires medical providers to pay a Health Insurance Provider Fee (HIPF). Even though the ACA exempts states from paying that fee when providing health care, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the Obama era created a regulation requiring states to pay the fee anyway, a fee that is styled as a tax on the states.

Paxton sued in federal court, joined by Indiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Louisiana. The five states’ lawsuit argues that this tax/fee is illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the ACA clearly exempts states from this payment and also that even if the statute did allow it, such taxes would violate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution when imposed on sovereign states.

Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed on the statutory issue (the APA claim), striking down the Obama HHS rule because it violates the plain language of the ACA law. O’Connor ordered the federal government to pay Texas the $305 million that the Lone Star State had paid in HIPF fees, as well as the fees of the other states, for a total of $839 million.

“Obamacare is unconstitutional, plain and simple,” Paxton said after Thursday’s ruling. “We all know that the feds cannot tax the states, and we’re proud to return this illegally collected money to the people of Texas.”

Having struck down the HIPF tax on statutory grounds, the court did not even need to reach the constitutional claim. Under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, federal courts are supposed to issue constitutional rulings only if there is no lesser law upon which to grant plaintiffs the relief they seek. There is no reason to doubt that the states would have won on their constitutional argument if necessary, however, because the federal government cannot tax states under the Tenth Amendment’s intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine.

Surprisingly, it appears that Texas media are ignoring this monumental win for the Lone Star State and the other states also. There has been scant national coverage, as well.

Read full article here…




Health Insurance Rates to Skyrocket after Federal Court Ruling against Obamacare that Takes Money from the Healthy to Fund High-Cost Plans

The Trump administration is halting billions in payments to health insurance companies after a federal court in New Mexico ruled that the federal government was using an inaccurate formula for allocating payments from the risk adjustment program of Obamacare that takes funds from plans with lower-risk healthy enrollees and gives it to plans that cover people who need more care and are expected to have high medical costs.  The government agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), claims that the ruling ties its hands and prevents it from making any further collections or payments until litigation is complete.

The Trump administration halted billions of dollars in payments to health insurers after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency that administers programs under Obamacare, announced on Saturday it was freezing payments to insurers that cover sicker patients, saying a federal court ruling ties its hands. The move brought a sharp response from health insurers warning of market disruptions and even higher costs.

The payments are intended to help stabilize health insurance markets by compensating insurers that had sicker, more expensive enrollees in 2017. The government collects the money from health insurers with relatively healthy enrollees, who cost less to insure.

In a Saturday announcement, the CMS said the move was necessary because of a February ruling by a federal court in New Mexico, which found that the federal government was using an inaccurate formula for allocating the payments; it added that the trial court in New Mexico “prevents CMS from making further collections or payments under the risk adjustment program, including amounts for the 2017 benefit year, until the litigation is resolved.”

The CMS, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, added that the court’s ruling bars the agency from collecting or making payments under the current methodology, which uses a statewide average premium, Bloomberg reported.

We were disappointed by the court’s recent ruling. As a result of this litigation, billions of dollars in risk adjustment payments and collections are now on hold.” CMS Administrator Seema Verma said in the agency’s statement.

“CMS has asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and hopes for a prompt resolution that allows CMS to prevent more adverse impacts on Americans who receive their insurance in the individual and small group markets,” Verma said.

The risk adjustment program of the Affordable Care Act redistributes funds from plans with lower-risk enrollees to plans with higher-risk enrollees, helping to ensure that sicker individuals can receive coverage by sharing the cost of covering them. The immediate impact of the decision will be to boost healthcare costs for millions of Americans even higher, unleashing even higher inflation for staples, at a time when the Fed is keeping a close eye on rising costs.

Predictably, advocates of the risk adjustment program, and Obamacare in general, were outraged.

Risk adjustment “has been long supported and embraced by both Republicans and Democrats,” said Scott Serota, president of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

“This action will significantly increase 2019 premiums for millions of individuals and small business owners and could result  in far fewer health plan choices,” Serota said in a statement. “It will undermine Americans’ access to affordable coverage, particularly those who need medical care the most.”

The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans said in an emailed statement that “We are very discouraged by the new market disruption brought about by the decision to freeze risk adjustment payments.” It added that the move comes at a critical time when insurance providers are developing premiums for 2019 and states are reviewing rates.

“This decision will have serious consequences for millions of consumers who get their coverage through small businesses or buy coverage on their own. It will create more market uncertainty and increase premiums for many health plans — putting a heavier burden on small businesses and consumers, and reducing coverage options,” AHIP said.

AHIP urged “a quick resolution is needed to avoid greater harm to the individual and small group markets,” while Serota said CMS “has the legal justification needed to move forward with the payments regardless of the New Mexico ruling, and  should do so.”

Read full article here…




US Will Dump $700-Billion into Obamacare Subsidies in 2018

The US Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will spend $700-billion on subsidies this year to help pay the health-care premiums for Americans under the age of 65. The extravagant benefits of the government’s so-called ‘affordable health care’ has forced insurers to raise premiums by 34% in 2018. -GEG

While Democrats have continuously griped about how Republican measures to slowly dismantle the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) will sink their chances of cementing control of Congress in this year’s midterm elections, the US government is now estimating that it will spend $700 billion on subsidies this year to help provide Americans under the age of 65 with health insurance through their jobs or in government-sponsored health programs, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The subsidies come from four main categories:

Roughly $300 billion is federal spending on programs like Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which typically help insure low-income people.

Almost as big are the tax write-offs that employers take for providing coverage to their workers.

Medicare-eligible people, such as the disabled, account for $82 billion.

Subsidies for Obamacare and for other individual coverage are the smallest segment, at $55 billion.

 

While Obamacare initially added tens of millions of Americans to the rolls of the insured, 29 million people will likely go without health coverage for an average of at least one month this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Read full article here…




Did Trump’s Tax Cut Bill Repeal Obamacare?


The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act that requires people who reject the insurance to pay a penalty of $695 or 2.5% of their income, whichever was larger. That will represent a substantial tax cut for those with incomes under $50,000. However, Obamacare is still in effect and requires employers with businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to pay for their full-time employees health insurance, regardless of the cost. This is forcing many employers to reduce the number of full-time employees or go out of business altogether. -GEG

After the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate, many still wonder whether Republicans can repeal Obamacare in 2018.

Here’s what’s next for Obamacare in 2018.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Obamacare mandated that Americans who forgo health insurance would have to pay $695 or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is larger. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) found that 80 percent of those who pay the Obamacare mandate fine make less than $50,000 a year, making the mandate’s repeal a huge middle-class tax cut.

Even though Republicans repealed the individual mandate, much of the Affordable Care Act remains intact. Obamacare still requires employers with businesses with more than 50 or more full-time employees still have to provide their full-time employees health insurance, regardless of the cost to the business.

 The Affordable Care Act also expanded Medicaid to virtually every American under age 65 with incomes up to 138 percent above the federal poverty level. The federal government funded 100 percent of each states’ Medicaid population from 2014 to 2016. However, the federal government will wind down the federal contribution percentage to 90 percent by 2020 and beyond, adding a significant financial burden to state governments.

The Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate, effective in 2019. On Thanksgiving, President Donald Trump promised to return to Obamacare repeal after passing historic tax reform legislation.

Read full article here…




President Trump Suspends Insurance Company Subsidies


The US House of Representatives sued the Obama administration for payments to insurance companies to cover their losses. The lawsuit argued that these payments were not authorized under Obamacare. The court ruled that the payments were not lawful. [We cannot help asking: So what? There apparently is no intent by anyone to punish those who conspired to commit this multi-billion dollar theft of tax dollars. When politicians are not held accountable for their crimes, there is no reason to expect that such crimes will ever cease.] -GEG

President Donald Trump suspended the Obamacare cost-sharing reduction payment program on Thursday, otherwise known as Obamacare subsidies, as part of a strategy to dismantle Obamacare.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement:

Based on guidance from the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is no appropriation for cost-sharing reduction payments to insurance companies under Obamacare.  In light of this analysis, the Government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments.  The United States House of Representatives sued the previous administration in Federal court for making these payments without such an appropriation, and the court agreed that the payments were not lawful.  The bailout of insurance companies through these unlawful payments is yet another example of how the previous administration abused taxpayer dollars and skirted the law to prop up a broken system.  Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.

The cost-sharing reduction payment program gives health insurance companies subsidies to help cover the cost of low-income and high-cost patients on the Obamacare exchanges. Democrats and Republicans disagree on the impact that the subsidies would have on the individual health insurance market.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) argued in their analysis that rescinding the Obamacare subsides would cause average premiums on the Obamacare exchanges to increase by roughly 20 percent, while a study commissioned by Senate Republicans and conducted by McKinsey & Co. found that Obamacare insurance regulations such as community ratings, essential health benefits, and guaranteed issue were largely to blame for the recent spikes in premiums and deductibles. Conservatives such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Daniel Horowitz have argued that the cost-sharing reduction payment program amounts to a bailout fund for health insurance companies.

The Trump administration’s decision to eliminate the Obamacare subsidies arises on the same day President Trump signed an executive order to open up the health insurance market. The executive order will expand access to association health plans for small businesses, expand the length of short-term health insurance plans, and expand reimbursement accounts for small businesses.

“This will cost the United States government virtually nothing and will provide people great, great health care,” President Trump explained.

Sen. Rand Paul praised the action as “the biggest free-market reform of health care in a generation,” adding that the executive order will allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines.

The Obamacare subsidies will cost the American taxpayer $7 billion this year. House Republicans under former Speaker John Boehner sued the Obama administration, arguing that the subsidies were never authorized under the Affordable Care Act. In 2016, a federal judge ruled against the Obama administration., but the court allowed the administration to continue the payments while the White House appealed the decision.

Read full article here…




Cost of Canada’s Socialized Medicine Program Is Skyrocketing

Canadians pay for healthcare through taxes instead of medical bills. The cost of Canada’s health care rose by 70% over the past 20 years.  A typical family of four will pay $12,057 for health-care in 2017.  Services are rationed, and the average wait time for treatment is 20 weeks. 63,000 Canadians left the country in 2016 to seek medical assistance elsewhere (usually in the US). [Centralized, bureaucratic systems always are expensive and wasteful because there is no incentive for efficiency or quality service. Only the free market without political intervention can do that.] –GEG

“Free” Canadian healthcare is not free, according to a report released Tuesday by noted conservative Canadian think-tank, The Fraser Institute.

The report illuminates that a “typical Canadian family of four will pay $12,057 for health care in 2017—an increase of nearly 70 percent over the last 20 years.”

Canada operates under a medicare system that is understood as single-payer. Not only does the federal government use money from its general revenue to finance this taxpayer-funded health care system, individual provinces also contribute by raising money through special levies that are deducted when Canadians pay their income tax.

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton spoke repeatedly of her admiration for Canadian medicare, and Congressional Democrats could be moving in that direction in their response to the implosion of Obamacare.

“Health care in Canada isn’t free—Canadians actually pay a substantial amount for health care through their taxes, even if they don’t pay directly for medical services,” said Bacchus Barua, senior economist with the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Health Policy Studies, in a statement. He is the co-author of the institute’s report: The Price of Public Health Care Insurance, 2017.

For all those tax dollars, there is still a long waiting list for a host of operations, both routine and urgent. Another Fraser Institute study recently revealed that 63,000 Canadians left the country in 2016 to seek medical assistance elsewhere — usually the U.S.

Read full article here…




Republican Senators Sell Out, Break Promise to Repeal Obamacare


Four Republican senators, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Shelly Moore Capito, and Rob Portman, at the last minute broke their promise to support repeal of Obamacare. Without their support, the Republicans’ seven-year-long promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act is dead on arrival. Murkowski, who represents Alaska, says that repealing the ACA without a clear path forward just creates confusion and uncertainty. [Perhaps Alaska voters should explain to her that repealing Obamacare is the clear path forward they want.] –GEG

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) against Republicans’ efforts to repeal Obamacare.

Moderate senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Susan Collins (R-ME) came out earlier today against efforts to repeal Obamacare However, Sen. Murkowski voted to repeal Obamacare in 2015.

Sen. Murkowski released a statement on why she opposes a repeal of Obamacare. Murkowksi confessed:

As I’ve been saying, the Senate should take a step back and engage in a bipartisan process to address the failures of the ACA and stabilize the individual markets. That will require members on both sides of the aisle to roll up their sleeves and take this to the open committee process where it belongs. The individual market in states like Alaska and in rural communities across America has continued to deteriorate since we last voted to repel the Affordable Care Act. Alaskans have seen their premiums increase over 200 percent, only one insurer remains on our individual market, and the state was forced to enact a costly reinsurance program to keep our sole remaining provider from leaving. At the same time, the coverage offered on the exchange has become coverage in name only for too many Alaskans with premiums close to $1,000 a month on average and many facing deductibles approaching $10,000. Repealing the ACA without a clear path forward just creates confusion and greater uncertainty. As I stated earlier this year, I cannot vote to proceed to repeal the ACA without reform that allows people the choice they want, the affordability they need and the quality of care they deserve.

The Alaskan senator opposed the Senate healthcare bill, the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA), that would have repealed parts of Obamacare and replaced it with reforms to Medicaid. It also would have repealed most of the Affordable Care Act’s taxes. Now, Murkowski opposes repealing Obamacare because Republicans would not have an immediate replacement to the Affordable Care Act.

Read full article here…